Earl Aelfheah

A location will have a higher PTAL if it is at a short walking distance to the nearest stations or stops. If you live in an area with lots of playing fields and parks and where there are lots of big detached houses with big gardens spread out across fewer streets, then stops will tend to be further away for many of the residents in that area. What is more, an area that is more dependent on car, bus, bicycle or foot to get about, needs action to cut down on congestion just as much, if not more than areas where public transport is easy to access. Lastly, Southwark do no have guidance saying that LTNs or other active travel measure should only happen in the north of the borough, or in areas with a high PTAL as repeatedly claimed. So can we please stop spreading this misinformation? The council have been very clear about their desire to make the borough safer, and greener; to reduce traffic, congestion and pollution, and encourage active travel. They were elected on that basis. They probably believe that controlled parking is part of a strategy to achieve those things. Plus, there are problems with dangerous and inconsiderate parking around the school at particular times, which again, they probably believe this will help address. Not everything is a conspiracy.

A lolly pop lady doesn’t have anything to do with parking. It wasn’t in Southwark’s guidance. See the chat above. Southwark’s guidance recommends borough wide LTNs. And again, this thread is about CPZs

Are you saying you’re against potential improvements to the public realm and the environment from a potential surplus? I don’t get the point.

Fair enough. If you think there is no issue with congestion or parking, then maybe a CPZ isn’t needed. Again, not sure what that has to do with either the square / LTN (this thread is about CPZ), or PTAL.

You could massively increase the frequency of buses running through the village. Many people would still have the same long walk to the bus stop. the fact is that the lack of density in terms of housing, the many, wide open spaces, are a significant factor in the Vilage’s relatively low PTAL I also do not understand how a relatively low PTAL somehow makes the argument against a CPZ? What’s the link in your mind?

@first mate, why don’t you have a look at the Southwark budget docs (all published) and ask your councillor to answer any questions you have. We have already discussed PTAL. It’s clear there is a misunderstanding of its relevance to this debate. The quickest way to increase PTALs in Dulwich Village would be to build a load of high density housing / flats near the main road, or to have buses cutting through the park. The reality is that the character and topography of the village explains its score. But more fundamentally, a lower PTAL does not suggest it’s a good idea to encourage more cars from outside the area, and more congestion, or make it more difficult for residents to park, or visit the shops.

exdulwicher is right about the funding of projects like the Dulwich LTN not being directly funded or linked to CPZs. It was funded by the UK government's Emergency Active Travel Fund initially. Guy’s and St Thomas’ charity also funded some low-traffic neighbourhoods elsewhere in the borough, to tackle air pollution and obesity. I know you are not in favour of the changes made to road layouts 4 years ago, but this thread isn't about that. The CPZ, is about tackling concerns (repeatedly raised by residents) about inconsiderate and unsafe parking-related issues, linked to local schools, amongst other things. btw, if you're really interested in the councils budget, there is information here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-tax/how-we-manage-council-tax/our-budget-and-how-we-spend-council-tax

The greyhound in Peckham another possibility?

Just to be clear, the council cannot introduce a CPZ for the purposes of generating income. If you think that this is what they're doing, then you should make a complaint to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman. In this case, Southwark say the CPZ is intended to prioritise parking for residents, short-term visitors to shops, and businesses. I believe it's also intended to tackle concerns repeatedly raised by residents about inconsiderate and unsafe parking-related issues, linked to local schools.

Read the regulations. If I may be so bold, I think your real issue may be your opposition to the types of investments being made in the public realm, rather than the principle itself. That's fine, but maybe say that. Again, this isn't a thread about some changes to road layout introduced 4 years ago.

They can't implement a CPZ for the purpose of generating income - only for managing traffic (there are specific conditions, I've linked you to the regulations, which describe these in detail if you're interested). If after covering the cost of implementing and administering the scheme there is a surplus, then there are also strict rules about how that might be used. This does include making improvements to the public realm. I am not sure I understand your issue? Would you prefer that the council could use parking charges to generate income for funding core services? Or are you just unhappy about the LTN / Dulwich Square, (which you seem to believe is both unpopular and also a way of Southwark winning re-election)? This thread isn't about the LTN. Is this what you are claiming is happening? That Southwark are using the CPZ to fund events to win votes. Heaven forbid that they should green the environment, or provide street space for children. That does sound awful.

Oh, I see what you mean. I had genuinely misunderstood your point I think. So to be clear, you believe that Southwark are introducing CPZs in order to generate funding for (what you say are) unpopular changes to road space, in order to get themselves elected? I don't really get how that works.

The council can't use money generated through parking charges and fines to improve core services. That is what people have (wrongly) suggested they are doing, and criticised them for. They cannot lawfully do this however - it is an area that is tightly regulated and controlled. Income is ringfenced, as noted above. Are you suggesting that it shouldn't be ringfenced and that the council should be able to use parking charges and fines to generate income for funding core services?

Sure, but whilst it may be getting used for that purpose, they don't need to designate it as such. We don't label other short term parking for specific purposes - we don't paint 'grabbing some milk' on parking bays. Just seems a bit odd.

There is a quite a bit of detail in the regulations I linked if you're interested. This (from Shropshire council), gives a slightly easier to digest summary of the relevant legislation : https://shropshire.gov.uk/committee-services/documents/s15733/8 Appendix 1 Parking Strategy Proposals - Charging rules and guidance on use of car parking income.pdf The question about 'income generation' is a nuanced one. In a literal sense, parking charges obviously bring in money (income), but also cost a lot to implement and administer. The idea however, that councils are only introducing CPZs for the specific purpose of income generation is wrong imo, and would break the regulations above. Income is used to fund the administration of the schemes themselves, and where there is any in year surplus, it is ringfenced for specific things, like street and transport improvements. The reality of Local Authority funding is that most are struggling just to cover the cost of services they are statutorily obliged to provide (social care, waste collection etc). Many are on the brink of bankruptcy. They do not have a big pot of money for public realm improvements that income from parking permits enable them to redirect (and again, if this is what was happening, it would be a breach of the regulations).

Here is a link to the relevant legislation that strictly regulates how the money raised can be used if you’re interested https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/55 Yes, it is. If you read my previous post I have listed some of the ways it can be used. (👆🏾this one) Road safety and public realm improvements would include things like filtered streets, bike lanes, expanded pedestrian spaces etc.

They fund themselves. That’s the point. The money raised has to be put back into running these sorts of initiatives and cannot be used to fund other services. If they could then there might be an argument that they were being used to raise money to run the council (as some seem to be suggesting, but which is not actually the case).

.

I was commenting on that bit. That’s why I quoted that bit.

If you believe this then I can understand why you may think its 'fair' for coaches to pay. I personally don't think it's about this. The use of controlled parking zones is strictly regulated and isn't used for generating income for the council. The money has to be redirected into improving the streets and improving road safety, they can't be used to fund council services.

I think the right question is: Would you prefer all of those kids arrived on your road individually by car? As I said, I don't have a strong opinion on it, in reality, making coaches pay for a permit isn't going to stop them parking on that road. If residents feel better knowing that a coach has to have a permit, fine, although it seems a bit weird. The purpose of a CPZ is to partly to reduce parking stress and mass transit actually helps with that aim. Councils can't use CPZs for income generation, as previously explained. There use and how the money generated is used, is strictly regulated. CPZ's aren't really aimed at reducing car ownership. Southwark say they're intended to prioritise parking for residents, short-term visitors to shops and business. I believe it's also intended to tackle concerns raised by residents about inconsiderate and unsafe parking related issues linked to local schools. As pointed out previously, this thread isn't about LTNs, but just to correct the record (as I know you wouldn't wish to deliberately spread misinformation) research actually found that residents started driving less once their area became an LTN: The Impact of 2020 Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on Levels of Car/Van Driving among Residents: Findings from Lambeth, London, UK : WestminsterResearch.

I don't have a strong view on whether coaches should need parking permits tbh, but tend to lean towards thinking they shouldn't, no. One coach probably carries what, 90 kids? It takes up considerably less room and causes less congestion and pollution than the 90 SUVs that would likely replace it if it went. Single occupancy vehicles obviously a much bigger problem, and mass transit to some extend, is part of the solution.

It’s really weird that they’ve explicitly marked the parking bays ‘school drop off’. Never seen this before and not sure why it’s necessary or desirable to encourage them to be used for that one specific purpose.

Sometimes it’s this. Others I suspect it’s just laziness / thoughtlessness. Brent council install signs outside schools and other sites where idling is an issue. They also have an online form where you can report issues so they can target engagement campaigns. https://www.brent.gov.uk/environment/air-quality/no-idling-campaign I’m not aware of Southwark doing anything in this space?

The idling engine thing is infuriating (and an offence). Needs to be better enforced and fines issued.