legalalien

I believe they’ll still have to do the statutory consultation on the individual traffic management order(s) implementing the parking restrictions - I think this is what they mean when they refer to legal consultation https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/traffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/traffic-management-orders I imagine there’s plenty of scope for gerrymandering when determining how many traffic orders to use and which areas to put into each traffic order - perhaps there’s a cunning plan to use this extensive soft consultation to inform that process (suspiciousness morphs into conspiracy theory..) It is probably quite useful for the council to have a detailed view of people’s opinions on appropriate time periods, so you can decide where to put zone boundaries (once you accept that a CPZ is happening).

Actually I’m not 100% convinced that Southwark are doing this as a revenue raising exercise - perhaps that’s naive of me. If they are, it’s going to be likely to be difficult to prove, as I doubt they’ve documented that intent anywhere. If raising lots of revenue is an unintended/ ancillary consequence of a policy that they’ve put in place for proper purposes then I guess they’d be on the right side of the law. The question I’m asking myself is whether Southwark would be entitled to impose an outright ban on large swathes of on street parking for the purposes of nudging people out of car use / to help reach net zero/ air quality goals. Related question - if the council cares that much about those policy aims then why doesn’t it ban on street parking rather than charging for it? For anyone interested, central govt guidance on council parking enforcement is at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions To be fair to the council there are some objectives that are a bit broader than those in the RTR Act: “Enforcement authorities should design their parking policies with particular regard to: managing the traffic network to ensure expeditious movement of traffic, (including pedestrians and cyclists), as required under section 16 of the TMA, Network Management Duty improving road safety improving the local environment improving the quality and accessibility of public transport meeting the needs of people with disabilities, some of whom will be unable to use public transport and depend entirely on the use of a car managing and reconciling the competing demands for kerb space” Later on, councils are directed to take account of the following when regularly appraising their parking policies: “The appraisal should take account of: existing and predicted levels of demand for parking the availability and pricing of on- and off-street parking places the impact on the local economy and the viability of local shops and high streets the justification for, and accuracy of, existing traffic orders the adequacy, accuracy and quality of traffic signing and road markings which restrict or permit parking the level of enforcement necessary for compliance the levels of penalty charges the need to resource the operation effectively and ensure that all parking staff are appropriately trained impact on traffic flow – for example, traffic or congestion outcomes.” There’s also a statement that . “Motorists and other road users need to be aware that parking enforcement is about supporting wider transport objectives, in particular keeping traffic moving, rather than raising revenue.” Against the overall scheme of the Act I still think it’s a struggle to justify a borough-wide CPZ on the basis of the statutory objectives, even given the couple of bullet points about the local environment/ managing competing demands for kerb space in the guidance (which was updated in 2022 and I’d hazard a guess those words were added quite recently). Just more idle pondering. And in the “learn something new every day” category- apparently there’s statutory guidance about petitions to challenge parking related TMOs once they have been implemented. One to remember for the future - although I doubt a petition would get anyone anywhere. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/right-to-challenge-parking-policies

I guess a consultation not being a referendum can cut both ways.

“There's further reasons why it's needed - reallocation of roadspace for various other purposes (EV charging bays, cycle hangers, parklets etc) general nudging away from cars most of which tie in with the overall Mayor's London transport strategy and Southwark's declared climate emergency and their own streetspace strategies.” I’ll say it again, I don’t think the council should be using their quite specific powers to designate parking spaces to progress these broader policy objectives - I don’t think the powers they have are intended to be used for these purposes. I’m coming to the view that if a council finds itself without adequate powers / tools to achieve the policy outcome it wants, it’s probably because the things it wants to do are without the proper scope of council activity ie there is overreach by the council. There are lots of things that councils do that duplicate or go beyond policies that seem to me best dealt with by central government - a sort of scope creep. Which would help explain why councils keep running out of money. If central government funds things it thinks are the job of local government, and councils have made themselves responsible for a lot more, then there’s inevitably going to be a mismatch.

Looks like the plan is to extend the E-scooter trial in London - see this item in the most recent Forward Plan https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50033129&PlanId=786&RPID=9252527 Also going to be some experimental traffic orders for parking stations for e-bikes and escooters https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50033131&PlanId=786&RPID=9252532

from the 2021 document - looks like ED and the bit up by Rotherhithe are known problem areas (labelled tbc on the original)

I don’t know, I think it’s possible to get too hung up on the flaws in the consultation process per se - if they carry out the process incorrectly and there’s a successful complaint then all that happens is that they have to do it again properly and the end point gets delayed. It’s true that a consultation isn’t a referendum. And the council was always going to have to do a formal statutory consultation for each specific traffic order in addition to the engagement exercise they are doing now. Maybe a better way to look at it is to recognise that the purpose of a consultation is to ensure that the council has all the relevant information in front of it to make a properly informed decision and takes that info into account. The decision shouldn’t have been made before the consultation and arguments /info raised in the consultation need to be considered with an open mind. So in some sense if you oppose the CPZ the consultation process is about putting forward counter arguments but also, I guess, gathering evidence to support a claim that the decision maker has predetermined the decision or (as noted above) is using powers for purposes not justified by the statutory scheme. If I’m right about upcoming parking pressure claims might be worth starting to document any evidence to the contrary. Ps managed to dig out the council’s 2021 rationale for the CPZ roll out, for the record: “Controlled parking zones and parking charges are the council’s only or main means of:  Encouraging the use of lower emitting vehicles through variable charging based on vehicle emissions  Controlling access to parking for future developments through covenants making properties permanently unable to access the council’s parking permit schemes and therefore ‘car free’  Reduces the kerb space available to commuters both those driving to businesses in Southwark or parking in Southwark and completing their journey to central London by train or bus  Encourage the switch from private car use to more active travel  Enforcing vehicles idling by issue of a penalty charge Therefore:  CPZs can have positive impact on air quality by reducing commuting and allowing idling enforcement  Could be charged for based on vehicle emissions to encourage our resident’s to move to a lower emitting vehicle  Create streets which are more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists to use The existing CPZ program will form an important component of delivering the council’s plans and moving to a borough wide scheme would have a bigger effect; the movement plan, transport plan and air quality plan. The introduction of a Southwark wide CPZ on a zone by zone basis over the next two years would support the council’s fairer future commitments in particular Theme 3 - a greener borough, Theme 4 - a full employment borough and Theme 5 – a healthier life, all will benefit from this proposal.”

I’m assuming they’re using the same powers they’ve used for previous CPZ orders. eg https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/172263/Controlled-Parking-Zone-OKR-notice-dated-9-March-2023-.pdf I think these are the provisions also mentioned in the oppose the CPZ material? As a non car owner I’m not terribly motivated to spend time and energy researching the rationale / amendment history of the various provisions, but it seems to me eminently arguable that you can’t use powers conferred for the purposes of facilitating the movement of road traffic and ensuring the availability of residential parking with the aim of disincentivising driving and reducing air pollution -even if the latter are perfectly legitimate policy aims for the council more generally. As I say just a first blush impression, will leave it to those involved in the campaign to look at the detail. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw the council starting to talk less about air pollution and reduction of private cars in the CPZ context and more about things like improving traffic flow, buses etc. and making sure there is enough parking available for residents (I’m expecting them to justify CPZs in areas that don’t currently have parking pressure by reference to some sort of prediction of future parking pressure caused by CPZs being implemented in neighbouring areas. Arguably though, if CPZs disincentivise driving you’d expect parking pressure to reduce?). I’ll also be interested to see how they are going to justify a CPZ within the Dulwich LTN where there’s neither traffic nor an issue with off street parking, nor new build homes without allocated parking spaces, which have been a factor in some previous decisions. We’ll see.

That’s the point to be made though, isn’t it - that the powers under the road traffic act are only intended to be used for limited purposes, and using them to achieve the aims you mention isn’t permitted by the Act. I think that’s the likely argument with some claims of predetermination thrown in?

Yes, this. I’m still struggling to see how the aims of encouraging behaviour change/ reducing car usage/ encouraging active travel fit within the statutory purpose of section 45 of the Act. Statutory powers are supposed to be exercised only for the purposes for which they are conferred, no? If the council designate parking spaces with the primary intention of addressing a traffic/ access problem, and this has the incidental effect of reducing traffic, that’s one thing, but the policy announcements about a borough wide CPZ and the reasons for it don’t seem consistent with section 45, even though the individual decision papers will doubtless now be carefully worded (as the council must now be well aware of the issue).

With well documented falling demand for primary (and to some extent secondary) school places in the borough, but the rolls for the popular schools in the Dulwich Village area (PA5 or whatever it is) holding up, it stands to reason that catchment areas are enlarging and journeys to school increasing in length, which might suggest more parents driving their progeny to state schools? Also I know a number of folk who have rented close to Dulwich schools to secure spots and then purchased (cheaper) houses further away.

I haven’t really looked at the underlying CPZ rules but think I’m right that the relevant traffic management orders are made under section 45 of the Road Traffic Management Act, which would suggest that the key considerations are those set out in section 45(3) namely “(3)In determining what parking places are to be designated under this section the authority concerned shall consider both the interests of traffic and those of the owners and occupiers of adjoining property, and in particular the matters to which that authority shall have regard include— (a)the need for maintaining the free movement of traffic; (b)the need for maintaining reasonable access to premises; and (c)the extent to which [F6off-street parking accommodation, whether in the open or under cover,]is available in the neighbourhood or the provision of such parking accommodation is likely to be encouraged there by the designation of parking places under this section.” I don’t recall seeing analysis on those points included in the decision reports on some of the previous CPZ decisions where the emphasis was on movement plan policies and active travel. If I get bored on a wet afternoon I’ll have a look and see whether that’s the case. I imagine it might be arguable that active travel/ minimising car usage/ climate change etc could be improper / irrelevant considerations as regards designating parking spaces and maybe a question to be asked as to whether the statutory criteria have been given sufficient consideration ( the question of whether CPZ will result in people turning their front gardens into parking spots)? And also whether a policy of a borough wide CPZ is consistent with proper consideration of those statutory criteria? (disclaimer - no expert and may be off track here so would be interested to know if I am missing something..)

Sort of LTN related - proposed decision to make the temporary closure of Gilkes Place permanent: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IssueId=50033021&OptionNum=0

On the subject of Amsterdam and elderly Deliveroo drivers, did anyone see the article in the Times this week about Dutch research suggesting it might not be such a good idea for older folk to ride electric bikes? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e-bikes-cause-head-and-spine-injuries-in-over-50s-dutch-warned-8pbhnrkl2

For info, just gone into the Forward Plan for decision in September - doesn’t indicate which school it is. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50032995&PlanId=783&RPID=9150254

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-orders-review-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-and-says-hes-on-the-side-of-motorists-12930344 Apparently there’s an interview with the PM touching on LTNs in today’s Telegraph, I assume behind a paywall.

I agree, that is quite interesting particularly given the push to build on brownfields sites. I know nothing at all about this but out of interest just had a read of this blog post which I found quite helpful and links to the industry guidance. It does seem as though further testing and risk assessment is something that the employers of those on site need to carry out as the project proceeds, rather than something expected to be done up front as part of the grant of planning permission. https://www.oracleasbestos.com/blog/contaminated-land/asbestos-in-soil-guide/. The industry guidance to construction companies about what they need to do on the investigations front is from about para 164 onward https://www.claire.co.uk/projects-and-initiatives/asbestos-in-soil There seems to be quite a lot of detail, and as the protection of workers extends well beyond just issuing them with protective equipment (eg controlled wetting, low intensity work methods, possibly ventilation) that would presumably provide appropriate protection for neighbouring properties?

No I think the two councillors who voted against were Labour councillors. I have at the back of my mind that there are special rules around planning decisions on that front, but I don’t know on what basis I think that. Time to google! ETA here’s the local government association advice. https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/34.2_Probity_in_Planning_04.pdf

The planning application was approved at a meeting earlier in the week, quite a controversial decision I’d suggest in that the majority of councillors (it was a split decision) overruled the planning officer’s recommendation and approved such a large new building on Metropolitan Open Land due to “special circumstances” that seemed to focus on the gallery’s need for a new revenue source to plug an ongoing hole in its finances (as one councillor pointed out no actual evidence of this had been provided other than statements made in the meeting), a desire for the gallery to expand its outreach programme to local state schools (who seem to have indicated they don’t want to come in the absence of a decent sized classroom space and toilets that better allow supervision from a safeguarding perspective) and the desirability of opening up the meadow next to the art gallery to the public. As I understand it the council are going to try and negotiate an agreement with the gallery about free state school visits as a condition of finalising the approval, but I don’t think anything was said about mandating open access to the meadow, which felt like a bit of an oversight given the councillors voting in favour clearly put a lot of weight on that. In terms of design, also a bit of a strange one, the chair commented that someone had suggested to him that it looked a bit like a public toilet and some of the other councillors also thought it needed a rethink, and there was mention of the need to have further discussion with officers about materials ( I think I heard that the current design reflected input already given from officers on that front and there was some debate about whether approval could be given in principle to a theoretically different design). The official statement of reasons at the end seemed to include some details that weren’t actually discussed which was also odd - I suspect it was designed to make sure as many as possible regulatory boxes were ticked. There was also some suggestion that planning dept had thought the proposal was so “not possible because MoL” that it shouldn’t have made it to the committee in the first place. I’m guessing the local councillor who spoke in favour of the proposal may have had a hand in getting it on the agenda. All in all a bit of a strange one / interesting precedent - you can watch on YouTube.

For info Southwark is planning to update its Parking Enforcement Protocol, principally to reduce / in some cases remove the 5 min observation time before a ticket can be issued, for various types of contravention https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50032081

This paper from think tank Centre for London is worth a read in particular the suggestions of various ways councils could use controlled parking to achieve their policy aims (eg capping numbers of residents permits , not giving new residents an automatic right to a permit as a means of reducing car ownership) https://centreforlondon.org/reader/parking-kerbside-mangement/ The report was part funded by various councils ( not Southwark) so imagine these are options that will be given serious consideration.

Just for info there’s a fairly clear statement of the council’s position in the response to public questions submitted to last night’s Council Assembly https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s115573/Public questions report with responses.pdf As well as the car owners v non car owners fairness point, there’s also the point that it’s not fair for car owners in some parts of the borough to have to pay for parking permits, while others don’t. That was mentioned in the cabinet meeting as a reason for why the council believe the borough-wide roll out has a popular mandate ie it is likely to be supported not just by non car owners but also by car owners living in areas that currently have CPZs. Haven’t watched last night’s meeting but video is here Streets for People promo video here

Officer proposals on various double yellow lines, moving bays, cycle hangars etc in Southwark including local area https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IssueId=50031878&OptionNum=0

Whole subject of borough wide CPZ discussed at yesterday’s cabinet meeting. Documents here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7677 YouTube here (sound quality very poor at start but improves later on.) watch from start, includes deputations from Living Streets and Nunhead CPZ objectors. Cllr McAsh acknowledges change of CPZ approach and says it’s required as a matter of justice - non car owners should not subsididise use of public space by car owners etc. Haven’t watched it all yet but worth a watch if this is an issue you are interested in.

I see there are a lot of public questions on this issue tabled for tomorrow’s council assembly meeting https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s115428/Public question report.pdf