first mate

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.

So Dulwich Clean Air have already had a heads-up? How did they get to hear about it?

There is some fudging around going on for sure. There are plans to massively extend a club car offering, so those cars will take the place of some private cars. Rows of lime bikes and e-scooters are hardly 'pretty'. Bike hangars, again to be massively extended are not pretty either. The whole aesthetics point is a red herring. The streets will not be prettier, just a different type of ugly. Whether they are cleaner and the air purer remains to be seen. Thanks for this LA. Really useful as ever. Cllr Mc Ash is something of a weasel then, as he was so clear before about being led by residents on CPZ etc.

Going back to the elderly and vulnerable aspect, it is a lot to organise and we all know technology can be sketchy. It just adds another layer of complexity for people who probably have enough to deal with. I find it really distasteful that Southwark want to charge Blue Badge holders.

@CPR Dave, yep, that is the MO, the CPZ domino or snowball effect. Get a few roads to say yes and then those next to those roads who take the displaced traffic ask for it and so on.

EA how will controlled parking make it easier for disabled people? There is already enough space for them to park but you want to impose permits and charge them large sums of money so to do. Because they need to use their cars more frequently they will have to spend more. Additionally, some may require visits from carers, nurses, physios, support from family- all of which will incur further charges. On top of that they will incur the same charges as the rest of us for visiting trades, house maintenance etc.. Even if they have a Blue Badge ( and those are increasingly difficult to get) this council still want to charge them. Everything turns on the notion that parking round here is scarce. Fact, it isn't. The council have tried every which way to create parking pressure, I grant you, but at this point, in this part of the borough people can still park. Please, please try to understand that not every vulnerable or disabled person can use an e-bike. CPR thanks for getting all this. A great reminder of how slippery the council has been.

Has anyone described OD itself as a stakeholder? Residents organisations might be described as stakeholders. Residents en masse are stakeholders, obviously. OD suggest some 2000 residents support the questions OD are currently asking. It may be of interest to observe that Southwark council are driving a massive borough-wide agenda to impose CPZ on all, on the basis of 48% of 1025 respondents, many of them do not live in Southwark. On that basis we should not be surprised that James McAsh agreed to meet with OD and give them a hearing, as unlike the above, respondents do seem to live not only in Southwark but locally. As you say, I am sure he is also meeting with other groups and so he should.

Well, for example, the lobby group Southwark Cyclists are very chummy with councillors and it used to be the case that on their website you could see letters and messages between Councillors and SC advising further actions and congratulations on actions taken, suggesting regular dialogue was at play. And, by the way, a member of that lobby group who is active on this forum has a background in PR. In addition, the way Cllr Williams and Cllr Rose took every opportunity to politicise and attack at the meeting with Clive Rates, pretty much deflecting from the reasonable questions posed, did not indicate a council with an open door, prepared to listen to views or evidence that do not "align" with theirs.

The Movement Plan document is cited below. You had to be signed up to Southwark social media or a newsletter or on the New Southwark Plan mailing list to even know about this. How many of us even know of the existence of the latter? Who is on that mailing list? This all feels like a council/ political version of insider trading. I don't care if other councils are up to the same shenanigans, it does not make it right. Quite how anyone can call themselves a socialist and resort to these undemocratic tactics is beyond me. Essentially a massive change to local infrastructure, affecting the lives of everyone has been kept hidden from public scrutiny. How on earth can the council justify borough wide CPZ based on a response of just over a thousand people with only 48% from within the borough? They know that last time round 65% of respondents from within ED alone were firmly against CPZ. "We received a total of 1,025 responses through the online Consultation Hub, street surveys and working with the Young Advisors. We received 8 responses from our stakeholders. The consultation was predominantly promoted via Southwark’s social media channels as well as the quarterly Southwark Life and email newsletter and the New Southwark Plan mailing list. Surveys An online survey was available on the council’s Consultation Hub. The survey was designed to uncover the personal experience of travelling in the borough and targeted at people who live, work and study in Southwark. We reached 689 people. Street surveys where undertaken in January 2019 using a shortened version of the online survey. We reached 207 people in 7 locations (libraries and leisure centres)."

What is the relevance of this? OD have asked some questions that a number of people would like to see some answers to. The Cabinet member in charge of streets took OD and the questions seriously enough to have a meeting with them. Why do you think a poster on this forum would have access to the number of meetings councillors have had with any groups? I also agree with Heartblock, that attempts to make something of the fact that some OD founders may be Tories and one may have been in PR is a bit so what? I don't know if that is the case, but if it is it does not invalidate interest in and support for the questions they are asking. Even in the HOC members across the parties can find common ground on single issues.

It felt a little like Cllr Williams took advantage of his position as Chair. Not a good look. As for Cllr Rose, banging her hand on the table to make her points and spouting phrases like "I am sorry you are not aligned", and "mansplaining", it all seemed quite aggressive and defensive. Listening carefully to her answers, for the most part they were not specific to the questions about Calton Rd, but a generalised and self congratulatory word salad about her great work in the borough. My overall feeling was this is not a group of people who have any intention of truly listening to perspectives that do not "align" with theirs.