Southwark-wide CPZ

[MrsR]

FANTASTIC NEWS

[rjsmall]

Are the surrounding wards getting CPZs? If so then it may just move parking pressure to Dulwich Hill leading to residents requesting a CPZ down the line.

[Rockets]

I got the same U-turn email for the Village area - the weight of feeling/Labour HQ pressure as we head into an election must have been huge. He does, however, suggest a small part of the Village area will get one - will be interesting to see which one and on what justification. Maybe this is the epi-centre of the pro-LTN lobby in the Village!!! 😉

 

Given the consultation document gave zero opportunity to respond that you didn't want a CPZ I would love to know how the council came to this conclusion.....

 

Also very interesting that the next consultation on those smaller areas in Dulwich Village will "ask residents in each of these new areas if they want controlled parking or not" - something that was severely lacking in the initial consultation.

 

In my opinion I think they got scared and realised the consultation was not sufficient to pass legal muster and scrutiny have analysed the data and think they can get a small area to agree to it and will use that to start parking pressure in other areas.

 

 

 

Dear resident,

I am writing to let you know the council will not be going ahead with the previous proposals to implement controlled parking across the whole Dulwich Village area. Instead we will shortly be consulting on a much smaller zone where resident feedback and our understanding of parking pressure and traffic levels in the area suggest the need is greatest.

I want to thank all the residents who contacted us about this. We have listened to you and are changing our consultation plans.

The council is committed to the aspirations set out in our Streets for People strategy, including making it easier for residents to switch from using their cars to making journeys by foot, by cycling and on public transport. Controlled parking can bring many benefits for local people when introduced in the right places in the right way.

However, I recognise that the council’s previous proposals fell short. Through the course of the consultation, residents in many areas told us that they did not need or want controlled parking. We listened to these concerns and undertook more work to understand parking pressure and traffic levels in these areas. This work supports the view of residents that controlled parking is currently only needed in some parts of the Dulwich Village area.

I thank all the residents who contacted us about this. I also want to thank your local ward councillors who have spent much of the last few weeks representing the concerns of local people, and setting out the need for a different approach.  We have listened to you and are changing our plans. The council’s previous proposals were not the right ones. We are learning the lessons from this and are sorry we got it wrong.

We will shortly be consulting on a new proposal to implement controlled parking in just part of Dulwich Village. This new consultation will ask residents in each of these new areas if they want controlled parking or not.

I want to again thank all the residents who have contacted us about this. We greatly value the time that you have taken to share your views.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr James McAsh

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Rockets

[Charles Martel]

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

[Spartacus]

Charles 

Had the proposed CPZ for nunhead been included in the councils U turn, or are you Still waiting on a letter to say-so? 

[Charles Martel]

43 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Charles 

Had the proposed CPZ for nunhead been included in the councils U turn, or are you Still waiting on a letter to say-so? 

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.

[legalalien]

What I take from the response is that the council has taken legal advice which has confirmed that they can only put in controlled parking where there is a demonstrable need for it in a particular area, and not to pursue a blanket “no/ reduced cars” policy. 
 

In my view it’s important to hold onto the point that this is not just about the quality of consultation or whether the residents of a street want a CPZ in their street or not. The question is whether the CPZ is NEEDED to achieve the regulatory objectives of the road traffic act. The point of consulting properly is to ensure the council has sufficient info to form a proper view on the need for the  CPZ, and the residents of the street are obviously very well placed to provide that info (and are more likely to want a CPZ if there is parking congestion in their street). But consultation is still not a referendum (!) 

[Rockets]

Cllr McAsh's attempts to spin his way out of this seem to confirm your view Legal.

 

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/peckham/southwark-council-says-borough-wide-cpz-plans-were-within-the-law/

 

Some key points below from the article - which lead me to believe the council is going back and determining where they think they can 1) drum up enough support to justify a CPZ in smaller areas (a re-run of the tactic they used to "justify" LTNs on Melbourne Grove and 2) if they can't get majority support lean in on some other criteria that they are trying to create (a re-run of the "some school kids in the north of the borough thought CPZs might be a good thing so we will roll them out for you in the south of the borough" justification for the CPZ proposals in the first place). At the end of the day our elected officials are there to represent their constituents so if the majority of constituents do not agree with their proposals then they should not be pursuing them - simple as and what Cllr McAsh is saying sets a very dangerous precedent:

However, it will now consult on new CPZs within the Queen’s Road, Dulwich Village and Nunhead areas.

Southwark Council is now finalising the boundaries of those proposed CPZs and will provide “evidence to justify” them.

In the upcoming consultations, Cllr McAsh said: “We will be including a question where people can very clearly say whether they support the proposals.”

 

However, Cllr McAsh said these consultations were not “referenda”. Asked if an 80 per cent ‘no’ vote would be enough to prevent future CPZs, he said: “I’m not going into any hypotheticals because it would be based on a number of other different factors.

“Resident feedback is one part of it but then looking at all the evidence that we’re gathering as well. That is all important.”

[Penguin68]

Because of discussion on this (and the related CPZ thread which purports to be in favour) I thought some clarity is needed. 

1. CPZs have nothing to do with climate change or pollution, or the avoidance thereof. Legislation which allows Councils to introduce CPZs does so in cases where there are parking pressures such that local residents are unable to park near their properties, and where residents show themselves in favour of such measures. Charges for administering of such schemes (cost recovery) can be charged to residents who get the benefit of being able to park;, should there be any surpluses (not an object of such a scheme) they can only be used to benefit local roads and road users. There is no legal right for Councils to create such schemes for revenue generation, only for the benefit of local residents under parking pressure. Had the recent blanket proposals gone to court (where Southwark was pretty clear that this was revenue generation motivated) it was possible that a ruling would have declared all of Southwark's schemes illegal on the back of their declared objectives this time round. The lack of real consultation, including the opportunity to say 'no' won't have helped either.

2. Suggestions that parked vehicles in some way add to climate pressures or poor air quality is of course madness. If a vehicle is parked it is  (outwith 'costs' of manufacture), inert climate or pollution wise. Indeed, other vehicles driving round to find parking spots (which have otherwise been denied it) are actually polluting.

I suspect (I do not know) that Southwark's legal advice based on the case already being made against them was sufficient to warn them away from this blanket scheme in its entirety. They are face saving by putting forward more limited schemes which might get local approval, hoping that they can cascade parking pressure, a lost cause I think for Dulwich Hill (where I live) which has no 'destination' - such as a station, that people would like to park near.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Penguin68

[Rockets]

This might explain why there are so many parking wardens around Lordship Lane, I saw a flock of three of them heading off in different directions from outside The Palmerston.

 

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/traffic-warden-contract-worth-11-5-million-branded-appalling-waste-of-money-after-southwark-councils-cpz-u-turn/

[first mate]

Indeed. A bunch of them seem to spend a lot of time hanging around side streets off Lordship Lane, especially near to M&S, puffing on ciggies and waiting to pounce. Oh the irony, as they do Southwark's 'work' on 'greening' the environment, dropping ciggie butts and exhaling nicotine breath as they go.

[heartblock]

Ha ha ok... I did wonder, I personally don’t mind CPZ zones, so not an (anti) by the way...but the cost is a disgrace. Only mentioning because we walked past 4 on Melbourne Rd/Lordship Lane corner and as you say having ‘a fag’ and a heated row at the time. Walked back that way after buying fetid dairy goods and  veg to walk pass the same group having more fags and a more reasonable gossip.

[Rockets]

I wonder if their row was because there are too many of them now for a small area and the CPZs are not delivering the council promised pot of gold! 😉

[first mate]

If on the payroll and kicking their heels they could sort out discarded e-bikes and maybe sweep a few leaves too?