Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know that the EDF is in general averse to controlled parking but I and my neighbours love it, since it was introduced where we are the streets have been much less crowded and it's actually possible to park on your own road - even outside your own house! Something that rarely happened beforehand. I haven't had to do a visitor's permit for ages but it was no problem to arrange.


And I would dispute that dropping the kids to school by car is valid - given you have to live pretty close to your children's school I can't think of many good reasons why you wouldn't be walking them to school. Staff driving is something else, however...


I have plenty of issues with the council about their hatred of cars but this one I can totally see, and reap, the benefit of.

Oh dear Trinidad, are you really posting at 3am? You shouldn't let yourself lose sleep over this. Perhaps think of the charge as a way to provide the council with additional funds after 10 years of central government's budget restraints? Unlike some boroughs, Southwark has been able to keep our libraries open and maintain free school meals for primary children. It needs to get additional funds from somewhere and, with pressure to reduce air pollution, what better way than to follow the example of other boroughs, such as Lambeth, Wandsworth and Lewisham, and increase the number of CPZs? When I changed my car last year, the pending CPZ was one of the considerations, and I am delighted with the hybrid I have bought. If others also did this, it could make a big difference to the air pollution, don't you think?

As far as I understand the majority of residents on each road where it's being introduced, were in favour of its introduction.


On Choumert Road I can already notice the positive difference - I'm able to park my car fairly near my house after a trip out. Until a few weeks ago I frequently had to drive around the block 3 times to find a space; or park on a different road as there were no spaces- I don't mind a few minutes walk but it's difficult with a toddler plus multiple bags from daytrips/ shopping.

Yes I was posting at 3am, and i was not losing sleep at all, fare from it - not everyone works 9 - 5. itrs difficult to see my ?125.00 as a gift to Southwark, also you dont know my finances!!


One thing I do agree is the libraries are still open in the borough which is great, in fact over the last few years the council has even built to new ones which I think is only a positive thing. It feels the labour borough has a war on cars in the borough. I do feel about the pollution, but I feel strongly that most residents in the CPZ voted against the decision.

I think the majority did elect for the CPZ if their neighbouring streets were in a controlled zone. You may call this twisting your arm, but you only need one street in the zone to give a big yes for this to be valid for all streets.
From what I understand from the communication from the borough, when residents were asked if they wanted a CPZ, the overwelming said no, but when residents were asked if they would consider a CPZ if there was a CPZ a few streets by, residents said yes, and it was the second datat that was used to secure the CPZ - very crafty
My understanding is, the council insisted on consulting on a street by street basis other than when this approach defeated their objective to get CPZ. For instance, Melbourne Grove taken as whole road was against CPZ, so the council decided to treat it as two separate roads with a north and south end, so it could get a majority in favour of CPZ from those living closest to the station. The aim was to get a domino effect where those streets closest to the station roads would vote in favour of CPZ and so on. The station roads were the catalyst the council needed to get CPZ started. Had ED being consulted as an area CPZ would not happen.

Possibly and therefore people in affected areas such as those living close to the train station would still be suffering.


There is definitely a domino effect but not necessarily started by Southwark, neighbouring boroughs also have CPZs which have had a knock on effect. I expect residents around Lordship Lane will soon be calling for a CPN once West Peckham & EDG parking restrictions are in full operation.



first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My understanding is, the council insisted on

> consulting on a street by street basis other than

> when this approach defeated their objective to get

> CPZ. For instance, Melbourne Grove taken as whole

> road was against CPZ, so the council decided to

> treat it as two separate roads with a north and

> south end, so it could get a majority in favour of

> CPZ from those living closest to the station. The

> aim was to get a domino effect where those streets

> closest to the station roads would vote in favour

> of CPZ and so on. The station roads were the

> catalyst the council needed to get CPZ started.

> Had ED being consulted as an area CPZ would not

> happen.

trinidad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> From what I understand from the communication from

> the borough, when residents were asked if they

> wanted a CPZ, the overwelming said no, but when

> residents were asked if they would consider a CPZ

> if there was a CPZ a few streets by, residents

> said yes, and it was the second datat that was

> used to secure the CPZ - very crafty


I can understand why this question is asked - a lot of the consultations in last few years that have seen 'no' votes initially quickly turned to 'yes' votes when a CPZ was introduced nearby. Southwark found a lot of pressure to then introduce CPZs from residents who'd previously been opposed when the impact hit them.


now I think they know that partial introduction often leads to quick demands for wider ones, so to save money in ther long run they try to see if support would be there in those circumstances. Sensible use of public money to be honest, rather than paying twice to ask the same question.

"now I think they know that partial introduction often leads to quick demands for wider ones, so to save money in ther long run they try to see if support would be there in those circumstances. Sensible use of public money to be honest, rather than paying twice to ask the same question."


More to the point is if they manufacture parking chaos people will have no option but to demand a CPZ. Southwark's master plan to generate yet more money and fines.

trinidad - I live about 10 minutes from Peckham Rye station. We've had controlled parking for about 2 years. It was extraordinary how the streets emptied of cars once it was introduced, it appeared that nearly half the cars parked on our road did not belong to residents.


Obviously I would prefer not to have to pay for it but given the very obvious positive impact it has had I am happy to do so. I would have preferred it if our road could have been 12 - 2pm, rather than 8.30 - 6.30


However, I agree that Southwark do have a war on cars, the continued closure of the bridge on Camberwell Grove being a case in point (making Champion Hill one way is another) but I don't have an issue with this.

I wonder whether the actual restrictions are needed at all. Our road has emptied out just with the dotted lines being there; the perennial commuters and overspill from zone Q have probably decided not to risk it! Great nudge tactic.

yes micromacro monkey finding it a massive improvement too. Sure will be even better when the zone starts on 30 March. Have any EDers noticed an increase in parking in their streets not least dreaded abandoned taxis?


oimissus - the council are responding to repeated consultation results showing strong support of residents (over 75%) for cutting congestion and air pollution and making it easier to walk and cycle. Certainly the area between Burgess Park and Peckham Road has recently been transformed by a CPZ. Of course someone who says they want improvements can also say they don't want to pay ?125 to park their car etc. But without credible alternatives it's clear the council is going in the right direction.


Once the CPZ is live we'll see how on many streets only a minority of households own a car and that will create momentum for greater change.

I cycle along Kelly Av, Commercial Way and Chandler Way daily and the recent CPZ there has made a huge positive difference. At the time I must admit I voted against controlled parking in SE22 but now I'm not so sure. It's a shame the council ask ?125 a year since there is a slight whiff of ulterior motive. If it were free for those who can demonstrate they are residents then bring it on!

Hey doogsey,


Enforcement of the CPZ commences on Monday 30th March 2020 with daily patrols from Enforcement Parking Officers. I am sure they will also ticket those who have a wheel on or over the white lines, I am sure there will be alot of tickets issues in the first week :(

On the ED zone i got in touch with the officer in charge when the plans came out and pointed out where there were errors. She said they would be updated but i'll wait and see. For issues such at that it should be checked witht he officer in charge - it will be on the details on the Southwark website. are you sure though that its not marked as a 'stop and rest' on the plans?



Huggers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can see in Nutbrook street we are losing at

> least two parking spaces where they have deemed a

> kerb where there used to be a garage but there is

> now just a house extension, as a garage that

> needs access point......

Lewisham has just raised its ?120 a year charge for residents parking to ?140 (in a year). Southwark won't be far behind, I'm sure, as parking charges are not covered by any central controls. Those who voted for CPZs have just signed blank cheques in the council's name. And not just on their behalfs.

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

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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