first mate

One of my greatest concerns is there is no mandate, they are literally ignoring a majority of objectors in parts of the borough. I feel uncomfortable with a local government that overrides the wishes of the electorate. James McAsh came up with a bizarre rationale that because somewhere like Nunhead has cleaner air and is more well off they must pay permits because they will be polluting other parts of the borough that have fewer car owners that do pay for permits but have less clean air!? He disregards PTAL scores. So he is arguing that a part of the borough with more car owners has cleaner air than a part that doesn't? He is also assuming that Nunhead car owners make the bulk of their car journeys into the North of the borough. In terms of the rationale in favour of CPZ, I have never seen the goal posts change so quickly.

They want to make 'parklets' while at the same time moving forward on hiring out our actual parks for polluting, commercial large scale events for many weeks of high summer. So green!

How is it 'fair' to charge those with access to much better transport networks but who also want a car the same as those who live in areas with low PTAL scores and therefore need a car? In ED the rationale for CPZ was for the people who had bought houses next to the train station and because of commuter parking were unable to park as near their homes as they'd like. Cllr McAsh and Rose obviously feel they now have a trump card with the social justice line and it gives them carte blanche. It is of course a nonsense. This is about a revenue stream for the council.

I get incredibly frustrated with drivers that don't or won't adhere to 20 mph or other speed limits. No excuse for it. I grant that it takes a bit more concentration when going up or down steep hills but really not so much to ask.

Thanks Legal. We can expect much, much more of this. Southwark is now the provider of hangars in the borough so it will be interesting to see how the management and maintenance side of that works. Do you know if there is a transcript for the council meeting the other night as posted on YouTube? The one where answers on really key topics, like whether there is a mandate for borough wide CPZ, were unintelligible?

You are replying to CPR by referring to something else. He referenced CPZ not Road Tax. Of course everyone should pay for use of roads, everyone benefits from them, whether cycling, use of Ubers or club cars or delivery of goods you buy. As you know, the list of benefits is long. Car users do however have to pay an extra tax each year by way of vehicle licensing and that money does go to the Exchequer for redistribution. Maybe some of it gets reallocated to DT, that is a govt decision. Car users also pay toll fees which, congestion charges and some pay ULEZ. The combination of CPZ and PCN raises a huge amount of money for the Council.

Then do have a word with some of your fellow campaigners as many do seem to own cars or request use of them. Of course, when they need one it is clearly valid and vital. As I said before, I assume you never ever use a car. I also assume that you are similarly outraged and offended by myriad other aspects of daily life, many of which are viewed as necessary.

I really hope someone is taking very detailed notes on responses.

I have tried to watch this. What a very fortunate coincidence for the scrutiny commission that the sound is so very bad on the reply about Jane Goodman's antics, as well as James McAsh on whether the Movement Plan was in fact a consultation, as asserted, mandating borough- wide CPZ. Again, democracy not in action. What is the point of these videos if the sound is so muffled you cannot make out councillor replies. Apparently, a speaker was not plugged in properly. Actually this seems such a convenient omission/ mistake/ failure of equipment on key questions that I wonder if there are verbatim transcripts of what was said?

Heartblock, I think 2 months was mentioned re his response to OD on data etc.. Legal alien has helpfully posted a link to last night's scrutiny session. I haven't watched it yet but would think there might be something of interest in there. I also suspect the social justice line is a great get out of jail tactic. There may be admissions of reneging on former promises, lack of data etc.. but all permitted as this is now about social justice and the moral high ground. My own view is there is also a strong relationship between the democratic process and social justice and it is paternalistic to have your elected representative suddenly change message and tack on the basis they have decided it is for your/the greater good.

Where are you getting this 95% figure from? Which streets are we talking about? All streets in the UK, all in London, in Southwark or just in Nunhead and ED? Who are you to define what people's needs are? For instance, do you fly, do you wear leather, do you eat meat and or processed foods, do you use gas central heating or use a wood burner, wear non-sustainable clothing..., what about a loft conversion or a side return? Obviously you don't own a car but I think to make a direct comparison between cars and smoking is ludicrous.

How can you possibly be so sure? People have all sorts of responsibilities you are seemingly not aware of. But I feel no need to persuade you as you clearly have made your mind up that these are all just 'excuses', all car users are lazy etc.. I also think that there are many, many aspects of modern life that are arguably a 'kick in the teeth to our children' but there is this myopia about car use with too much emphasis on the stick and little on the carrot.

Jolly good for you. If your lifestyle and responsibilities are such that you can go completely car free then that is marvellous. For many life without the use of a car can become immensely stressful and rental cars are not necessarily the solution. I posted a link to some interesting info on that elsewhere. I dislike the fact that borough wide CPZ will make the lives of some residents much more difficult and costly. I also dislike the notion of charging Blue Badge holders. Most of all, I dislike the slippery and Machiavellian approach to CPZ by this council, who have no mandate to impose borough wide permits and who seem to have told some rather large porkies when asked for information, at various points. This is important in terms of the democratic process.

I'm afraid life can just be a bit more complicated for some and a car may not be used every day or even every week but is required. Sometimes rental cars can fill the gap but not always. Part of the issue can be relatives who need more care or who do not live on the doorstep. Public transport does not always fill that gap either. This is not about 'convenience'.

'Anecdotal'and 'irrelevant', yet you are going to such efforts to refute it. The law was not the reason given or even alluded to, it was all about the individual and his need to cycle fast, really fast and pesky mobility scooters would just get in his way. The aim here was not to show his grasp of law but his attitude. That said, he was clearly not acquainted with the legal situation as he thought mobility scooters should be in bus lanes! The govt advice is mobility scooters should be on the pavements as this is safer, apparently. Problem there of course is hire bikes left lying around and increasing use of pavements by a range of cyclists. Back to One Dulwich and their request for missing data. It will be really interesting to see what James McAsh comes up with. I am also looking forward to the next Council Environment scrutiny session, which should be up on YouTube soon. Heartblock, you may be interested to know that the brief for air pollution is now to be split between the Environment and Health Committees.

I agree, we need to look at other sources of pollution too rather than the narrow focus being adopted by some. Whether this is something OD have asked about I cannot say but I get the impression issues like pollution from wood burners and BBQs are already on the council radar. If Cllr McAsh gets this right, it could make a difference in finding more pragmatic and even-handed ways to improve air quality and pollution.

One of the posters has left the forum, the other is still around. I am sure other posters involved in posts on CPZ, LTN and cycling infrastructure will remember the posts, as I called them out at the time. As Heartblock says, we need a much wider application of disability rights and querying what someone's issue is while commiserating they will have to pay more to get around, is a poor show in my view. Those who are disabled should not face financial penalties for using the tools (sometimes a car) they need to achieve greater independence and equality of opportunity.

I felt the way things were going early when an LCC type objected to mobility scooters in cycle lanes because this would slow down cyclists like him. He felt mobility scooters should be in bus lanes or on the pavement...now of course, cyclists are increasingly on the pavements. There was also the Southwark cyclist rep who felt that unless you could walk, cycle or bus it to work, you should consider moving out of the area/ find another job. Black and white, no shades of grey at all.

Pugwash, I am with you on this. However, the message seems to be that although the council (and their LTN/CPZ supporters) are 'sorry for your pain' that the bigger picture is much more important and so regrettably you and others like you must make the sacrifice and accept your fate as collateral damage in the haste to rid our streets of all cars, come what may.

😂

I thought this was interesting https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11116-023-10386-0

Thanks for this Sidhue. Others on here will argue the end justifies the means, but I cannot agree. This is undemocratic and not transparent at all. How can we trust a council that behaves this way? To add to all of the above, which is pretty damning, especially your comment on the response to your FOI request, Labour did not have this is their manifesto. There is absolutely no mandate to impose any of this.

Thanks ED.

ED, What is your source for those Club Car stats?

"banning all petrol engine cars in London is not practical andwould requires billions in scrappage scheme - it's quicker,cheaper and easier to just restrict journeys of ALL cars." But a central driver of CPZ , say the council, is to "incentivise" people to give up their cars (including electric cars) by charging according to weight and size. Now, if the aim is relinquishment of vehicles this implies the charges will be made to really, really hurt, so much so that people will have to get rid of their cars. What then happens to all those cars? If lots of people don't get rid of their cars won't all of this been for nothing? Or is it really the case that the council have found a great 'green' rationale with which to maximise revenue but secretly they do not expect a huge number to relinquish their vehicles? Which is it, do you think? Also, the council say they intend to get behind a big increase in club car vehicles, so won't that partly offset any private cars relinquished? In regard to woodburners, this is something the council say they are looking at, as they are disproportionately responsible for air pollution. No doubt the same is true for bbqs but woodburners are something this council are looking at.