Dulwich Village area-wide CPZ consultation is back!

[malumbu]

But wouldn't CPZs help improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions Rocks?  Would you not agree with my earlier post?  Don't you think it is good that some local authorities are trying to do something whilst Sunak goes into reverse with Starmer not far behind him?

[first mate]

 

Posted Friday at 11:20

"Is anyone going to the CPZ meeting at the Library tonight?"

 

Did anyone manage to get to the meeting? Can they say what happened?

Edited December 19, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

14 hours ago, malumbu said:

But wouldn't CPZs help improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions Rocks?  Would you not agree with my earlier post? 

No, because there is absolutely nothing to suggest CPZs reduce the number of cars or the number of journeys. In fact there are many who think, like LTNs, they increase journey length and duration - especially in the increasingly online delivery world we live in.

 

CPZs are yet another intervention where councils try desperately to convince people that they are doing it for the environment - which is utter nonsense.  Look we need to ground this in the fact that LTNs were promised to reduce car ownership yet within the Brixton LTN car ownership went up by 8% after the LTNs were put in so those that make these claims often don't have a track-record to suggest they should be believed on anything.....;-)

 

CPZs having a positive impact on the environment is about as believable as suggesting they are needed in Dulwich Village because of "parking pressure" - a fanciful dream thrown out there to dupe the dupable!

 

[first mate]

On 19/12/2023 at 13:16, Rockets said:

No, because there is absolutely nothing to suggest CPZs reduce the number of cars or the number of journeys. In fact there are many who think, like LTNs, they increase journey length and duration - especially in the increasingly online delivery world we live in.

 

CPZs are yet another intervention where councils try desperately to convince people that they are doing it for the environment - which is utter nonsense.  Look we need to ground this in the fact that LTNs were promised to reduce car ownership yet within the Brixton LTN car ownership went up by 8% after the LTNs were put in so those that make these claims often don't have a track-record to suggest they should be believed on anything.....;-)

 

CPZs having a positive impact on the environment is about as believable as suggesting they are needed in Dulwich Village because of "parking pressure" - a fanciful dream thrown out there to dupe the dupable!

 

Not only this, if the council were genuinely interested in improving the environment they would not be interested in farming out our green parks for large scale commercial events that do wreck the environment, chopping down mature trees to make it easier for contractors.

I am not trying to change or sabotage this thread but just trying to show why the justification for CPZ is greenwashing, because the council are not being consistent in their approach to 'saving' the environment.

[Rockets]

https://twitter.com/DulwichCleanAir/status/1756953535885828193?s=19

 

So if this is correct that of the 586 households the person doing the door-to-door survey over the last few months 90% said they were against the CPZs and 87% found it easy to park then if anything like that sort of response is seen in the official council consultation it will be fascinating to see what the council do next and if they dare force the CPZ on people with a mayoral election approaching (interestingly on that we got a flyer from Sadiq and London Labour saying don't vote for the Greens of Lib Dems as it could let the Tories in - I think Sadiq might be worried).

 

Bravo to that person for their efforts in knocking on so many households to garner their thoughts.

[Spartacus]

Obviously nearly 90% of the responders will be excluded for living 10 feet from the Road leaving only a handful of yes responses 😉 

[Spartacus]

When are we due the results of all 3 consultations? 

[Charles Martel]

On 15/02/2024 at 08:33, Spartacus said:

When are we due the results of all 3 consultations? 

I am not sure how official this is , but I just seen the following posted on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1766369274073932080

The account belongs to a local activist group and the message has councillor McAsh tagged in.  It would appear to show the Dulwich Village CPZ reduced in size to the immediate area around the two schools.

At present there seems to be no mention of this on the Southwark council consultation hub.  However there has been a significant 1984 Ministry of Truth style revision to the consultation itself.  Where previously it had read “What will the council do with the income?”. This has now been changed to bring it in line with the relevant legislation which prohibits the use of a CPZ for raising income.  It is very nice to see for the very first time in this whole CPZ debacle a council document relating to CPZ policy that actually names the relevant legislation and acknowledges the limits it imposes. Obviously it would have saved a great deal of time, money and effort if the simple fact of the law had been acknowledged from the start rather than the “borough-wide CPZ because I say so” fantasy of councillor McAsh and all his little activist friends. 

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/option2-dulwichvillage-stage2-cpz/

[Charles Martel]

On 15/02/2024 at 08:33, Spartacus said:

When are we due the results of all 3 consultations? 

There are links to the results of all three consultations in the latest post from opposethecpz.org.

https://opposethecpz.org/2024/03/11/twtw-9-march-2024/

[Rockets]

Wow - just the circa £1.5m of tax-payers money being spent on the DV junction...but just remember folks the council hasn't got enough money to put in cycle hangers or fix street lighting.....but they have found £1.5m to make more changes the majority of people who responded to the consultation can't see the purpose of and clearly don't agree with.....

 

I would love to know whether that parking revenue projection was based on a successful area-wide CPZ roll-out.

 

https://twitter.com/DulwichCleanAir/status/1772173826446459346?s=19

[Spartacus]

Makes you think Rocks, makes you think 🤔 

[Rockets]

Makes me think the council is happily trying to pull the wool over people's eyes....£1.5m - there can't be anyone who thinks this is money well spent when there are clearly far more pressing needs elsewhere in the transport remit - instead the council is, for reasons known only to themselves, throwing money at a junction that has had a fortune thrown at it already.

 

The council are treating people like fools but unfortunately a lot of people seem to be happy to be fooled.

[malumbu]

Not everyone who posts on EDF is against these sorts of measures.  Has anyone who doesn't like the project and/or spend complained to LBS, or taken things further to the Ombudsman?  I was going to suggest the Audit Commission who took a wider look on local authority spending but they were disbanded by government and not sure if the NAO has a remit beyond Whitehall spending and efficiency. Dangerous as some have pointed out that government exploits the divisions in their anti woke manufactured culture wars agenda, no great impact yet and hope most will see beyond this.  Local elections the start 

[Rockets]

P.S. admin I posted the DV junction comment in the wrong thread - the discussion from my post yesterday should actually be in this thread 

 

 

Malumbu, the majority of the 990 respondents (80% of whom said they live in Dulwich) tried to voice their opinions during the consultation but the council ignored them (see below).

 

But really Malumbu £1.5m on a change to a junction that has already had a huge amount of cash spent on it that needs one alteration (Cyclists Dismount) to make it safer for everyone and at a time when the council is pleading poverty and asking the public to help it fund cycle hangers and street lighting - does that seem like a smart way to spend the money? It suggests to me it may not be a funding issue but a funding priority issue and this council clearly has it's priorities very, very wrong in light of this and really makes you wonder whether they can be trusted with our money - it seems frittering money on vanity projects to keep a few advocates happy is very much back on the agenda.