Penguin68

As this happened co-terminally with the introduction first of the ultra low emissions zone to the South Circular and then the M25 I think there were other factors in play (as there were the Covid restrictions at the start of the Dulwich LTN) But remember that car ownership in Southwark is influenced by the fact that in the Old Borough of Southwark there are a plethora buses, tubes and trains to choose from, and very flat topology to cycle on (and things are closer together to the north of the borough) - in the old Borough of Camberwell however, there are no tubes, fewer trains and fewer buses and many fewer (and less frequent) East West travel opportunities - so LTNs in the south of the borough are more likely to have as a population more people with cars, of simple necessity. Oh, and the comment I was responding to was not Southwark specific anyway.

Close to 80% of UK households own at least one car - LTNs discriminate as much against all electric cars as they do 'petrol' (not forgetting diesel) cars. The idea that the vast majority of households, all of which are impacted by LTNs in one way or another and may object to that are by definition leader in a Culture War is frankly absurd. [If you add in those households who are dependent on the use of privately owned vehicles to provide services, allow visitors etc, even where that household is not car owning itself you probably get close to 100% of households (of those near LTNs) who may be adversely impacted - not to mention those living or using streets which have had increased traffic as a result of LTNs]. It is a very Trumpian response to suggest that people who disagree with you are morally bad. - But I may as well since it's the custom in these debates!

https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2025/05/what-next-for-brockwell-live-and-the-lambeth-country-show-high-court-ruling-throws-lambeths-festival-plans-into-chaos/ Interesting report

Nothing, or next to nothing. This will be scheduled for their convenience, not yours. There will be a lot of 'No action' day after day. As occasional work teams arrive and go. They will make sure they are not paying for overtime or weekend working. The amount of actual work will probably be a third or a half of the lapsed time of the 'work'.

Maybe it's being moved to us now they've had that spot of bother

On a number of occasions in recent years I have found myself unable to leave Dulwich via any route in any direction without, at the least, coming across roads with new traffic controls limiting roads to single track highways, and in some instances sealing roads off completely, including the South Circular, problems exacerbated by roads closed to traffic sometimes permanently because of LTNs etc. and sometimes occasionally as school streets. A number of these closures have been for planned works, planned apparently without any 'whole picture' being reviewed by anyone. I assume this is done with a focus just on the costs of these projects, optimised around not paying overtime or for weekend or evening work or with full crews (at least I hope that at least was a consideration) but not around the economic costs to road users of such selfishness. Or it could be that and just plain planning incompetence.

Well, it's clearly not anything of statistical significance if it is not supported with unequivocal and testable numerical information. We know that Southwark has tried to 'create' information in the past where it has not been possible to say 'no' within their 'consultation', and where it has been unclear whether those not directly impacted by any decision can help sway that decision through participation, even those who have not, in fact, been able to participate in any Southwark election by not being Southwark electors, and therefore have never supported through the ballot box the controlling party in Southwark. Sadly, I believe the local councillor you have effectively quoted limited his promises just to the Ward he represents - even though he is the Cabinet Officer who covers the whole borough for this subject!

Ths from Lewisham's (https://lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/parking/permits/planning-and-design-of-cpzs) own documents:- 'If a decision is taken to proceed with the introduction of a new controlled parking zone, a statutory consultation will be carried out for the making of Traffic Management Orders – this is the formal process used to make changes to parking arrangements. The statutory consultation period will provide residents and businesses with a further opportunity to provide comments or register objections to the proposals. These will be considered and responded to in a delegated authority report by officers and a decision will be issued about whether to proceed with the making of Traffic Management Orders for the controlled parking zone.' And from Waltham Forest https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/parking-permits-and-suspensions/controlled-parking-zones-cpzs 'New controlled parking zones schemes are created as funding allows and only in areas where a public consultation has been carried out and a majority of responses are in support of the proposals.' And other councils also have similar processes, but note the word Statutory here. Certainly, they also use the word 'consultation', but I suggest that a consultation which failed to show any statistical evidence of support, and where objectors could demonstrate the opposite would be readily challengeable. Again, CPZs are aimed to relieve parking pressure problems for residents, not to raise revenue for councils - (which is why residents can petition for their introduction). They are (pace a remark which I think has now been amended) the very definition of NIMBY-ism - as residents don't want 'foreign' cars in their 'back-yards'.

The proof has always been in the pudding; and as regards Gala and Peckham Rye it has always demonstrated the opposite. Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice and thrice - shame on us.

There is no legal duty for a council to hold 'a referendum' - there is a duty for a council to ascertain, numerically and to a court challengeable standard that a majority of those impacted by a CPZ (i.e. residents in a road which is to have a CPZ imposed) are in agreement with this proposal. Of which the simplest and least challengeable route is to provide all affected households with a suitably phrased questionnaire (not one which does not allow objection per se) to complete. But this 'consultation' does not have to be 'a referendum'. Just voting a council in does not equate to a majority agreeing to all individual aspects of their actions, whether or not adumbrated upon in any election material. Indeed, anyone not in an impacted CPZ road, or an adjacent one would have no interest, or indeed right, to take that decision away from impacted residents.

I didn't hear that level of compassion offered when disabled people were impacted by LTNs and their mobility parking disks ignored. It was all 'the benefits of active travel' then.

The most useful sources are guidance provided by London Councils that bother to publish such guidance - all stemming from the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTR Act) as amended. If you mean - those impacted should be consulted with - then the process of 'consultation' must evidence that a suitable proportion of households should have responded (I have seen figures of 20-30% quoted by different boroughs in their own guidance), and that a majority should be in favour. Special exemptions are given where roads in the middle of a proposed scheme object but where all the surrounding roads are in favour to impose the scheme on that road anyway, but equally where outlying roads are against to exclude them from the scheme. Where schemes are stimulated by residents then petitions with 51% or more in favour may be taken up for further examination by a council. What is clear is that real and relevant numbers actually matter in these 'consultations' so that inputs from special interest groups outside the area, council employees etc. are not meant to be allowed. Throughout every council that makes things clear, it is clear that the requirements for decision are statistical, based in real (relevant) numbers. 'Consultations' which do not offer a chance to object, but ask only which method of punishment you might prefer (Southwark's preferred methods) are clearly not acceptable. Neither are the options to ignore results you don't like because 'it's a consultation, not a referendum'. Or 'consultations' which include inputs from those not in the impacted roads (or adjacent roads). If it isn't statistically sound it isn't sufficient. If you don't follow the statistics, then you shouldn't be doing it. (0utwith, e.g. the sort of exceptions I have listed above). What is clear is that the 'consultation' exercises that Southwark has gone through are fatally flawed compared with what is expected.

That surely is very close to the controlled crossing by the railway Bridge. Do we need two crossings within, I'm guessing, 100 yards of each other?

When it comes to proposals to alter the conditions of particular streets, and particularly introducing a CPZ then a 'referendum' or something similarly accurate is required. May I remind you that the only legal reason to introduce a CPZ is where local residents, suffering from parking pressure, request one. That may be where a majority in an affected street petition the council (in which case, if it is a majority of households no further measurement is required) or where, e.g. a council may have recognised parking pressure, or it has been notified to them, when they need to test (under law) whether this impacts a majority of those in the streets so identified. Revenues derived from CPZs must be set so that the costs of administration (only) are covered, and any unplanned surplus must be devoted to street style expenditure. The council cannot, in fact, under law institute a CPZ where it is not requested by householders - you might imagine a situation (which is Southwark's objective) when no one in a street owns a car and, however much it is parked up by 'foreigners' it isn't causing a problem. Parking places are not considered legally to be a milch cow for councils. So yes, when at least it comes to CPZs actual numbers supporting the proposal, of impacted households, do matter. A lying council 'consultation' is not sufficient under law.

That is absolutely not true - a number of CPZ's (not locally) were begged for by local residents because of real parking pressures, and when granted were applauded. I am sure there are LTNs (again not locally) which have genuinely reduced overall air pollution because traffic was not simply transferred and have led to benefits. Change can and does happen - but when the 'change' is about giving councils more revenue gouging opportunities, by further squeezing residents, for no perceived benefit - but are sold as something else entirely, then change is indeed resisted. Democracy does not automatically resist all changes, just the ones that electors don't actually want. But, if you're frightened of democracy....

I wrote this on 5th September 2024, eight months ago - I do not have access to any current figures - the past is hardly of relevance now.

I think it would be possible to argue that a consultation should be used to get an overall sense of direction - should the council focus on addressing 'a' or 'b' for instance, whereas when you are asking a direct question about a specific action impacting a limited number of people then a 'referendum' - 'should this road be a CPZ?' - is actually more appropriate and honest. Using a weasel 'consultation' when what you mean is - 'if you don't come up with our answer we'll ignore you' is simply a method of dictatorship - which is not normally a component of representative democracy - rather more a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' so favoured by our elected representatives who have chosen to remove the word 'Marxist' from their personal description because it might frighten the horses!

I think for the English, turtles are salt-water (sea) beasts whereas terrapins are fresh water, but I know e.g. Americans use 'turtle' for all chelonians including tortoises.

If you are simply looking for whether the impacted population supports a particular proposal or not then the method is far simpler (and isn't in fact 'research' as such). Deliver a survey (with an SAE) to each household you believe is impacted with a description of what is proposed and a 'yes', 'no'' box to tick, together with a date for return. Keep a record of all those households addressed (in case there is an argument that the wrong people were asked, or the right not asked) and get an independent scrutineer to tally the answers. On the basis that those who feel strongly, at least, will send a response back you have your answer. It is, of course, a referendum (which the council hates) but it would be an absolute measure of whether, from those who care enough to participate, they have a majority or not. Any other method will not, in fact, demonstrate 'majority' support. You would need to ensure that the council does not supply multiple forms for its staff to complete, so ideally you should use an independent polling body to administer these throughout. But, since it will be every household in a limited area these could be readily hand delivered to minimise costs. I would suggest for both LTN and CPZ delivery to the streets directly impacted and to 'the next two' streets to those. A map could be provided for people to ascertain whether the net has been spread sufficiently widely, but not too wide. This would be very limited cost wise to administer, compared with the research issues I have previously adumbrated on. Don't hold your breath.

I note that I have been prayed-in-aid by first mate here – hey, thanks bro. Professional Market and Social research firms are expert at deriving ‘representative’ samples. The bigger the population being researched, the simpler this is, of course, but for the sort of studies you are talking about – where the target population is small and probably belongs to a limited geography – there are still two key types of method. The first is to pre-select a sample of respondents which match whatever you believe your key demographic delineators would be, and ask them the necessary questions (designed by the Research Agency, not the client, as this will certainly create bias) – the second is to randomly research respondents within your chosen geography and then back apply (re-weight) their answers to match known relevant demographics of the area – normally available from census data). I would probably (off the top of my head) consider key demographics would include age, family status (i.e. numbers in household, number of young and teenage children) and life stage, working status (and how you travel to work), disability, car and bicycle ownership (in this instance) etc. – I would not consider relevant – again probably, sex (biological or chosen), sexual orientation, race etc. (There are good methodological reasons to include these details to show that the recruitment wasn’t biased – but I can’t see how opinions would actually differ (for this topic) as a function of these differentiators). I’m not sure whether owning or renting your home would impact answers for this topic, but possibly the type of home owned (house, flat, maisonette) might. As regards analysis – for market research any cell size under 60-100 would be statistically way too small. If you analysed your population into just 3 comprehensive groups (say ‘over or under 50’; ‘with small children or not’; disabled or not’) you would still only need a minimum sample of 120 to 200 – but if you wanted to analyse all together (so you could determine the number ‘over 50, not disabled and with small children’ you would need a sample size of 180-300. The problem with LTN research is that the researchable population is really quite small (comparatively). But probably the most important thing is to ensure so far as you can that the questions are not written to lead to your chosen answer – and that means independent drafting. And not to have a self-selecting group of respondents to your questionnaire – particularly if there are no stringent tests to ensure that only eligible respondents apply. (Determining ‘eligibility’ is another issue!) I would suggest that any research which is wholly in the hands of one ‘side’ to a question will be fatally biased. Finally, it wouldn't be easy, it would be expensive and still those who didn't get the answer they were hoping for wouldn't like it!

The most successful (in the sense of being long-lived) indoor markets often wholly or mainly offer 'antiques' - as these stalls can be covered by others when the owners are absent - as they often can be, if dealers and attending auctions etc. Whoever acts as a support can offer a fixed discount or contact the owners for negotiation. Remember than most indoor markets survive by being open 7 days a week, if allowed - but the individual stalls are often one person bands who can't provide that level of cover, so will individually be closed for one or two days in the week. Too many closed (unless, as above, they are still at least virtually 'open for business') and the market will lose its attraction. One problem is that individuals may use the market to try out a business idea - the problem being that if successful they may then look for a 'proper' shop and leave the market. So the good outlets always move on. And the market holder then has to look for a new tenant.

If you are to consider offering a new indoor Market (and I also enjoyed and on occasion used the Zenoria Market) then I would recommend researching why it eventually failed. It had several stalls (including an oyster bar, if memory serves) that I was happy to use, and a number I walked swiftly past as of no interest. What was the demographic then, and now? What needs must it meet now? 'Build a field and they will come' wasn't true then, and isn't now. It has to be the right field. And if it is 'fashionable' then remember fashions change quicker than anything.

If councils were solely fixed on climate change and air quality issues then fully electric vehicles would be able to pass through these areas, as their contribution to air quality pollution is minimal (outwith build issues, but these aren't relevant to local air quality in LTNs). But electric vehicles are as fined as any other. Councils are focused on two things - first the political intention to drive private owned vehicles out of their streets - openly stated by Southwark Labour Party - and secondly, and probably immediately more important, the opportunity to raise revenue. Both cases have arguments in favour of them, but councils are weaseling their way into what they think are more convincingly woke and 'right-on' arguments - climate change and local air quality. Both these aspects, as generalities, are more difficult to argue against, of course, but the recent case has suggested that the particular cases in hand may be less tenable - when the actions simply shift, but don't eradicate, the problem, for instance. [NB - those arguing against our local LTNs, by the way, are mostly on record as being clear that, and in particular, where air quality is genuinely improved (rather than problems shifted) this is a good thing.]

I'm afraid, on their own statements, that Southwark electors will have to remove them before there is, or could be, any change. And if that happens then there won't be any labour party left in London.

Is there any evidence that Lambeth will not appeal this finding, after all it's a 'good' use of their limited funds to challenge a ruling which might put a coach and horses through their ability to take forward their agenda? Maybe Southwark will help them here? There are contributers here who would dig into their pockets to help Lambeth out in their time of need I'm sure.