first mate

Proof, if proof were needed, that it is all about making money. If you drive in a bus lane that is one thing, but to brush or touch the line and still get fined is altogether different.

Just my own experience, but since these measures I have seen increased traffic in surrounding streets, I honestly feel the only beneficiaries are the able-bodied and wealthy few (including, I believe some councillors) who wanted their own little car-free sector. It seems to me they have put in every possible intervention to achieve that aim...it is almost like a gated community. There used to be queues of cars at rush hour, but never for long and always manageable. The junction worked, in my view. Problems occurred when there was building work or roadworks. I have noticed absolutely no difference or extra benefit to when I walk or cycle. For when I have to use a car, I still use one. I do not make fewer journeys as a result of these interventions, they simply take longer and use more petrol.

I would venture that guidance is different from a recommendation. Perhaps the former is about existing policy and the latter about what the council would like to happen. Rather like the council recommended borough-wide CPZ but then had to back down from it. Wherever they are placed, high PTALS seem to be one of the conditions the council has stated for prioritising an LTN and I would think there are more high PTALS areas in the north than south of the borough. The real question is that given the various conditions the council has outlined for prioritising LTNs, how Dulwich Village ever got one?

Embarrassing to who? What Rockets says in outlining the council agenda on LTNs seems very clear. -For Dulwich Village LTN -What evidence of poor air quality? -It is low PTAL area and has poor public transport -It has high levels of car ownership (hence council case for imposition of CPZ) -It is not a deprived area -What evidence it impacts positively on a local hospital? -What evidence it impacts positively on local schools? I can only see one condition that is possibly met and that is the last, although we would need hard data to show that.

To make that a reality you would have to block the cyclists whizzing through, many ignoring red lights. I could not think of a worse example to try to illustrate your point, it just does not seem convincing, having witnessed what actually goes on at Dulwich Sq. But Rockets was talking about CPZ wasn't he, Earl. And, as you have kept saying, this is a thread about CPZ. I have already cited the Council's own document on its various interventions where it states what it needs to do to effect its Streets for People initiatives in Dulwich Village and CPZ is one of them. It states it needs to reduce car use and one way is via CPZ.

The Council in its Q&A document, section 15, on Dulwich CPZ and Junction ( it chooses to address both in one document) also states that it has to reduce parking in order to effect its 'Streets for People' 'improvements'. They are linked, whether you like it or not. The Council says they are. Streets for People includes safety- therefore my mention of lollipop handlers, to stop traffic to allow children to cross roads safely. One possible conclusion is that, by their own admission, Southwark need to impose CPZ in order to perpetuate their Streets for People initiative, of which Dulwich Junction is one example.

In its Q&A document in Dulwich Village Junction and CPZ, Southwark Council states in section15., that the purpose of the CPZ 'is to reduce unnecessary car journeys into the borough, while encouraging more sustainable and healthy forms of transport like walking and cycling'. Those are the points they mention first, so while I am sure a good lawyer can argue that this is really just another way of talking about parking pressure, they are justifying CPZ in a very different way, to my mind. As we know, local residents do not think there is parking pressure that would justify CPZ. Quite, what about the good old lollipop lady? Cheaper surely than reconfiguring a road, CPZ, LTNs or even a school street.

No it is not what I think but what the results of the recent CPZ consultation showed. The majority were very clearly against a CPZ and did not feel it necessary. Surely they are the best judge of traffic levels in their neighbourhood? I am talking about CPZ?! Despite clear results against CPZ it has been imposed by the council anyway. Why? Although in their guidance they more or less flagged they would go ahead indicating consultation is just a box ticking exercise. I do think of the huge upfront investment they made last year in CPZ infrastructure and personnel (cameras, wardens etc.. running to millions). That was before they backed down on a borough-wide CPZ, but I do wonder if that is partly the motivation now? Improvement is in the eye of the beholder. For instance, no doubt you and Southwark Council view Dulwich Sq and the new CPZ as improvements. As you must be aware, not everyone shares that view.

It is all quite convoluted but I believe parking surplus derived from CPZ can be used to make improvements to the public realm and environment. I guess it depends on definitions, but reducing pollution and improving air quality ( alleged by- products of CPZ) is arguably about the environment.

But the majority of residents in the area CPZ consultation have no problems parking and prior to Dulwich Sq no problems shopping ( for some access is now a bigger issue). It was possible to limit the CPZ to that road where parking was an issue - mostly I believe down to school students parking. But many residents have also complained about issues with diesel-powered school coaches parking.

Earl said: "The CPZ, is about tackling concerns (repeatedly raised by residents) about inconsiderate and unsafe parking-related issues, linked to local schools, amongst other things." Raised it seems by a minority of residents, the wishes of the majority being ignored- as per the recent council consultation. The council could have chosen to put a CPZ on just one street where residents had concerns, but it decided to increase the CPZ. Why? We should also point out that the council's stated aim is to use CPZ to reduce car journeys. In this area, which is low ptals, what is the council doing to increase and improve public transport- not everyone can cycle or walk?

I had understood from Ex D that funding for Dulwich Square came partly from Safer Streets? Are you saying that funding for Dulwich Square was not from that source? Or was there a need to reduce street crime at that junction, hence the funding? Guess I am trying to understand how that small bit of reconfigured road qualified for safer streets funding, given you say the programme is only about crime? Not only that, how does this reconfiguration reduce crime? Again, the 'finished' Square seems to have been timed to be ready for the new Dulwich CPZ, so journeys are not only longer but locals will also have to pay more to make them if they have to use a car.

Nothing then from a Section 106 re the adjacent development? Interesting about the Safer Streets Fund- it will be interesting to see how much safer that junction is, given concerns about cyclists using pedestrian areas. Thanks Dulwich Way for your informed input. Lots of useful detail. I think we now need to know more about how CPZ/ parking surplus is to be spent in Southwark. For reasons already stated, I'd imagine there'll be plenty of it.

What about Dulwich Square, where did the funding for that come from? I should remind you that the finishing touches to that were effected just weeks ago, just in time for the new, but unwanted Dulwich CPZ.

Clearly there is surplus, else how are these other projects funded (Dulwich Square, for example). In that latter case, it is a balance between a space for children to play in and enjoy 'fresher' air ( if that can be proven, which I doubt, so that point is very hypothetical, plus those same children are also bang next to a number of very large and green spaces where they can play) against forcing cars, many on necessary journeys, to take longer routes and massively inconveniencing a number of other residents, a number with limited mobility in a low ptals area, to also take longer journeys. And, all those journeys quite probably increase, if not outweigh, any hypothetical 'improvement' in air quality.

No, but it can generate surplus... surplus can be achieved a number of ways, by raising fees; by expanding the number of CPZs. I may be wrong, but I doubt there is a direct and parallel rise between the size/ number/ addition of new CPZs and costs to run and administrate all of them. After all, hasn't Southwark already invested millions in cameras, wardens and other capital costs well before addition of new CPZ. Even if the intention is to make surplus that can be spent on political projects, falling within the definition of improvements to the public realm, a finance officer can always find a way to disguise intentions, the projected and actual costs. I am still struggling to understand where all the money to fund Dulwich Square came from. With the council in its knees it surely must have been found in surplus, or perhaps from development of the adjacent garage space in the form of CIL. For example, I believe a council in another part of the country has used CIL to fund CPZ.

My point is that the choice of improvements to be made is heavily politicised and is driven more by that agenda than perhaps what may be wanted or needed. Also, with a lack of cash, the council is unable to do much with core services, it cannot innovate or look different, it can barely scrape through to provide the minimum. It seems pretty much the only way it can stand out and look different from the opposition is by choosing how to use surplus.

Earl we have already established surplus can be used for other things. Once CPZ is in place there is little to stop the council hiking charges year on year which could yield greater surplus. Even ex dulwicher admits LTNs and CPZ are linked, as are extending double yellows, to reduce car usage and, allegedly, according to the council, improve air quality. To claim there is no relationship between changes to Dulwich Junction over the last four years and imposition of a new and equally unwanted CPZ in the same area is, to borrow a phrase of yours, "unbelievable".

So cash surplus in the Southwark parking fund is definitely not used in any way to fund development and imposition of LTNs, installation of double yellow lines, street furniture, is not used for improvement of the public realm in terms of street/pavement maintenance, it is not in any way used to fund development, changes or imposition to street infrastructure such as Dulwich Square? Do or have Southwark used the surplus parking fund to in any way fund free events in the borough? Technically, according to government guidelines they can. What degree of transparency is there in terms of where surplus parking fund revenue is placed? I suppose the council can choose to use surplus anywhere in the borough, so hypothetically more in the north of the borough, even though they may have accrued more revenue from the south, where, car ownership and use is greater? If unpopular changes (unpopularity limited by locale) are nonetheless such good revenue providers that they provide surplus that can be used to fund potential vote winners across the borough like freedom passes and free events, while in the process claiming to improve air quality, 'greening' the environment and providing street space for children to gambol and play, then perhaps you can see how it might work.

You seem to have 'misunderstood' what I am saying. I have acknowledged that, in theory at least, budgets for provision of core service are ringfenced. Given lack of funds, this means that all political parties are probably in the same boat in terms of core services they can offer at baseline. In other words, there may be little to differentiate them and that is no good for elections etc.. However, the ways in which they choose to enhance/ extend and then use CPZ revenue to 'improve the public realm' may well be very different and allows them to trumpet those differences and perhaps draw favour - free events ( though not many round here); unwanted but politically advantageous rearrangement of road space, arguing they have taken measures to improve air quality (can be spun into a vote winner; even if little evidence to support), you get the idea. I guess also, even though CPZ revenue is drawn from one locale, it can be spent elsewhere in the borough on improving the public realm, to maximise political advantage. On the other hand, there is not so much evidence of CPZ revenue being used for other types of improvement of the public realm, like street sweeping and cleaning, pavement upkeep and repair, both of which seem a bit in decline, round here at least.

Two observations; where money is concerned, rules, however strict, are readily bent or even broken if possible, more so if the financial pressures are acute. Given those enormous financial pressures, how odd to spend millions reconfiguring and re-landscaping a road junction; against the wishes of the many. Is it that there is so little that the council can do to improve core services that they instead mine what revenues they can play with, to maximise political impact, as in 'oh look how we have improved the public realm for the greater good', we have done x,y and z. Without that CPZ money to play with to 'improve the public realm' as in portfolios of cabinet members James McAsh and Catherine Rose, is there really very much otherwise that might distinguish the various political parties. They are all obliged to provide mandatory services at baseline, so fiddling around with CPZ revenues is arguably what separates them. They could spend more on cleaning streets, repairing paving... so choices are being made on where to spend, it seems. I also understand that technically parking revenue can be used to fund free public events in the borough- we have also been told that this is why the council hire out park land for events, to fund free events in the borough. Is the latter ringfenced, do we know?

Therefore something like the incredibly expensive Dulwich Square, unpopular and uncalled for by many local residents, is funded via CPZ revenue. It might be argued that CPZ revenue is enabling the council to fund highly politicised interventions and an agenda imposed, possibly against the wishes of the majority of local residents. Public realm improvements" is quite a vague term and perhaps deserves close scrutiny. Pavement upkeep and cleaning are surely basic, essential services. It is going off point slightly, but I still feel there is a disgraceful hypocrisy in the so called 'greening' of streets while the council is happy to sell off in annual letting, great chunks of local park, turning a blind eye to light and diesel generator pollution and long-term damage to the land, that is the product of the park event industry. One wonders if instead of investing more CPZ revenue into street cleaning, leaf sweeping, pavement repair, which seems to have dwindled, the council are choosing instead to use monies for more consultations on CPZ and whatever they can do to change the streetscape to increase parking pressure and move again towards their political agenda of a borough-wide CPZ.

So that money is not used to increase bike storage on the street, for parklets and 'greening'? It is not used to build and install various types of street furniture and for major changes to the streetscape, like Dulwich Square? We should also add pavement repair/refurbishment, street cleaning...

I guess they could also add a few much longer ones, so coaches could use them?

The Council have a Cabinet Member for Streets (James McAsh) one of his stated aims is to improve streets by reducing car use- indicating this is a process that is funded somehow? CPZ, extending double yellows, and LTNs, are the three blunt tools that are employed by the council to reduce car ownership. To effectively operate all three you need cameras, camera cars, parking wardens and an administrative section to handle fines. Are you suggesting the council are not involved in the funding of these in any way? The council also aims to put bike storage on every street, which also remove parking- funded how? How are parklets and street furniture for blocking LTNs funded? For that matter, can we be completely sure where the money to fund Dulwich Junction has come from? How are the many CPZ consultations funded, are we absolutely sure existing CPZ income is never used to fund further consultation on CPZ? How do we separate what is strictly a council service from a stated council agenda and mission? This is also perhaps a matter of a little bit of wordplay. I would suggest that while in the strictest sense CPZ money does not fund council services, it is quite likely funding certain council agendas and interventions.