Charles Martel

No it does not. If Gilkes Crescent, in Dulwich Village, needed a CPZ that is not evidence every street in Dulwich Village or East Dulwich needs a CPZ. Certainly the residents of the other streets in that area did not think so when they were consulted at the same time. Parking conditions are simply not the same everywhere. No one has said or is saying that there should never be any CPZs anywhere. The point that I and many others have made, time after time, is that the conditions laid out in the relevant legislation should be followed with regard to consultation. The legislation is 40+ years old. It has been tested in court multiple times and so there is ample case law for reference. The law is not there for raising revenue and it is not meant as some kind of blanket anti-car measure. If the law is followed then there should be no objection to a CPZ being implemented for the benefit of the residents who asked for it. It has been clear since 2023 that Southwark council have wanted to go beyond what the law allows them to do. Councillor McAsh clearly stated that a borough-wide CPZ was to be implemented with no consultation. This was stated in writing and in public meetings multiple times over several months in 2023. This plan was only withdrawn after a legal challenge from a well organised campaign because it is unlawful to impose a CPZ without consultation. The public need to be aware that this is the context when any CPZ proposal is made now. There must always be the expectation that the consultation process will not be fair as Southwark council wants the income and they have shown they are happy to lie to get it.

I cannot say as i have no connection with the author or the leaflet, but since i live outside the area under consultation i would imagine they meant the majority of East Dulwich residents who were not informed by the council of the CPZ proposal. I went to the two public meetings in 2019 when the larger East Dulwich CPZ was proposed by the council based on the parking situation around East Dulwich station. Based on what I heard from residents then I do not think there is any chance whatsoever of majority support for a CPZ across the wider East Dulwich area. What can be said for parking around Melbourne Grove can be said for most residential streets in East Dulwich. A CPZ will do nothing for parking on most streets as almost all the cars belong to the people who live there who will all buy permits. There are people who post regularly here who seem to think this is about winning an argument on the internet, however the reality is they, and Southwark council, never actually engage with local people at all. From the beginning in 2019, through all the other consultations and the unlawful borough wide fiasco in 2023 there has never been any attempt to use a logical argument to sway opinion in their direction. Instead we are all supposed to be so hysterical about climate change that we will believe paying Southwark council to paint white lines on the road around cars will control the weather! This is so clearly green washing a cynical cash grab that it barely merits consideration.

I got this leaflet today. Well done to whoever is organising this. However I would suggest visiting https://opposethecpz.org/home/documents/ which has several leaflet templates which explain the legal position with regard to CPZs. It is important that we all remember the lessons of 2023. Southwark council's declared aim then was a boroughwide CPZ with no consultation. This was entirely outside the law and eventually their plan had to be withdrawn, but only after a well organised opposition campaign based on the lack of legal backing for their plan. Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the legislation relevant to CPZs, has not been revised, extended or amended since 2023 so any CPZ decision must be made in line with this legislation. This means without reference to nonsense like “kerbside space”. Given Southwark council's stated aim the only thing that is likely to deter further CPZ expansion is a legal challenge. A legal war chest was collected in 2023 and specialist solicitors were retained so this remains a possibility if this scheme is pushed through on unlawful grounds.

The opposethecpz campaign simply made Southwark council follow the law. Irrespective of your position you must agree that Southwark council should follow the law. Do you know what the word “Statutory” means? If consultation is a statutory requirement for the implementation of a CPZ how exactly did Southwark council think they could have a borough-wide CPZ without any consultations? My only criticism of the opposethecpz campaign was that it did not go far enough. McAsh and all the other Southwark councillors who backed the CPZ without consultation proposal were clearly caught in a lie. A lie intended to achieve a clearly unlawful outcome. A lie that was clearly meant to result in extra income for the council. There should be consequences for that level of dishonesty from elected officials and their bureaucratic minions. Exactly as there are consequences for people who lie to get council flats or lie to get benefits. With more publicity and a tighter focus on the unlawful nature of the proposals we could have had more scrutiny which would have revealed the dishonest nature of the council in using CPZs elsewhere in the borough simply to raise revenue. As it is we are left with more of the entrenched inequality the modern Labour party pretends to care about. Less affluent parts of Southwark get a CPZ because they lack the organisational skills and social capital of places like Dulwich village.

Of course they will be ignored. Last year Southwark council announced that Dulwich Village would have a CPZ imposed on it with no consultation at all. Councillor McAsh announced that this was a “change in policy”. Actually it was a pack of lies aimed at stripping residents of the right to be consulted that the relevant law specifically grants to them. Even when confronted with his own previous statements clearly defining the correct legal position he continued with the same pack of lies. This explains the confusion some have had with his position on CPZs. https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/councillor-under-fire-for-a-blog-post-from-4-years-ago-that-contradicts-councils-cpz-policy/ Last year’s failed attempt to simply push a CPZ onto every road in the borough without any consultation was defeated thank to the folks at https://opposethecpz.org/ who led a well organised opposition campaign which crowd funded a legal challenge. However it is obvious that the intent to ignore residents remains exactly the same in these smaller areas. If the residents in an area want a CPZ, like they did around East Dulwich station in 2019, there would not be the opposition that there clearly is in this case. Now a handful of hysterical activists seem to have decided that people should not be allowed to drive their children to school. The fundamental problem here is that these activists have no convincing arguments to persuade those living in the area that a CPZ would benefit them, or achieve a magical reduction in car journeys. However these activists provide the council with enough of a fig leaf to cover their money grab.

Southwark has just announced they want to put a CPZ on Townley, Calton Avenue, EDG and Gilkes Crescent. Southwark claim it has "listened to residents' views". They haven't. Email: [email protected] because clearly Southwark need reminding what Dulwich thinks. Southwark conducted a consultation. Results below and huge majority clearly said no. So if Southwark were listening to residents, Gilkes Crescent would be the only road in DV that would have a CPZ.

Goose Green Ward is now part of the Lewisham West and East Dulwich Borough Constituency. https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/review2023/b65f7782-658b-4c4a-9cba-59c16c807f77/a3-maps/L_49_Lewisham West and East Dulwich BC.pdf

Details of the consultation results are here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s119444/Appendix A.pdf

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/

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/

We are not talking about the income of individuals in Southwark, where everybody knows there is individual poverty and wealth. We are talking about the income of Southwark council from council tax and business rates. If you consider what the area around Tower Bridge looked like in the 80s compared to what it looks like now it is impossible to believe that the income of Southwark council has not increased as derelict warehouses were turned into shops, restaurants and multi-million pound properties. This same process of renovation and renewal has been happening across the borough. In most cases this process has been driven entirely by private capital so this increase in taxable property and new businesses has come about with no effort from or cost to Southwark council. We can all see that there are now new build properties in many parts of the borough. Although not on the scale of Shad Thames, if a derelict plot of land on Lordship Lane has two new houses built on it that increases the council tax income to Southwark council. The disposable income of the new residents supports local businesses which in turn pay Southwark council a fraction of this income as business rates. I am not saying Southwark council must be awash with surplus cash, but what I do observe is that there should be a very large and steady income stream into the council. In the 80s, with large areas of the borough derelict, Southwark council had no problem sweeping our streets daily. Now those areas are covered in million pound properties and we can literally wait weeks for leaves and litter to be swept up. If we can see public money being spent on absurd schemes, seemingly at the behest of a handful of activists, then we should all be questioning the spending priorities of the council. https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/traffic-warden-contract-worth-11-5-million-branded-appalling-waste-of-money-after-southwark-councils-cpz-u-turn/ This contract is essentially an engineered wealth transfer from ordinary people in Southwark to the shareholders of APCOA Parking Ltd. The fact that there is poverty in Southwark should be front of mind when public money is being allocated to nice to have, but totally unnecessary, “Streetspace measures” in areas like East Dulwich where many private households already have spacious gardens. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/streets-for-people-in-the-east-dulwich-area/ While at the same time there is apparently no money to complete needed social housing projects in Peckham. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/09/london-council-rips-out-playgrounds-then-runs-out-of-cash-southwark The latest post from the Oppose the CPZ group states that £43,801 of public money has been spent on CPZ consultations. http://opposethecpz.org/2024/03/02/were-still-here/ Perhaps the activists who are so keen on these repeated, pointless, consultations can now put their hands in their own pockets to pay for them.

Southwark is not a poor area where problems with council finances are obviously linked to a low, and declining, council tax base. In the last 20 years or so billions upon billions upon billions of pounds of investment have poured into Southwark to transform areas that were derelict in the 80s and 90s into acres and acres of “luxury” flats. The council tax base in Southwark must have been vastly expanded by these developments. In addition the population of Southwark has a much higher proportion of working age adults with a much higher proportion of degree educated professional and managerial workers than average. Their disposable income supports numerous businesses all paying the council business rates. Now we are being asked to believe that despite all of this obvious income Southwark is “cash strapped”. Well I do not believe it. I think that when these two headlines are put side by side it is quite obvious that profligate council spending on activist led projects is a major part of the problem. Perhaps it would have been better to spend the money they had on the services they are now crowdfunding for rather than trying to finance an anti-car cultural revolution with an unlawful borough-wide cpz. Their flagship ”Streets for People” policy planned to spend public money on widening the pavements and putting benches every 100m across the borough. Whose priorities are these? Even if Southwark council had struck gold in Dulwich park those ideas should still have come a long way behind funding basic services. You could get a 4.6% return from a cash ISA with near zero risk or you could give your money to councillor McAsh and his merry band of activists to spend as they please

This is clearly nonsense. You are ignoring the fact that Southwark council recently withdrew their borough wide CPZ plans due entirely to public opposition. Opposition that was based on exactly the same points as are regularly made on this forum. On that basis it should be clear that the people making these points on this forum are far more representative of the general population of Dulwich than councillor McAsh or any of the hysterical anti-car activists posting here. https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/peckham/southwark-council-scraps-plans-for-cpz-covering-the-entire-the-borough/ In fact your comment highlights the complete lack of any attempt to build a base of support for the cpz policy “in real life”. There has not been a single rational argument put forward as to why ordinary people in our area should support the idea of blanket cpz coverage. Instead we get councillor McAsh stating variations on the theme of “Local people have repeatedly told the council that they want us to improve air quality, address the climate emergency, and make our borough even greener and safer.” And yet in every public meeting he has attended about the cpz policy local people have told him they do not want a blanket cpz. Perhaps if McAsh and pro-cpz campaigners went door to door in Dulwich Village they might learn just how unrepresentative their ideas are.

From this story in Southwark news it would seem that the leaflets have had the desired effect. It is quite clear that not all residents were informed of the proposal by the council. Now they have been, the consultation has been extended and hopefully they will be able to have their say. https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/council-to-send-out-8000-cpz-letters-to-dulwich-village-after-houses-were-missed/ It is not a war against motorists, but it is a concerted attempt to extort money from them under the most obvious of false pretences. Last year it was because of fairness. Dulwich Village had to have a CPZ because everywhere else in the borough was getting one. Whether they liked it or not. Completely outside the law, of course, but they expected nobody to notice that. How wrong they were. Now we are back with the same proposal as before, but because of made up nonsense about “parking stress” and the Alleyn’s school run. It is so obviously bogus it is no wonder the council is less than keen for people to be informed about these plans.

We have just been through all these arguments with the recent borough wide CPZ proposal. If you wish to believe these CPZ proposals are about health and the environment you are entitled to do so. However you must then acknowledge that neither of these are factors, under the relevant legislation, would allow the council to simply impose a CPZ. You may wish that the law gave you the right to impose an anti-car cultural revolution onto the rest of us, but the law does not. Southwark council clearly wishes that the law gave them the right to raise revenue from a CPZ, but the law does not give them that right. This simple, straightforward analysis of the law formed the basis of the recent successful opposition to the borough wide CPZ. The latest update from opposethecpz.org covers the arguments being made against the current Dulwich Village proposals. https://opposethecpz.org/2023/12/16/twtw-15-december-2023/ This summer we had a series of kafkaesque performances by councillor McAsh in which he repeatedly contradicted the law by denying the need for any consultations and insisting that a CPZ could be used to raise the revenue to fund his Streets for People project. https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/southwark-council-has-dug-itself-a-cpz-shaped-hole/ Now here we are back again with the same proposals for Dulwich village as before, but dressed up with a consultation. The council has clearly reverted to the same tactic as was used in 2019 to suggest that, shock horror, a few commuters parking next to East Dulwich station justified the whole of East Dulwich being covered by a CPZ. Now it is shock horror cars are parked on Woodwarde Road, etc. Of course there are cars are parked on Woodwarde Road. It is a quiet residential road where families live. The same is true of the majority of the roads in the proposed CPZ area. Families park their family cars outside their family homes. If 80% of households living on a road own a car and park it outside their home then obviously 80% of the parking will be occupied. Pretending this is “parking stress” is nonsense. Unless an attempt is made to distinguish the ownership of parked cars between residents and non-residents how can a CPZ be proposed as a solution? If we look at the recent Old Kent Road CPZ decision we can see what is likely to happen. Note the invention of terms like “kerbside space” which is completely outside the scope of the relevant legislation. They also use “future residents” of as yet unbuilt housing developments “ within walking distance” as a reason to extort CPZ fees from existing residents. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s107370/Report.pdf “14.Although the majority of respondents were not in support of the CPZ, officers recommend that the scheme is implemented for the following reasons: a) The Council must prioritise kerbside space. Approximately 72% of trips starting in Southwark are by walking, cycling and public transport, with only 25% by driving. Providing space for those commuting into or around the borough with private cars is not a recognised priority. b) The majority of households within the borough (58%) do not own a car (Borough Factsheet, 2017) so creating space for public realm improvements that benefit residents and people walking and cycling is a priority. c) According to Census data in the area, 25.76% of residents take the bus to work, 8.38% drive to work and 7.70% take underground, metro or light rail. Prioritising space for motor vehicles does not benefit most residents in the area. d) There are several sites within walking distance from this area, which are to be developed into residential housing without car parking. Future residents of these developments will not be permitted to purchase onstreet parking permits. However, this can only be achieved if a CPZ is in place, which means that a CPZ is essential. This would protect the available kerb space for current residents, businesses and their visitors.” None of these reasons relate to the local residents at all. They and their concerns were deemed to be irrelevant and so were just ignored. The decision only references Southwark council’s own diktats. Nonsensical, made up terms like “kerbside space” mean that a CPZ could be imposed anywhere with the same irrational rationale. It seems that Southwark council has simply become an administrative bureaucracy determined to find income for itself. These CPZ proposals, and the others which will surely follow for surrounding areas, like East Dulwich ward, are driven by a sense of rentier entitlement to raise revenue from road users. However the law does not allow this and so these proposals will continue to be opposed on that basis. Anyone who thinks that Southwark council are acting in good faith with their “Streets for People” green washing should consider the recent case of Bessemer Primary School which has a school street protected morning and afternoon by removable bollards. Southwark council recently proposed removing the physical protection offered by the bollards and installing an ANPR camera instead. There was no consultation of the school, local residents or parents before this council diktat was made. Obviously the only way this made any sense was that the council were putting the potential income from an ANPR camera above children’s safety outside the school. Bessemer Primary School then had to start a petition campaign which fortunately received enough coverage to get the council to back down once their money making scheme was subjected to public scrutiny. https://www.change.org/p/save-our-school-street-bessemer-primary-school https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/bollard-removal-at-primary-school-in-dulwich-is-going-to-make-street-dangerous-say-parents/ This proves, as if any more proof were needed, that public resistance is required to stop Southwark council’s attempts to squeeze as much revenue as possible out of residents.

There is a blog post covering the detail of the proposed CPZ on opposethecpz.org. http://opposethecpz.org/2023/12/09/twtw-8-december-2023/ 

I only know what the article above says: "Southwark has now scrapped plans for CPZs in Dulwich Hill and Dulwich Wood. It will now consult on smaller CPZ zones within Queen’s Road, Nunhead and Dulwich Village. " I have not seen any indication of the proposed areas for these consultations. According to the OpposeTheCPZ campaign, they will continue to monitor the council's proposals to ensure the consultation process is conducted properly and openly; to ensure there is a "Yes/No" question asking residents if they want one; and to ensure that the consultation notices are distributed to every household affected. Probably best to keep and eye on their website https://opposethecpz.org/ for more details as this unfolds.

The announcement that Southwark council have abandoned their recent plans for a borough wide CPZ is very good news for ordinary residents. It is a clear victory for democracy and the rule of law. https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/peckham/southwark-council-scraps-plans-for-cpz-covering-the-entire-the-borough/ It was obvious from the beginning of this whole saga that the council did not have any legal basis for their plans. This was pointed out almost immediately, but unfortunately, instead of listening, the council chose to try and dictate to residents. Apart from a few activist groups representing a tiny handful of people, there was clearly no support for the proposals whatsoever. A brilliant campaign by the OpposeTheCPZ group organised the opposition to get this result. Hopefully Lewisham council will get the same message. Given the initial levels of arrogance and duplicity shown by the council, particularly by councillor McAsh, hopefully voters will consider their choices carefully at the next election. It would be better in areas like East Dulwich if the views of residents were represented when plans were being made, rather than plans made on high by small groups who think they know better than the rest of us. Honestly who wants an activist local council? Personally I miss the good old days of councillor Barber and his campaign to bring M&S to Lordship Lane. How have we gone from that to someone promoting an anti-car cultural revolution? Hopefully Southwark Liberal Democrats will follow the lead of Lewisham Liberal Democrats in opposing any such plans in the future and give us a better choice at the next election. https://www.lewishamlibdems.org.uk/news/article/controlled-parking-zones-sustainable-streets

The latest news from the Oppose the CPZ campaign is that after their lawyers wrote to Southwark council they were told that no decision has been made about the continued rollout to the Queens Road, Nunhead and three Dulwich CPZs and that the timing for a decision is undetermined. Detail: https://opposethecpz.org/2023/09/28/update-on-judicial-review-to-stop-the-illegal-rollout-of-cpzs-across-southwark/ Summary: https://opposethecpz.org/2023/09/30/twtw-29-october-2023/ Obviously the council’s statements now are in direct contradiction to the council’s previously stated position that the decision had been made in 2019 etc and there was nothing anyone could say or do in opposition now. In particular when councillor McAsh was asked about his 2019 blog post, which was in line with the law, he denied that the law still applied due to a change in council policy. He said: “I want to be really really clear here, that the policy has changed so pointing out things I said before the policy had changed, when I described the previous policy isn’t a ‘gotcha’, because the policy has changed.” https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/councillor-under-fire-for-a-blog-post-from-4-years-ago-that-contradicts-councils-cpz-policy/ While Southwark council can change their policy, fortunately they cannot change the law. It is really difficult to read councillor McAsh’s comments now and see them as anything other than a blatant attempt to deceive people into accepting his CPZ policy simply so the council could extort money from ordinary people. Given the amount of money involved all we can expect a more sophisticated pack of lies next time.

This comment just makes the point how out of touch with reality Councillor McAsh is with the “Streets for People” nonsense he wants to fund with CPZ revenue. In the real world Southwark council are currently removing table tennis tables and benches from Camberwell Green because of anti-social behaviour. https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/camberwell/southwark-council-branded-ridiculous-after-removing-table-tennis-and-benches-to-tackle-anti-social-behaviour/ Few people with any experience of living in South London would want a bench placed outside their house for random strangers to congregate, yet seating every 100m for “pedestrian comfort” is proposed in the “Streets for People” plan. It should be obvious that this would be a recipe for anti-social behaviour.

You and others may wish that the law gave you the right to treat car ownership as a “social vice”, however you are making my point about the big lie for me. It is clearly a lie to suggest that anything in the relevant law, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, in any way, shape or form defines car ownership as a “social vice” or anything that suggests a CPZ should be imposed as a deterrent to car ownership. In 2019 East Dulwich went through the CPZ consultation process according to the law. Those who wanted a CPZ, for the reasons the law defines, got one. The law has not changed, but Southwark council’s attitude has. They have already purchased the ANPR cameras and employed the traffic wardens so obviously they will not let consultations get in their way this time. Councillor McAsh now tells us we have no choice but to submit to their policy. Well he would say that given the millions of pounds in revenue the new CPZs are likely to generate. Money which will be extorted from working families and used to fund activists hobby horse projects such as making all pavements 2.4m wide. Therefore, those of us who can must vote with our wallets and fund a judicial review of the whole cpz process in Southwark. https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/opposethecpz/

Marilyn Lovell, wife of Apollo 8 & 13 astronaut Jim Lovell, died on August 27th. https://www.irishtimes.com/obituaries/2023/09/16/marilyn-lovell-obituary-astronauts-wife-turned-heroic-archetype-amid-apollo-13-drama/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Here is the big lie again. There is no basis in the relevant law for the idea that resident’s parking permits in a CPZ are the equivalent to parking fees or rent of a parking space. The relevant law is quite clear in specifically prohibiting the use of controlled parking for the raising of revenue. Stating that everyone who parks a car on the public road owes the council money and therefore the council should be implementing a CPZ everywhere to collect their rightful dues is an entirely false, made up, narrative. This is not what the law says. It should be clear that there is no automatic fee payable for parking a family car outside a family home on a quiet residential street with no parking pressure whatsoever. Southwark council’s borough wide CPZ is about money. People lie to get money all the time. Therefore it should surprise no one that, despite the law prohibiting a CPZ being imposed purely to raise revenue, Southwark council wants to implement a borough wide CPZ purely to raise revenue. Southwark will lie, lie and lie again to get what they want. Hence their “Streets for People” propaganda is based on the bizarre falsehood that people can only ride bicycles, walk or use public transport if something is done about family cars parked outside family homes. Utter nonsense, given that most of my neighbours who ride bicycles, walk or use public transport also own cars. People who disagree with the borough wide CPZ should read and sign the petition. https://opposethecpz.org/2023/07/27/southwark-wide-petition/

My response was to several comments above to the effect that everyone who parks a car on the public road owes the council money and therefore the council should be implementing a CPZ everywhere to collect their rightful dues. That is not what the law says. The law concerning the basis for and limit of a local authority’s power to impose CPZs is clearly stated: 1. A local authority’s power to impose CPZs derives from Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (“the Act”). This permits a local authority to impose a CPZ only for the limited purposes specified in Subsection 45(3), namely having regard to: a. the need for maintaining the free movement of traffic; b. the need for maintaining reasonable access to premises; and c. the extent to which off-street parking accommodation, whether in the open or under cover, is available in the neighbourhood or the provision of such parking accommodation is likely to be encouraged there by the designation of parking places under the Section. 2. Under Section 55(1) of the Act, the local authority must keep a separate account of their income and expenditure in relation to parking spaces. As to which: a. If there is a surplus, the local authority can spend that surplus for the purposes specified in Subsection 55(4). b. However, the Act is not a fiscal measure, and it is therefore unlawful for the local authority “to introduce charging and charging levels for the purpose, primary or secondary of raising money”: per Lang J in R (Attfield) v Barnet LBC [2013] RTR 33 at [56], quoting from the judgment of Pitchford LJ in Djanogly v Westminster City Council [2011] R.T.R. 9 at [12]. c. Furthermore, for the same reason it is not permissible for the local authority deliberately to budget to achieve a surplus from its parking income, apart from a modest surplus to ensure the provision of parking spaces is self-financing and a modest amount to allow for unforeseen shortfalls etc.: per Lang J in R (Attfield) v Barnet LBC [2013] RTR 33 at [63], referring to and adopting the reasoning of Pitchford LJ in Djanogly v Westminster City Council [2011] R.T.R. 9. The above is taken from https://opposethecpz.org/2023/07/27/southwark-wide-petition/ Now I’m no big city lawyer, so I will leave it to the judicial review to decide if Southwark council’s proposed borough wide CPZ is lawful. However it should be clear there is no automatic fee payable for parking a family car outside a family home on a quiet residential street with no parking pressure whatsoever. It should also be clear that councillor McAsh was mistaken when he said “It cannot be that residents of Camberwell and Bermondsey have to pay for [parking] and people in Dulwich Village and Nunhead get that for free.” He commented that this would ultimately be “unfair and unjust.” In actuality residents in Camberwell and Bermondsey have parking problems which necessitate a CPZ to allow them access to their premises. They do not “pay for parking.” Their parking permits pay for the administration of the CPZ which is of direct benefit to them.

There seems to be a concerted effort to spread the lie that resident’s parking permits in a CPZ are the equivalent to parking fees or rent of a parking space. The relevant law is quite clear. Residents pay for the administration of the zone through their permits.