East Dulwich CPZ

[legalalien]

I don't know, but when you think about it, if there's an approved borough-wide Movement Plan that says "CPZ everywhere", it's difficult to see how the result of a statutory consultation on a particular CPZ would come out other than in favour of the CPZ unless there were some very specific objections that couldn't be ignored?

There's an interesting situation in Bermondsey as they seem to have run a consultation in May, then decided to implement, then realised that the consultation info hadn't got to many people in lock-down, and are now re-consulting. The report says this:

Stat consultation May '20. Objections received but placed on hold due to complaints about order advertising in lockdown. Stat consultation to be re-run May '21 with enhanced publicity. Implementation 2021

(article in Southwark News here: https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/cpz-extended-in-bermondsey-after-council-says-there-were-no-objections/?cmpredirect).

[Penguin68]

it's difficult to see how the result of a statutory consultation on a particular CPZ would come out other than in favour of the CPZ unless there were some very specific objections that couldn't be ignored?

You're probably right, but it says all we need to know about this council that the wants or needs of their constituents are irrelevant to their plans. We only get one go at democracy, on one day every 3 years (or more if they can postpone the polls). Maybe the next time we get the chance we shouldn't blow it on knee jerk 'we are all left wing here' responses. When socialism used to have some relationship to democracy and the will of the people. Long past in Southwark, I fear.

[Siduhe]

For those who are interested, here is the timeline for CPZs to be extended throughout Southwark. Presumably this overrides the previous "no area that doesn't want a CPZ will have one imposed on it" position.

[n dulwich northerner]

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't know, but when you think about it, if

> there's an approved borough-wide Movement Plan

> that says "CPZ everywhere", it's difficult to see

> how the result of a statutory consultation on a

> particular CPZ would come out other than in favour

> of the CPZ unless there were some very specific

> objections that couldn't be ignored?

Not necessarily.

As I think I posted somewhere up this thread, the first N Dulwich CPZ proposal was ditched after negative feedback to a consultation. Subsequently new CPZs in nearby Lambeth and around HH had a domino effect and displaced parking into the NDL area, and residents had changed their minds before the second consultation. So if you don't want one, do say so.

Also give them feedback on the hours affected, because they do have practical impacts. 12-2 is fine here in these more residential streets and lets visitors avoid the charges, but all-day as in E Dulwich is more awkward and would damage local shops, for example.

[legalalien]

That's a good point - plenty of room to discuss / influence detail, not just talk about the point of principle. Given how much I moan about LTN arguments being too binary I should have been thinking along those lines. Maybe we could all look to frame the inevitable CPZ debates along those lines rather than CPZ good v CPZ bad...

[Rockets]

It is going to be interesting to see how this develops because whilst they show ED as having a CPZ (and I did laugh at how the council focusses on income already being accounted - cher-ching! ;-) ) of course it is only a limited area of parts of ED so hopefully there can be a sensible debate on where these are/if these are needed - of course there's no commuter parking (or in many parts parking problems) to help "justify" these measures! Or maybe we will see a another raft of council led interventions to extend double yellows etc to create parking pressure!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Would be good to have price brackets; with higher charges for bigger vehicles / large SUVs.

[n dulwich northerner]

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's a good point - plenty of room to discuss /

> influence detail, not just talk about the point of

> principle. Given how much I moan about LTN

> arguments being too binary I should have been

> thinking along those lines. Maybe we could all

> look to frame the inevitable CPZ debates along

> those lines rather than CPZ good v CPZ bad...

Yes, and another detail to question is the 75% or ?100 discount for hybrid, electric and dual fuel vehicles. It's not a significant incentive to buy one, and they occupy the same amount of parking space. If you're consulted about a CPZ, there's no need for this discount.

[Spartacus]

Amazing

So after getting a resounding no from east dulwich and still slipping in a partial CPZ, southwark want to try again. What's this attempt 4 in the past 25 years if my memory serves me well...

[Chick]

We motorists are really nothing but cash cows to them

[Penguin68]

We motorists are really nothing but cash cows to them

I think you'll find that's polluting, poisonous, despicable cash cows who must be driven (sic) out of the borough

[legalalien]

I'm not actually sure it's about the cash (although that must help). Perhaps I'm naive, but I think it's a response to a top down policy about Climate Emergency/ Climate Change. The Council wanted to make a big statement by declaring a Climate Emergency, after discussion with groups demanding strong action, such as Extinction Rebellion Southwark - so they did that. The reality on the ground is that given budget constraints, legal constraints, political considerations - they can't take all the actions that the big statement and the headline goals about reductions in carbon usage and cars require. They are left with smaller tools at their disposal and as many papers say, road closures and parking restrictions are the things that they can control - they go into the category of "quick wins". Hence the Movement Plan / LTNs / new plan for parking restrictions.

There is also a tension between different groups pushing for eg CPZ. Some people advocate fewer cars (those supporting LTNs and removal of parking for all cars as a means of reducing motor traffic) for reasons related to fair usage of streets/ play streets/ climate and pollution considerations; others advocate supporting a shift to electric vehicles (which Southwark has signed up to and committed to roll out of charging points), also on grounds of pollution etc considerations. The former would argue for high rates of parking charges that don't discriminate by type of vehicle, and the latter would want charges to vary according to type of vehicle. The Council is doubtless a bit conflicted on the pro EV vs anti-all cars front. Meanwhile, Extinction Rebellion are plastering posters around ED criticising Southwark's lack of action.

I would like to think there is a compromise to be had. But the "Emergency" part of the Climate Emergency means that anyone coming from that perspective thinks that compromise is disastrous and a kind of "ends justify means" approach is genuinely warranted. That pushes against some core ideas that we have about democracy, particularly at a local level.

some random musing, as usual.

[Chick]

If you want to be morally pure you need to give up gas central heating, electricity, internet, mobile phones and go live in a cave and eat berries.

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We motorists are really nothing but cash cows to

> them

>

> I think you'll find that's polluting, poisonous,

> despicable cash cows who must be driven (sic) out

> of the borough

[Penguin68]

If you want to be morally pure you need to give up gas central heating, electricity, internet, mobile phones and go live in a cave and eat berries.

You've set your irony filter too high. I was making fun of them, not endorsing their views.

[Chick]

Oops.

I am off to find a cave.

>

> You've set your irony filter too high. I was

> making fun of them, not endorsing their views.

[apbremer]

They'll only be happy when we're all off to Sainsbury's on donkeys. In the meantime the Chinese are building lots and lots of coal fired power stations.

[monica]

Parking is definitely very challenging, ever since the CPZ was implemented, its very difficult to find a parking space. I work in ED, I don't live in ED, however I commute from Shirley to ED. If the CPZ were implemented borough wide, then I dare say, many of the shopkeepers who work in ED, would have to buy a Business parking permit yearly, at ?750 a year. The selfish few who are determined to get the CPZ implemented are not seeing the bigger picture, they have forgotten about the shop workers, who are in ED from the early hours providing ED with food, essential items etc.

I may have to get 3 buses to work, if the CPZ is implemented.

[geh]

from memory the last proposals limited businesses to 2 permits each, not great for the larger employers in ED like.... all of the pubs & restaurants, the architects, the larger retailers, the builders, the bakers, the banks, the gyms, the physios, the...... it goes on!

[legalalien]

That parking document seems to have disappeared off the Southwark website, when I try the link I posted originally, I get a log in box. Presumably it wasn't meant to be made public? Well done Siduhe for posting the timetable above... I'm guessing one of the sensitivities is that it had a detailed breakdown of parking spaces on council estates and the plans to introduce paid parking there...

ETA or cynically, perhaps we weren't supposed to be told about the ones that are scheduled for after the next set of council elections...

[tedfudge]

Personally I think it's the council trying to grab more money from motorists in southwark as they have got to try and make some more money after what they have lost through covid and government cuts. My household has 2 cars which are used for work as we both work nights all over different parts of London so cannot use public transport. How about instead of 20 people voting on this they send out voting papers to every resident in southwark who owns a vehicle surely that would be a fair and democratic vote.

[Siduhe]

The report has been removed from the agenda but the item is still on for discussion.

Parking briefing . In November the commission asked for a briefing on planned CPZs, parking permits and parking spaces, both on estates and street kerbside, by Ward. This is a follow up from the previous administrative year and linked to a recommendation in the previous air quality report that the kerbside ought to be considered a public amenity and repurposed for active travel.

[legalalien]

I have posted some photos of the original document on the "streets info" thread if anyone wants to read it.

[legalalien]

Just wondering whether an increase in CPZ income might be factored into next year's budget - indeed it is, ?422K which I think is increased income including through further roll out across the borough this year - see page 17 of the PDF - Appendix C. Am wondering where parking/ traffic fines are factored in but have yet to find that. Long time since I studied accounting at school.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6774/Public%20reports%20pack%20Wednesday%2024-Feb-2021%2019.00%20Council%20Assembly.pdf?T=10

ETA - there is a random ?210k "uplift in fees and charges" from Environment and Leisure, plus garden waste bin collection going up by ?10 a year.

EATA: looking at the equality section in the budget document as it deals with CPZ - says "The movement plan Equality Analysis has been presented and identifies a positive impact.". Interesting to see whether a general equality analysis of the Movement Plan, as opposed to an equality assessment of specific actions, holds up in light of the TfL/taxi case (which is on appeal at present).

But more significantly, just goes to show how entrenched the idea of the CPZ roll out is. Presumably these figures relate to the schemes currently consulted on, would be interesting to know whether they include figures for the Bermondsey area on which the council has been forced to re-consult.