Richard Livingstone & Councillors make a commitment on the CPZ decisions

[Zak]

Will Councillor Richard Livingstone and the Goose Green Councillors keep to their word, in relation to the CPZ decisions?

Following the meeting of the Dulwich Community Council on 29th January I wrote to Councillor Livingstone asking for clarification as to how the decisions relating to the CPZs would be taken. I wrote:

?At the Dulwich Community Council meeting on 29th January, Councillor Andy Simmons (the chair) was asked about how a decision would be taken on whether to proceed with the CPZ after the consultation had taken place. In response, he assured the meeting that ?Southwark wouldn?t proceed to the next stage (i.e. of taking a CPZ forward to a Statutory Traffic Order Consultation) if the majority were to say ?no? to a CPZ ? This undertaking was endorsed by Councillor James McAsh in conversation at the end of the meeting.

?... I hope you?re willing to uphold the democratic principles, to which I know the Labour party adheres, by agreeing to a decision being taken on a majority view in respect of both consultations?.

I went on to point out that last time there had been a CPZ Consultation in East Dulwich, in 2012, Councillor Peter John had written to residents in to reassure them that the result of the consultation would indeed be honoured (see attached). ?Be assured? he wrote ?if objections outweigh support, there will be no CPZ?. They did and there was no CPZ. .

Richard Livingstone wrote back to me:

?Cllr John?s and Cllr Ward?s letter uses the word ?outweigh? rather than majority. Clearly, we would be unlikely to proceed with the CPZ if there was a groundswell of opposition to it from local residents".

Regards

Councillor Richard Livingstone

Cabinet member for Environment, Transport Management and Air Quality

Weasel words?

If one body of opinion outweighs another, then it must surely represent the majority! If that was good enough for the Leader of the Council last time round, then it should be good enough for Richard Livingstone- especially since our local councillors have stated their support for accepting the majority view.

[first mate]

Could this mean that objections must be qualified instead of being a straight 'no'? I'd be interested to know why Cllr Livingstone prefers the word 'outweigh' to 'majority'

[singalto]

First mate, wriggle room to ignore us if the majority say no thank you? As in ?the needs of the few outweigh those of the many.?

[MarkT]

I would hope anyway that the Council would be doing this for reasons other than that people want it. Is this supposed to be aimed at greater social benefit?

Less pollution? if so they should be considering whether a CPZ leads to fewer vehicles moving through the Zone or through the Borough. or whether the planted screen outweighs the loss of front gardens and hedges to off street parking.

Safer streets? if so they should be open to argument and gathering evidence on the affect of CPZ on the speed of rat-runners.

Reducing need to travel? Then they should be considering the affect on local business - shops, tradespeople.

Community wellbeing? carers, special needs, improving access to community facilities.

Harmony? if people vote yes in the hope that they can park in front of their door, will they be happy when they discover their streets are even more filled with their neighbours vehicles, with less space to park for all the yellow lines. (0.71 cars per household)

I would hope that good reasons from a numerical minority should "outweigh" a majority of wanties simply voting yes.

MarkT

[Penguin68]

I think we all know how politicians treat the outcome of plebiscites, let alone self selecting 'research'. They will do what they want, arguing that they know best. Consulting the people, insulting the people - same difference to some people. A majority of the apparat want a CPZ - well if the people get the vote wrong, ignore the people.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

It's worth remembering that the 'consultation' on the Village junction at Turney Road/Court Lane came back with a resounding 'no' and yet they went ahead with it. And what a debacle that's turned out to be.

[Rockets]

They will create a subset of a subset of a subset to justify going ahead with the CPZ and to get them to the "outweigh" threshold they require - i.e. +1 in favour. They have already said they will discount the 8,000 signatures against the proposals collected by Lordship Lane traders and their website to garner responses is carefully designed to ensure they engineer a favourable result.

Livingstone is moving the goalposts cos he knows the majority don't want it. As I have said before the Labour slogan has recently been changed to For the Few, Not the Many!!!

[Jennys]

Is there any news from Southwark on the proposed East Dulwich CPZ.

[Hare]

There was a representation to accompany the traders? petition, signed by circa 10k people, at the full assembly meeting of Southwark Council tonight, followed by a deputation from residents of streets off Grove Vale and East Dulwich Grove, making the case for a localised CPZ around their streets. Full proceedings can be viewed on this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuunqOt42NU

The meeting was informed that the consultation responses are being analysed road by road before an officer report is prepared and that will be published online at Southwark.gov.uk, some time between mid and late April in readiness for discussion at the Dulwich Community Council meeting at 2.30pm on Saturday 27th April 2019. It was reiterated by Cllr Livingstone that the final decision rested with him.