Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Or to put it another way, CPZ revenue is used to fund LTNs as well as other things. The two are interlinked, something that up until very recently you denied. Why? 

It is you that keeps mentioning a conspiracy, I haven't. Another attempt to deflect and misrepresent? 

 

"Road safety and public realm improvements would include things like filtered streets, bike lanes, expanded pedestrian spaces etc."

On 20/12/2024 at 08:39, Earl Aelfheah said:

Yes, it is. If you read my previous post I have listed some of the ways it can be used. 

On 17/12/2024 at 12:13, Earl Aelfheah said:

The use of any surplus that results from parking is strictly governed by legislation and is tightly controlled. It can only be used for activities specified in Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended). These activities include:

  • public realm improvements
  • road safety initiatives
  • freedom passes for disabled people and people over 60

(👆🏾this one)

Road safety and public realm improvements would include things like filtered streets, bike lanes, expanded pedestrian spaces etc.

 

...and again, this is a thread about CPZ. Not an LTN introduced 4 years ago. Not about someone being annoyed they got caught in a bus lane. 

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

"Road safety and public realm improvements would include things like filtered streets, bike lanes, expanded pedestrian spaces etc."

 

...and again, this is a thread about CPZ. Not an LTN introduced 4 years ago. Not about someone being annoyed they got caught in a bus lane. 

And again, CPZ, and LTNs are interlinked. Maybe bus lane violations also help fund LTNs?

The DV LTN has improved safety how and for who?

4 minutes ago, first mate said:

Maybe bus lane violations also help fund LTNs?

We now have multiple threads about an individual having got caught driving in a bus lane and how this is not a consequence of their actions, but somehow a Southwark Council conspiracy.

...it's rather embarassing.

  • Like 2
2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The council cannot introduce a CPZ for the purposes of generating income. If you think that this is what they're doing, then you should make a complaint to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman.

Yet any revenue surplus they do raise can be used on projects like LTNs.....hmmmmmm...seems like there might be a loophole appearing there.....do you not see the issue here? Why on earth have revenues increased so massively over the last few years from fines etc and the council seemingly trying to force revenue generating CPZs on everyone whether they want it or not?

Do you not see the disconnect from your position and the action of the council? Generating revenue from these measures seems to be a huge priority - they aren't doing that for the sake of it?

By the way does anyone know what the Environment Reserve gets spent on? That's a huge chunk of the revenue generated from CPZs/PCNs etc.

Edited by Rockets
  • Agree 1
1 hour ago, Rockets said:

By the way does anyone know what the Environment Reserve gets spent on?

I’m not sure (so stand to be corrected), but I think it’s an investment pot to fund projects tackling the impacts of climate change over the next decade or two. If you email your councillor I’m sure they could give you more info.

If anyone has any clue what the Environment Reserve is spent on that would be good to know as £6m is a bit chunk of cash and when I looked at the full accounts for the council I could find detail on a lot of the reserves but not the environment one.

On 03/01/2025 at 21:37, Rockets said:

If anyone has any clue what the Environment Reserve is spent on that would be good to know as £6m is a bit chunk of cash and when I looked at the full accounts for the council I could find detail on a lot of the reserves but not the environment one.

It would be interesting to learn more about this.


The CPZ in the main part of Calton Avenue is now live but penalty free until 20th.  There are no markings in the road nor any kerbside signs. Just a sign fixed to the Belisha beacon at the zebra crossing close to the Woodwarde Road junction and one on a lamppost at the junction with Townley Road. See attached photos. Both could be easily missed by drivers.

It appears that parking is only allowed for one hour. No visible information about obtaining a permit. Perhaps it’s only a temporary arrangement……….

IMG_0792.jpeg

IMG_0790.jpeg

IMG_0789.jpeg

On 08/01/2025 at 20:16, Glemham said:


The CPZ in the main part of Calton Avenue is now live but penalty free until 20th.  There are no markings in the road nor any kerbside signs. Just a sign fixed to the Belisha beacon at the zebra crossing close to the Woodwarde Road junction and one on a lamppost at the junction with Townley Road. See attached photos. Both could be easily missed by drivers.

It appears that parking is only allowed for one hour. No visible information about obtaining a permit. Perhaps it’s only a temporary arrangement……….

IMG_0792.jpeg

IMG_0790.jpeg

IMG_0789.jpeg

Can someone clarify this sign please? Does it mean even with a permit you can only park for an hour or if you dont have a permit you can still park for up to an hour? I assume its the latter but then why does it say "permit holders parking only past this point"?

Edited by sandyman

Very confusing signage - clearly for DV as all of the CPZ signs refer to the "DV" zone. 

 

To Glenham and Sandyman's point what is that sign supposed to mean:

- one hour for permit holders between those hours?

- one hour for anyone who isn't a permit holder outside those hours?

- one hour for anyone outside those times?

 

Perhaps someone should get Southwark News to take a look as the councillors do respond to them much more quickly than constituents?

I presume Cllr McAsh is the one responsible for signing this stuff off?

 

Edited by Rockets

Surely resident permit holders can park at any time but what I don't understand is that if you can park for an hour during the restricted times how does that reduce parents driving to and from school to drop off and pick up children?  Or was it that local residents didn't want school staff parking in the streets all day?  And is this free but time restricted parking or will pay machines be installed?  I'm confused.

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

Very confusing signage - clearly for DV as all of the CPZ signs refer to the "DV" zone. 

 

To Glenham and Sandyman's point what is that sign supposed to mean:

- one hour for permit holders between those hours?

- one hour for anyone who isn't a permit holder outside those hours?

- one hour for anyone outside those times?

 

Perhaps someone should get Southwark News to take a look as the councillors do respond to them much more quickly than constituents?

I presume Cllr McAsh is the one responsible for signing this stuff off?

 

Actually if I was to put money on it I'd bet it's a fourth option:

One hour for non permit holders within those hours (and unrestricted outside those hours).

but it is utterly confusing.

By the way, I think the signs might have been put high because when they were lower they were vandalised and this post is right by a bench for easy vandalism access.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But it was under our electoral system in 2019! This must be part of the right-wing media conspiracy that did for Corbyn....;-) Corbyn was very closely allied to Unite and Len....
    • Goose Green Ward Panel Meeting   Date: 24th of July 2025, 7pm Location: East Dulwich Picturehouse | 116A Lordship Lane | London SE22 8HD    Safer Neighbourhoods Team (SNT) will be holding a ward panel meeting at East Dulwich Picturehouse on Thursday 24th July 2025 from 7pm. Please come along to talk about the priorities for the community and how local police can help.  
    • Eh? That wasn't "my quote"! If you look at your post above,it is clearly a quote by Rockets! None of us have any  idea what a Corbyn led government during Covid would have been like. But do you seriously think it would have been worse than Johnson's self-serving performance? What you say about the swing of seats away from Labour in 2019 is true. But you have missed my point completely. The fact that Labour under Corbyn got more than ten million votes does not mean that Corbyn was "unelectable", does it? The present electoral system is bonkers, which is why a change is apparently on the cards. Anyway, it is pointless discussing this, because we are going round in circles. As for McCluskey, whatever the truth of that report, I can't see what it has to do with Corbyn?
    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...