rollflick

Have finally got the "Your services are changing" booklet about this, never received a letter. Dulwichfox - Looks like the sticker for those signing up to garden waste collection will have property address and expiry date on: can just about make this out on p3. sally buying - had exactly the same question, don't want FOUR bins and agree having separate garden & food waste collections is going to cost a lot more, increase collection costs and congestion etc. There's been no explanation at all why we need to separate food & garden waste and does not seem to make sense given info on the Southwark web site. There's only one Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant and it takes weeks to process each batch. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/bins-and-recycling/food-and-garden-waste/what-happens-to-food-and-garden-waste

All speed limits on public roads are enforceable. Police used to object to creation of 20mph zones unless they were 'self-enforcing' but UK traffic regulations were changed in 2016 about this. Though police (or speed cameras) won't normally enforce unless you're going at 10%+2mph over a speed limit, they will in certain circumstances. Such as if even 20mph is unsafe for conditions, e.g. lots of kids spilling out of school. Or if you have been reported multiple times by Community Speed Watch (CSW): https://www.communityspeedwatch.org/ Sounds like dimples has been reported by one of these, which is now operating regularly in Southwark.

My best guess is that in terms of the council, the Highways and the Transport planning teams haven't been talking to each other (their names are nearly at the opposite ends of the alphabet after all) and people have been stuck in their respective silos rather than joining up the dots. The new Londonwide "Healthy Streets" policy was described as a radical shift by the Mayor: the council however seems to treat it like a rebranding exercise. The ward councillors really do not seem familiar with council parking policy, the law on consultations, etc. As for Cllr Livingstone, it's a bit like May trying to deliver B***it: he's made multiple commitments that conflict with each other.

Southwark's Cabinet approved the Movement Plan and Local Implementation Plan 3 (LIP3), which set out policies and proposals for transport, streets and parking, this Tuesday: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=6089&Ver=4 (item 16) Though there have been a few positive tweaks, it is incredibly weak on important issues like climate change (driving a juggernaut through the recent council climate emergency motion to make Southwark carbon neutral by 2030), road safety (totally vague and sweeps under carpet fact that progress has stalled since 2013), air pollution (so bad the chart has been taken out of the annual monitoring report) and active travel (just ?200k for a cycling network compared to the ?20m promised in 2015). The consultation did reveal that 77% of respondents wanted less motor traffic on Southwark's streets. This is entirely consistent with other data such as Southwark's Big Conversation, those in neighbouring boroughs and Londonwide, and not surprising given the council's continued failings to deliver. The LIP3 contains the CPZ policy but was not originally part of the consultation (see above in this thread). As a result of my complaint the council was required by law to consult on it, the draft LIP3 was added to the movement plan consultation page. While the 2011 Transport Plan proposed CPZs only where supported by residents (primarily as a means to reduce traffic rather than reserving parking for residents), the LIP3 commits Southwark to delivering "a whole borough CPZ". Southwark was required by law to approve and deliver on a LIP3 that complies with the Mayor's Transport Strategy, a key element of which is to reduce traffic. Southwark failed to put in credible or specific traffic and pollution reduction proposals (such as bus & cycle gates, local congestion charges etc.) so it was left with little option but to commit to a whole borough CPZ. When Cllr Livingstone (Cabinet member for transport) comes to decide on the ED & PW CPZs, he's required by law to make the decision on the basis of Londonwide and borough policy, as I explained at last Saturday's chaotic meeting. People responding to those consultations and speaking at the meeting were focused on commuter parking issues and whether their street wanted a CPZ or not to deal with them, rather than the wider legal requirements or issues, including the clear desire of people across the borough to cut traffic. The CPZ consultation exercise failed to explain the borough's policy, constraints etc. on this decision so failed to give people a chance to make informed comment. Wherever you stand on CPZs, it's undeniable the whole process has been a complete farce. The council - both councillors and officials - need to accept outside help to totally overhaul they engage.

One of the EDIBA spokespeople at last Saturday's meeting mentioned they had heard the concerns of residents who wanted a CPZ and EDIBA were suggesting alternative arrangements. Does anyone know what those are or how we can find out about them?

When deciding whether to make traffic orders for things like CPZs, the council is legally required to consider many more factors that simply residents' views, such bus reliability, congestion, obesity & air pollution. This was briefly mentioned towards the end but was easy to miss: "Any parking controls or street improvements that we introduce will take into account the results of the consultation as well as existing highway safety issues in the proposed zone, feedback from emergency services, and our wider transport policies reflecting our responsibilities to air quality and active travel." With the council failing to meet its legal obligations on air quality and progress on road safety stalling since 2013, more action is clearly needed. The consultation questionnaire failed to give people an opportunity to make informed comment on alternative means the council could implement to help achieve these wider borough objectives. It was simply - and wrongly - focused on whether you had parking problems or not. Likewise the consultation report fails to mention the legal context the decision has to be taken within. That's not going to help ensure a fully informed discussion at the community council meeting. So it's easy to see why people are questioning the council's approach, it should have been communicated consistently at each step of the process, otherwise people will understandably have concerns. The Dog Kennel Hill CPZ certainly has had an impact, a positive one. It's made the streets more pleasant, no longer dominated by a wall of metal on both sides of the street and enabled delivery vans, Ubers etc. to stop without causing a blockage. Now it's gone in, people have got used to it. Similar measures are needed particularly to help the P13 route run more reliably through 'Peckham West' and improve conditions for cycling and walking such as on Adys Road.

With bus travel declining in Southwark by 12%, the biggest drop across all of London, and the government cutting all subsidy, TfL clearly had to do something. On part of route 40, there were double the numbers of buses travelling than needed for passenger demand, meanwhile on the RV1 route in Bankside every journey was being subsidised by ?3.20. Of course people had strong feelings but simply telling TfL to protect a bus service won't solve the financial pressures it faces. Other boroughs like Camden and Hackney are implementing radical measures to prioritise buses, like on Tottenham Court Road, London Fields and Wells Street. By tackling bus delays, operating costs can be reduced and passenger numbers increased, making their services viable for the future. Sadly local politicians over here have done little more than just pose for photos at protests. By the way 20mph actually helps buses by making their journey times more competitive compared to their biggest competitors, private cars, Ubers etc., that don't have to stop often. It also reduces collisions, which according to TfL are the biggest cause of disruptive congestion that plays havoc with timetables.

It's funny how many people claim their opposition to a CPZ is driven by concern for the shops on Lordship Lane when most of those in the consultation who expressed an opinion opposed the measures to increase bus priority. According to the 2015 LBSU study, almost 50% *more* people travelled to Lordship Lane by bus than by car. At a time when our bus services are under threat, bus drivers reported delays here due to parking and in a borough where the majority don't own a car, hindering bus access is not going to help the street's viability. The council did a really good job in the consultation by seeking the views of the wider area beyond the parking hotspots, having listened to those (disclosure: including me) who highlighted how they failed to consult or listen to those affected by displacement from the Dog Kennel Hill zone. But however many times Cllr McAsh points out again on this thread or elsewhere that this was never a vote but a consultation as part of a parking study, sadly it seems some will never listen. On his question 1, there's a strong case to include the streets between North Cross Road and Crystal Palace Road, where there was also resident support. Otherwise that area, which is still walkable to ED station, will have two new CPZs on either side and inevitably face serious pressure. There's a strong case including the northern bit of Crystal Palace Road and Oakhurst Grove/Solway Road north of the road closure. Although there isn't currently resident support for these, the latter will face displacement from the Peckham West zone, which it should have been considered part of. Meanwhile the Crystal Palace/ED Road is the most dangerous junction for cycling on all of the proposed spine route (at least on roads controlled by Southwark) and only by increasing the length of the cycle lane significantly can it be made safer. On question 2, some people will have wanted a CPZ to operate longer in the evening (as some have pointed out in this Forum, there are parking pressures then) so it does seem the best approach is to go for 8.30-6.30 as proposed. If I have any criticism it's that the consultation process seems to have failed to engage those who currently or potentially travel by bus or cycle, even if non-resident. The more people that travel by bus and cycle, the more viable and safer our bus and cycle routes are.

The Mayor of London has proposed taking over train services in south London, with East Dulwich being identified as one of the main stations to benefit (see attached plan). Its train services would increase to 8 an hour in both peak and off-peak, so about every 8 minutes in each direction. Overground, Thameslink and services to Victoria through Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill would each increase to 6 an hour/ every 10 minutes. Some fares would be cheaper, especially if changing onto the Overground or Tube. This is all (alleged) to cost just ?1.7bn, guessing that doesn't include increasing passenger capacity within stations though, which would definitely be needed with Peckham Rye having an incredible 52 trains an hour! Main downside is that train services would be simplified so you'd need to change for some destinations like East Croydon. There's no info however about extending night services to this part of town at weekends and it's not clear how many years this could take to deliver. More at (full report at bottom) https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-calls-for-tfl-to-control-rail-infrastructure All Sadiq needs to do next is find the extra cash and get Chris Grayling on side...

Worth remembering there are multiple reasons for parklets. For those with walking difficulties, it's really reassuring to have a place to stop and rest. I only really appreciated this when I couldn't walk far recovering from an injury last year. Recent equality and public health laws mean the council now needs to put more seats into streets. Breaking up the wall of metal (parked cars) calms traffic and makes streets easier to cross on foot. Okay that particular reason isn't relevant on Adys Road, maybe there it's something to do with the school and changing travel behaviour around it or providing a nicer place for parents to wait for their kids. Also the CPZ area has lost many trees recently and new rules mean that trees of similar size can only be replanted in bigger tree pits, i.e. taking up some carriageway. Maximising 'tree canopy' area reduces summer heat and can help tackle air pollution. There's already a lack of green space in much of this area, see attached map from Southwark's Open Space Strategy. Yes the parklets would be a small start but better to test them small scale while seeing how much space the CPZ frees up. While they are new in Southwark, parklets have already popped up in other boroughs, maybe the council could gather info about what has and hasn't worked elsewhere?

bonaome - the reason is once you get in a car you may as well keeping on driving to the supermarket etc. That's why enabling people to walk and cycle more is good for local shops. dulwichresident01 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was only on the news and in the papers yesterday about the death of local high streets caused by local councils... Err any source for your latest claim? It's widely reported as internet shopping and lack of consumer confidence: https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/shops-most-risk-after-high-13837036 This isn't your average CPZ that's just about parking, the proposals include measures to improve walking, cycling and buses (i.e. help the majority of people get to Lordship Lane) plus environmental enhancements through extra greenery and tackling air pollution. Southwark certainly don't always get it right but this looks really good. Surely if we'd like people to spend less time and money online, making our public spaces cleaner, safer and nicer is the way to go?

dulwichresident01 wrote > I don?t think we should start making ?assumptions? on how local businesses will be affected without speaking to them > first. Several I?ve spoken with are extremely concerned, one even stated that it could affect up to 30% of their trade. But should we rely on the assumptions of local businesses either, dieselresident01? Studies in multiple countries show shopkeepers overestimate how many of their customers drive in by about 100%: http://www.tut.fi/verne/wp-content/uploads/Shoppers-and-how-they-travel.pdf The 2015 council survey showed only 22% of Lordship Lane visitors drove. Of that 22%, if the CPZ goes in, many would still just use the remaining free parking. Those who want to stay longer than the 30 mins are unlikely to notice paying ?2.75/hour. After all that'll barely buy you a turmeric latte these days. NB soon to be ?3.25/hour for diesel

Southwark has lost more than a thousand street trees over the last few years, see attached. Some roads in ED like Copleston have lost as many as five trees recently. Saplings will take time to grow and in any event are often smaller species as rch has pointed out. This means a growing loss of tree canopy coverage. The Mayor of London's Environment Strategy includes a target to increase tree canopy coverage across London, which is currently 20%, in recognition of its importance to reduce extreme summer heat, tackle air pollution and improve quality of life. A map of canopy coverage has been produced too: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/parks-green-spaces-and-biodiversity/trees-and-woodlands/tree-canopy-cover-map Other boroughs like Hackney have ambitious plans to increase canopy to 25% by 2025, through a developing a Public Realm Green Infrastructure Plan. As you can't simply reforest the parks, this requires reallocating some space from car parking for bigger tree pits. While Southwark CPZ consultations appear to be recognising the opportunity to increase street greening, there does not appear to be any borough wide plan or target to increase the tree canopy.

The CPZ has very noticeably freed up space on the Grove Hill Road side of the hill - but the streets just outside are now rammed. It took 18 months from consultation (incidentally which was clear about the pay bays) to going live. Does that mean those of us next to it could have to wait until July 2020 for the totally obvious knock-on effects to be tackled, even if the consultation for an ED & West Peckham CPZ happens soon? Southwark has very limited CPZ coverage compared to other inner London boroughs. With the commencement of the Ultra Low Emission Zone in April 2019, our streets will become the dumping zone for those who don't want to pay 24/7 ?12.50 daily charge as we're the nearest free parking to central London. It's bad enough already with all the abandoned taxis. No one in the council seems to have thought about this though. At least Zipcar offer residents a handy way to avoid the ULEZ charge, such as if you need to pick something up, and the money they pay for their permits goes to road repairs etc. It's great they're giving people the option of electric cars without the cost of buying them.

From Old Grove Vale library closing on 11 Dec, new one by ED station opening with extended hours on 17 Dec.

nxjen - this type of survey could have made sense in the summer when Southwark was drawing up this draft. Now that there is a draft there should have been a consultation asking for views on it, see for example Lambeth's, which may be of interest for those living close to or travelling across the borough boundary: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/have-your-say-on-lambeths-draft-transport-strategy Without those sorts of questions, you can't gauge public support for policies, e.g. saying X% liked this. Or are you saying the approach of other boroughs is wrong? And while Lambeth is consulting on its implementation plan (LIP3), Southwark doesn't even mention it let alone ask for views. That's the bit that contains the policies on CPZs for instance. Siduhe - you're right, Southwark does vary the further you get from central London, maybe the policies or targets could be differentiated depending on whether you're within inner ring road, south circular etc. or TfL fare zones.

Thing is, it's not actually a consultation asking your views about the movement plan. Instead it's an incredibly fiddly survey about travel habits and much more, asking you stuff like why do you like your neighbourhood, which neighbourhood you most identify with. After seeing there were over 50 questions on page 2 (and nine more pages to go) I gave up it was so bad. It's hardly going to get a representative sample of people responding. There's no consultation at all about the implementation plan, which includes things will provoke Marmite reactions for certain EDF contributors. By contrast other councils like neighbouring Lambeth and City are actually consulting on their plans, asking you to rate your degree of support for each main policies, genuinely engaging with local people and seeking feedback. How could Southwark get consultation quite so wrong?

Funny it was kind of at the back of my mind there are a lot of cabs parked around here, then after seeing this post actually twigged. Counted five today while going along Copleston Road. And without the TfL licence plates, at least the ones I could see easily while going past. Maybe there's a massive glut of cabs due to the rise of Uber and we are the parking lot being one of the nearest areas to zone 1 without CPZs? Fear problem will be more noticeable once the Dog Kennel Hill CPZ goes live, signs already up now but covered. That said had an (ex-Uber?) Prius left for months on my street and as it was low emission didn't need to be taxed. So Southwark Council wouldn't remove it until it got a flat tyre, which meant they could deal with it as abandoned.

Surely it's the people not responding to consultations who are lazy? And many people who want a CPZ - so space can be given over to wider pavements, safer junctions, cycling, greenery etc. - don't have any cars at all. Anyway a journalist who lives locally has just made a film about parking. It's only six minutes long, really worth watching and very timely! https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2018/oct/30/why-we-should-be-paying-more-for-parking-video-explainer

It's not possible to model the impact of trials like this with particular accuracy, even assuming everything else could be fixed. External factors from everything like whether it's a cold winter to whether there's a no deal Brexit will impact on traffic levels. Traffic impacts are harder than ever to model as so many drivers are being guided by Google, Waze etc. and their algorithms are secret and evolving. Far better to go ahead with an experiment but given people an idea of the thresholds that will be used to judge success or not and a chance to comment on them.

According to the council website (though all we have are the titles to go by until the consultations start), the proposed CPZs include some measures to reduce bus delays. Decisions following the consultation are due to be made by February 2019. East Dulwich parking zone (incorporating Lordship Lane bus mitigation measures & Lordship Lane safety improvements) Peckham West parking zone (incorporating Grove Vale bus (mitigation measures)) http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgListPlanItems.aspx?PlanId=536 With Southwark worst affected by drops in bus passengers in London and having seriously missed its own targets to cut bus delays, it's about time the council took action. Otherwise cash strapped TfL could cut our buses further. Whether the proposals will help remains to be seen though.

Sure, sources as follows: On 60 week closure, below is an extract of email allegedly from Cllr Richard Livingstone obtained by Southwark Cyclists (SC), also confirmed by Southwark's Traffic Manager on site visit on 11 October 2018 that was attended by them: "I understand that the closure will be for 60 weeks from January, as Southern Gas Network are having to replace the two gas mains under the street. The pavements will remain open to pedestrians and SGN will compensate businesses for any loss of earnings. SGN first approached the council about doing this in 2011. There has been discourse between the council and them since that time and it is clear that the council could not justify putting the work off for longer. A diversion along Copeland Road to the east of Rye Lane has been identified and this will be signposted and advertised. I have asked officers to put in place a second route for cyclists to the west of Rye Lane and for this to be signposted. Whilst I don?t mind cars having to take a longer route around Rye Lane, I think it would be unfair for cyclists travelling north-westwards to not have a quicker option. Regards Councillor Richard Livingstone" alex_b, Spine route proposals consultation showing only 28% of respondents in favour can be found here: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichtopeckham/ There is still the statutory stage of publishing traffic orders in 'late 2018' to go through but that's normally just a formality. In terms of closure yes you're absolutely right Rendelharris that the whole of Rye Lane won't be closed, it will be a rolling closure but that still means larger vehicles in particular all the buses will need to go round via Copeland Road during the whole duration of works. The problem for cycling is that the streets to the west are some of the least intuitive to navigate in the borough due to the mix of one-ways and diagonals. Southwark Cyclists are proposing permeability improvements to make it easier for people cycling to skirt round the blocked bit of Rye Lane to the west. That would also reduce the pressure on Copeland, helping bus users & drivers. For what it's worth all cycling groups objected to the current plans for the Spine, preferring the previous plan to remove the Bellenden gyratory that by comparison received a majority of consultees in favour.

Good spot goosey-goosey, seems the council plans to dig up Bellenden, Lyndhurst and a whole host of other roads in 2019 for the Spine. So could not come at a worse time whether you travel by bike, bus or car. Honestly can't see how the Spine can go ahead as planned now. The council has a legal duty to minimise disruption to the road network by not having multiple streets blocked by road works. Also opening its flagship cycle route at a time when the streets it runs along are gridlocked won't encourage more people to cycle and will damage both Southwark's and the Spine's reputation. Apparently Transport for London has even refused to let Southwark use its cycle quietway branding for the route as the Spine(less) proposals simply failed to reduce motor traffic or safely separate people cycling. Unfortunately while the proposals were also rejected by a resounding 2/3 of people who responded, they were quietly rubber stamped days before the council shut down for the May elections. Maybe there is a silver lining if this all means the Spine gets a rethink.

Rye Lane needs to be closed to replace major gas mains along it and the latest estimate, since the Southwark News report below, is that this will take 60 weeks from January 2019 to April 2020. This will require major excavations and only a pavement for pedestrians past the works is expected to be kept open. https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/rye-lane-gas-network-upgrade-set-to-bring-more-traffic-jams-to-peckham/ A diversion for buses will run via Copeland Road, which will become very congested, meaning more people are likely to drive off East Dulwich Road to cut through the Bellenden Road area. With the main redevelopment of Peckham Rye station starting in spring 2019 and due to continue to autumn 2021, hope somehow the most disruptive bits can happen at the same time. Otherwise there could be 3 years of disruption for buses, cycling and driving from East Dulwich.

The big issue here is that Southwark Council consulted on its draft Kerbside Strategy 18 months ago, which proposes radical new parking policies, but appears not to have made public any decision to finalise it or not. I honestly can't see how it could carry out a lawful consultation on major new CPZs without making clear what its parking policy now is. Otherwise how could the public comment in an informed way? A decision was due before the May elections but there seems to be no trace of what was decided. Maybe one of the councillors could comment? Kerbside Strategy: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/kerbside-strategy/ Decision due Feb 2018: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50015767&Opt=0 Besides lots of useful facts and figures that cover many of the issues raised in this thread, the strategy states 'we currently allocate kerbside space based on a 1950s model. Despite 60 per cent of Southwark households not owning a vehicle and walking being the largest mode share, parking for private vehicles still dominates kerbside space.' It then proposes a policy to prioritise kerbside space for walking and cycling. The reality is that with new housing being built with low or zero car parking (especially high rise), the proportion of Southwark homes owning cars will decrease. But there will still be more parking so absolute number of cars owned is likely to increase, putting more pressure on borough roads, unless car ownership is reduced in some places such as by introducing CPZs. Given the council's legal duties to reduce pollution, obesity etc. and also policy in the Londonwide Mayor's Transport Strategy, doing nothing is not an option. But, as this thread shows, doing anything will be controversial. That said whatever your views Southwark seems to be making a right mess of this, first by not providing an update on the fate of the Kerbside Strategy within a reasonable period, then revealing a half a map of a proposed East Dulwich CPZ in another consultation. No wonder a lot of people are confused and unhappy.