Lol I once travelled around our luscious green belt with my old boss to take snaps of beautiful land protected from the development of new housing. This is what we found. http://www.siobhainmcdonagh.org.uk/campaigns/londons-green-belt.aspx
Allow me to paraphrase.
You visited a run-down outer borough of London and cherry-picked an ugly piece of green belt land to photograph.
You used this anecdote as the basis of an opinion piece to promote building housing over green belt land to further your two tier housing policy.
The effect of your policy, aside from concreting over precious green space, is to artificially reduce prices for some residents (mostly Labour voters) while increasing prices for everyone else.
@PV erroneously stated that it’s developers that fund affordable housing. It’s not. The cost of building these houses is actually passed to us - the taxpayers who are only allowed to buy the more expensive tranche of housing from those developers.
Luckily, since you’re a London politician you have little power to concrete over our green belt. You are a safe distance from the areas of outstanding natural beauty that exist in Tory-voting “shires”
Source please? Could it not be the case that the cost is sucked up by the developer as a condition of the planning process and that the sale price of the accomodation is largely set by the wider market? I doubt that if these conditions were disapplied the developer would generously cut costs of their other properties.
2 Likes
Basic arithmetic.
Developers don’t have a magic money tree that they can use to fund the changing whims of politicians.
Developers exist in the real world, where money is finite and costs must be passed to customers.
No need to be so patronising Chris 
Of course, developments aren’t built and sold at cost price, there’s a profit margin that can grow and shrink dependent upon costs without necessarily passing those costs on to consumers. Losing income due to inclusion of affordable rents doesn’t necessarily mean other rents must be higher, it might still be profitable for the developer, and raising their other rents may make their properties uncompetitive. I accept this isn’t guaranteed to be the case, but you’re wrong to act like it’s stupid to think otherwise.
Thank you for your response, which is an interesting insight as I believe some of the councillors’ discussions were held outside the planning meeting for the Blackheath development and so not seen or minuted (that’s not a criticism by the way, just process).
While there may be a housing crisis and targets to meet, I still don’t understand the argument for ‘densification’. I think people love London because of all the opportunities, both in work and leisure, that are offered - normally there’s literally so much to do here. But most of this involves travel - entertainment venues are spread out and places of work are varied and all over the place.
Given London transport networks are essentially full, it doesn’t seem like there should be capacity to keep building upwards when we can’t easily provide transport or services to match.
I guess the Covid global recession changes some things with remote working and such, but it also seems to be cutting back public transport e.g. Bakerloo line extension postponed, TfL cutting services. This can only push towards more private vehicles, congestion, traffic and pollution.
I think ‘densification’ could only work if you were to create lots of little communities which could each be completely satisfied within a few square miles (i.e. an area that can practically be walked or cycled), something like a series of villages as it were, but I think London grew beyond that model some centuries ago.
3 Likes
So you’re the councillor who expected me to know how many lives the ULEZ will save within the North and South Circular and yet you don’t even know what’s going on just down the road!
At least you’re now, belatedly, going to try to learn what these mitigation measures are and you’ll be sharing that info on here - and I, for one, would be very grateful to you for doing that, so thank you.
1 Like
I assume you mean “most people who live on Thorpewood” and that there has been a door to door survey to support that? I can tell you that no such survey has been carried out on adjacent streets and I do not believe that most people support this divisive decision. Certainly the Conways worker who erected the huge sign at the bottom of my drive, preventing me from reversing onto it from now on, meaning I shall now have to reverse out on to what will become a very busy road, said he had received very negative comments from a steam of upset Thorpewood Avenue neighbours.
2 Likes
Thank you for your warm engagement with your local councillors.
Also, I wasn’t expected you to literally know the specific figures or estimates to answer that question. I was merely asking that question to trigger some thought about what the ULEZ expansion might offer the millions living within the North & South Circular, as well as impact it might have on those living with 0.5 mile of the South Circular.
A bit smug or what!
I didn’t ask for your sarcastic reply to my post but once you’d slung your handbag at me I couldn’t resist the Hermes uppercut.
Anyway, handbags at dawn done-&-dusted, I ended up by genuinely thanking you for taking our question on board.
I hope you’re okay with it now because we will no doubt meet sooner or later and you will then realise that I’m not the horror that I may appear to be on here.
5 Likes
I too am concerned about the impact the ULEZ extension will have on the South Circular and main roads just outside the extension.
I think it is a genuine and understandable concern and I don’t understand why this question was responded to as it was by the councillor on the thread, and echo the other poster on this, of course the south circular and the road just outside it will be a concern to people in this area as we are talking about concentrating all the most polluting vehicles here potentially?
Who should I contact to find out about the mitigation measures and raise a concern? Is it better to contact local representatives directly rather than raise on this forum? We are talking about a road with illegal pollution levels getting potentially higher illegal levels here I think, but maybe there is some analysis which suggests this will not be the case? Genuine question, I really don’t know and would like to know!
4 Likes
An extension of the ULEZ is a huge step forward to ensure what within a huge slice of London, the tragedies like that of Ella Kissi-Debrah’s death will become far rarer.
Therefore, I was angered by the tone of messages on here dismissing the ULEZ extension such as those saying it a tragic irony that this policy will lead to more untimely deaths - when in fact the evidence shows this policy is likely to save lives.
Now I understand if you have concerns about how the ULEZ extension will personally affect you if you live near or on the South Circular. But I get cross at people who reject policies that on the whole will likely do a great deal of collective good, because they might personally be badly affected by it.
—
As I often say, it is best to contact myself, Sophie and Peter (if you live Forest Hill Ward) directly by email, particularly if you have a specific concern about an issue in the ward. Me and Sophie do scan this forum for casework and occasionally post updates on matters.
2 Likes
While I agree that this is a good thing, and getting from where we are today to where we want to be is a difficult path to plot, the ULEZ is definitely going to increase traffic on and outside it’s border, at least in the short term. Rightly people that will be affected by this have concerns for decreased air quality and health, Ella Kissi-Debrah’s case tragically highlighting this exact link.
As a Forest Hill Councillor, and as others have asked before in this thread, are you able to address these concerns?
Is it certain the ulez will increase traffic on the border? I accept it could, and can see the logic, but equally I expect the ulez will mean some journeys that previously used the south circular as a means to get to a road moving northwards now wont happen, or will use public transport / bicycle, so not only will those vehicles be off the roads in the ulez, they also won’t be using the south circular now.
Really what we’re concerned about is a subset of vehicles: those that are making a journey only from outside the ulez to outside the Ulez + those that would benefit from cutting through the ulez (as an aside, how many is this? My east-west drives always seem to put me on the south circular anyway…) + those that aren’t exempt from the ulez (4 out of 5 cars already are) + those that don’t change vehicle as a result of the ulez + those that choose not to pay and use a longer route instead. All those factors must simultaneously apply before a vehicle might be decamped on the south circular as a result.
On the flip side, south circular traffic could be reduced for every journey where: part of the journey normally uses the south circular + the start or end or stop off is in the ulez + the vehicle is older/more polluting and attracts a ulez charge + the driver chooses not to make the journey or not use a private vehicle. Or that person might switch to a less polluting car so they can continue as before in a less damaging way.
If the volume of vehicles in set A is greater than B then yes, there’ll be an increase in traffic on the south circular at least at first, but if more journeys are replace with alternative means then there could be a reduction. I have no idea what the outcome will be and would also be interested in projections, but I’m not sure we should be certain that the net change will be one way or the other at this point.
Edit:
As a slight aside, I’m struck by the fact that an article about the tragic death of a girl due to pollution has elicited such a reaction against measures to cut pollution. I totally understand the concern that this could move the problem elsewhere, and I hope more data will be available, but I don’t see how that merits such a negative reaction to this scheme.
I also think, rereading the above, comments like this are in poor taste and wrong:
Not only does that come across as hugely insensitive, for all we know many, many lives have been saved within the ULEZ as a result of the cut in pollution. For those looking for stats the below refers to the realised benefits, and I think it is safe to assume that the area within the ULEZ is larger than the line around the periphery.
Traffic emissions are the biggest source of poor air quality. The world’s first 24 hour Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) was implemented in central London in April 2019, and has seen the number of vehicles meeting the tough emission standards rise from 39% in February 2017* to more than 80%. It has also had a transformational impact on air pollution, contributing to a 44% reduction in roadside nitrogen dioxide within its boundaries. That’s why The Mayor of London and TfL are helping to improve air quality across the Capital, by making our transport greener and expanding the Ultra Low Emission Zone.
And for those that would like to see alternative means of of pollution reduction (but also despise anyone but the direct beneficiaries funding projects, and realise we live in a real world with no magic money trees) then good news, because the ULEZ will make this possible:
Where the money goes
Any money received from the ULEZ will be reinvested into improving the transport network - including its cycleways, buses and Tube - and helping to improve London’s air quality. We don’t make a profit and are committed to reducing our costs.
I hope our @Lewisham_Councillors can help us to ensure that SE23 gets a fair share of this money to offset any disproportionate downsides coming our way, but aside from that a lot of the views in this thread are pure NIMBYism, and at times totally contradictory. We can’t have it both ways, we either have to cut pollution or accept the consequences, but neither option is free.
6 Likes
I really appreciate this comprehensive comment PV. As you’ve done before, you’ve articulated my views on this better than I could myself.
I’m all for the ideology of the ulez extension, and not querying the decision behind it’s extension.
It’s more the practicalities of its implementation and what practical measures are being taken to ensure SE23 is not negatively impacted. For example, if we know there is a risk that SE23 may become a giant free car park being just outside of the south circ, with people driving to SE23 and then catching the train to more central locations, then what is being done about that. More pay & displays? more double yellow lines?
I think part of the problem is that it is not clear if there are any risks to SE23 residents, and whether steps are being taken to mitigate said risks.
3 Likes
I agree with all that, would love to see the income from ulez distributed with these things in mind, maybe it could fund the SE23 south circular foest hill bypass tunnel! One can dream.
It may interest others, I’ve been digging around to see if the congestion charge had a measurable negative impact on roads at its circumference. There isn’t much data readily available, but I found one study suggesting a 10% increase in volume on neighboring roads that was then offset by adjustments to signalling (presumably the traffic could flow around the CC zone more efficiently as lights didn’t need to allow as much time for turns in to the CC zone), and the result was no measurable change on journey times on those roads. That doesn’t tell us much re pollution (10% more cars not good for pollution, but seemingly no extra idling at lights/stop start in traffic, and how many cars passing on those roads are more environmentally friendly so that they can enter the zone?), and doubt we can read too much directly in to se23’s circumstances, but may be of general interest.
2 Likes
This question has been around for 2 years and there has been a lot of ideology in answers but little detail as how it could be mitigated. Most official replies always concentrate on the obvious benefits to those in the ULEZ.
The figures given are that the ULEZ expansion will reduce pollution by 30% inside the boundary and 26% outside. I don’t disagree with the 30% as charging £12.50 admission cuts down on the numbers who want to enter and it will probably be a bigger reduction but I queried the 26% and never got a particularly satisfying answer.
There were was one thing pointed out that will reduce pollution in those areas like us that are part of Greater London but outside the ULEZ expansion and that was the LEZ. The Low Emission Zone covers greater London and is getting tighter in March (postponed from October this year). This covers the most polluting vehicles from vans and lorries to coaches. The new standard for HGVs, heavy vans, buses/minibuses and coaches is EURO VI which is the same as the ULEZ. If vehicles don’t meet it they will have to pay a charge of £100 to £300 which is a very good incentive to replace your vehicle. Good news if you are a cyclist and often get stuck behind a van belching out diesel fumes.
This measure won’t significantly affect the volume of traffic but will curtail the heavy polluters.
The volume question for SE23 has always been about the free car park status for residential streets. The obvious answer is to make the whole of Lewisham controlled parking on residential streets included in residents’ council tax or at a small annual charge which politicians have suggested in the past. The existing parking permit charges are prohibitively expensive leading to little appetite to expand the current schemes.
1 Like
I really appreciate your time for putting this together @PV because you and some of the other posters really have made this a great conversation - so thank you.
I’m not so clever, so I just have to try to make my point in as short a way as possible.
Your in-a-nutshell quote above, has made it quite it quite easy for me because that’s exactly where it goes wrong.
Agreed, we need to cut pollution and there will inevitably be a consequence [of higher levels of air pollution along the Sth/Nth Circ], but we DO NOT have to accept it. The danger this poses to health, simply must be mitigated against very robustly; and this has been the crux of what I’ve been trying to get across.
Thankfully, @LeoGibbons has kindly ensured us that he is taking this up with the relevant departments and I hope he and others will then continue to put pressure wherever it’s needed to ensure that nobody in SE23 or elsewhere along the route is disproportionately affected by what is designed to be a benefit to ALL Londoners (and the planet).
5 Likes