Parking Permits, parking charges etc

[MrsR]

Road Traffic Acts

LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK

VARIATION OF RESIDENT VISITOR PERMITS, PERMITS, PAID FOR PARKING, CAR PARK SEASON TICKETS AND SUSPENSION FEES

 

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4297157

[first mate]

4 minutes ago, MrsR said:

Road Traffic Acts

LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK

VARIATION OF RESIDENT VISITOR PERMITS, PERMITS, PAID FOR PARKING, CAR PARK SEASON TICKETS AND SUSPENSION FEES

 

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4297157

Given, Cllr Rose' personal commitment to ensuring the whole borough is CPZ, before long this will apply to everyone, and not just those who own a car. 

Edited May 25, 2023 by first mate

[Abe_froeman]

Quote

Abe_froeman

•  
• Member
• •  1.4k

•  

Posted March 4, 2021

Hello James

 

I understand that the council intend to implement a CPZ in this and all the other wards in East Dulwich, in spite of the views already expressed by the people who live here.

 

On the basis of what you said below, will you resign if this happens?

 

 

"Posted by jamesmcash 01 May, 2019 23:33

 

Before I was elected last year and when I was a Labour candidate, I was frequently asked about controlled parking. Whether the person questioning me was for or against I always said the same thing: a CPZ should only be implemented if local residents want it"

 

jamesmcash

•  
• Member
• •  330

• Author

Posted March 9, 2021

 

 

 

Abe_froeman

I believe you're referring to a paper that was wrongly published, without the knowledge of either local ward councillors or the relevant Cabinet Member. There are no plans to implement a further CPZ in East Dulwich.

[first mate]

Abe, 

If you listen through the most recent council scrutiny session on environment and community engagement commission, chaired by Cllr Margy Newens ( it is on youtube) Cllr Rose states it is her ambition and intention to see the whole of Southwark made CPZ.

[Spartacus]

Whilst I get that it's her intention, does she say what benefit it offers residents? 

[first mate]

Watch from about 44:24

Cllr Rose explains the rationale and then refers to when there is controlled parking throughout the borough.

she also talks about how when every car owner must hold a permit the council can collect much more detailed data on what sort of vehicle is owned, size, weight, engine size etc.. and this will allow a more nuanced approach to charging. She and Margy Newens refer to research on pollution from tyres and so while ownership of electric vehicles is being, as Rose says, "incentivised" she also notes that they are heavier, so this may change how they are charged down the line.

In terms of benefits to the public...fewer cars so the spaces occupied by cars can be freed up for other things..think many more bike hangars, now to also house some of the hire e-bikes and scooters and more places to park/store more two wheeled vehicles on the street. Southwark aim to be the first borough to take provision of bike hangars in house.

They are also mulling over woodburners and gas hobs.

[Spartacus]

Like I asked, what benefit does it really offer to residents ? 

I can see what it offers the council!

[Abe_froeman]

We get to give more of our money to them. That is the benfit to us.

It was obvious two years ago when they accidentally published that document that were coming for the roads that aren't CPZ yet.

They will. Regardless of what people who pay for them actually want.

[malumbu]

Well actually the money goes to all residents in the borough to provide services etc which has to be a good thing.  So if you think about it like this you will be much happier.  In fact I will thank you for your good citizenship. 

[Andrea Mac]

On 26/05/2023 at 14:20, malumbu said:

Well actually the money goes to all residents in the borough to provide services etc which has to be a good thing.  So if you think about it like this you will be much happier.  In fact I will thank you for your good citizenship. 

 

On 26/05/2023 at 14:20, malumbu said:

Well actually the money goes to all residents in the borough to provide services etc which has to be a good thing.  So if you think about it like this you will be much happier.  In fact I will thank you for your good citizenship. 

It is illegal for the money to be used for anything other than running the scheme and highway maintenance. 

[Penguin68]

But not to make no provision for expenditure on roads but to use your budget to spend on other things. That's the problem with such hypothecation. It's meant to be additional expenditure, of course, but there's nothing in law to stop it being wholly substitutional. Southwark intends to make the 40-50% of households (more in the south of the borough) with cars pay for the whole of the road and pavements in Southwark. Those without cars still get full and untrammeled use of those roads and pavements of course... What price equity, eh?