Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[first mate]

Think I read it in a leaflet. I cannot remember exactly because written information pushed through doors was different from what was online.

Edited March 17 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

5 minutes ago, first mate said:

Think I read it in a leaflet.

Hmm.

[first mate]

I am pretty sure about the paid for spaces at the end of each street off LL and that they were presenting parking on on LL as a way to support businesses. Either way, it just struck me as odd that with so many against shoppers in cars that a case for CPZ was in part being made on the need to support hem.

[first mate]

I asked this question on another thread by mistake, so it got lost. Can anyone explain how CPZ results are collated and interpreted so the council is clear how each street in the consultation area has responded?

One of the mandatory questions asks if you want CPZ in your street, however only the streets in the consultation area are named?  How do respondents living well outside the consultation area answer that question? If that question is not answered the response is discounted.

 

[EDmummy101]

On 21/02/2025 at 19:09, Moovart said:

Has anyone on Lordship lane or on the streets to the east of lordship lane received the notification of the cpz consultation? as these are the streets that will experience increased parking pressure if the Melbourne grove cpz is implemented.  So far I haven't heard that those residents are being informed so they can respond to the survey.  Same for businesses on lordship lane who also should be encouraged to respond.

We've only just had a flyer with a QR code and I assume this was from opposition as opposed to the council. We live round the corner from Northcross Rd so it will be one of the roads affected. I'm in despair about the LTNs already, which are deeply unpopular aside from those who benefit by living on quieter roads with little traffic, or those able to work from home and freely cycle everywhere with no time demands.

Controlled parking is just another money maker for the local authority, who appear to have less and less funds for vital public services... sad and frustrating.

[first mate]

I believe the council rationale was that streets your side would not be affected if CPZ is installed on Melbourne Grove and streets off it. For that reason they have not let streets your side know. However, they have likely alerted the various pro CPZ pressure groups, whose advocates may not live even close by.

We also know that people living as much as a mile away are responding and, presumably, those responses will impact the final result.

Edited March 18 by first mate

[first mate]

Snowy, you seem to know quite a lot about this stuff. Can you shed any light on how the consultation results are collated? How do we know if someone calling for CPZ in their street (by answering 'yes' to that mandatory question, "do you want CPZ on your street") actually lives directly inside or on a street adjacent to, the consultation area?

[snowy]

What's the expression- do your own research? Or ask Southwark - their email address will be available, perhaps cc your local councillor. Because frankly i have no idea. 

Sorry FM, fat fingers pressed the post button before i had finished

Edited March 18 by snowy

[first mate]

Ah, okay LOL. I thought it was a bit brusque.

[geh]

Southwarks response (in part) to my query "why at the Sat drop in I was given the very clear undertaking that L/L businesses would be consulted, when it appears not to be the case":

 

our position is that we do not think there will be much displacement to the eastern side of Lordship Lane, based on scheme we have put in within the borough in the last year, but also based on many years’ experience of doing this work across the UK. 

 

I have requested details of the scheme referred to!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Interesting. I wonder what scheme they're referring to?

[first mate]

18 hours ago, geh said:

Southwarks response (in part) to my query "why at the Sat drop in I was given the very clear undertaking that L/L businesses would be consulted, when it appears not to be the case":

 

our position is that we do not think there will be much displacement to the eastern side of Lordship Lane, based on scheme we have put in within the borough in the last year, but also based on many years’ experience of doing this work across the UK. 

 

I have requested details of the scheme referred to!

Geh, please share more as and when you get it.

This is an example of misinformation being given out to residents at the 'consultation' meetings. Another poster was told at one of the meetings that streets that do not want CPZ will not be made to have it.

It is still not clear, to me anyway, how they accurately ascertain who lives where.

[Moovart]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

It is still not clear, to me anyway, how they accurately ascertain who lives where.

They don't accurately ascertain.  They ask if you are on a street within the zone, resident, business etc but there is no verification of that information and you don't give an address.

[Earl Aelfheah]

They really should replace these online consultations, with targeted polling and focus groups (using properly representative samples).

Edited March 19 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

You can give an address, as the roads within the consultation are listed along with a category that says "other". However, as you say, people can tick one of the named roads, even if they do not live in one and there is no way of knowing. Also, the 'other' category allows equal weight to be given to the response of someone that lives a mile away and visits the area (perhaps cycling in) and someone who lives on a street close by or adjacent to the consultation area, who will be directly affected by displaced parking.

The over- arching question is how the council has given an undertaking that CPZ will only be imposed if streets want it? How can they know?

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They really should replace these online consultations, with targeted polling and focus groups (using properly representative samples).

I agree and I also think they need to have a wholesale review of the consultation process as it is manipulated by the council (in terms of the questions they ask) and open to manipulation from vested interest groups most of whom don't actually live in the area. To top it off of course when the council loses a consultation and they can say "well it's not a referendum" and that makes a complete mockery of the whole consultation process and the spirit in which they are run.

Honestly, why bother with them at all?

Council's like to pretend they are democratic and have local residents at heart but we see very little of that in practice - time after time we have seen Southwark manipulate every consultation they run to get the result they want. I can see why so many people are so sick and fed up with the way that politicians treat people (expect thohse who are directly benefiting who are happy to turn a blind eye because they are getting what they want) - you expect it from the Tories but everything Southwark Labour do is so diametrically opposed to their supposed beliefs and political ideology it's actually incredibly worrying and saddening because we should have been able to count on them to uphold the moral fibre of politics and rebuild trust.

[geh]

On 19/03/2025 at 07:28, first mate said:

Geh, please share more as and when you get it.

This is an example of misinformation being given out to residents at the 'consultation' meetings. Another poster was told at one of the meetings that streets that do not want CPZ will not be made to have it.

It is still not clear, to me anyway, how they accurately ascertain who lives where.

I have received a 'response' from Southwark, but am somewhat confused by it, therefore am posting the email trail (names/addresses redacted) for others to decide whether I am mistaken, or Southwark is acting with (in my view) characteristic duplicity.  

 

They have not offered uu the promised evidence of a scheme implemented elsewhere in the borough that was initially claimed caused little/no displacement.

 

The thread reads from the bottom up, with the last exchange being this morning:

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your email, I’m sorry but the statements are contradictory, you offered up an unnamed example of a recently introduced scheme which you stated caused little displacement, I requested details of it, and xxxx states he is unable to provide this supporting evidence.

 

I am at a loss!

 

g

 

From: xxxxx
Date: Saturday, 22 March 2025 at 10:23
To: xxxx
Cc: xxxx
Subject: RE: Melbourne Grove South CPZ

Dear Mr xxxx 

 

Both xxxx and I say the same thing in our emails, which is we do expect some displacement when a CPZ is implemented.  

 

You question was specific about the schemes we have implemented recently, which as xxxx explained, we have no had feedback that there was displacement, either due to surrounding roads either being at capacity (i.e. there is no room for any more vehicles to park) or there are parking controls surrounding the area and therefore there is no where for the vehicles to displace too.

 

I hope this explains the situation.

 

Kind regards 

 

xxx

Head of Controlled Parking 

Environment, Neighbourhoods & Growth 

Southwark Council

160 Tooley Street

London SE1 2QH

Email: xxxxxxx

www.southwark.gov.uk

 

 

From: xxxxx
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 4:58 PM
To: xxxx
Cc: Cxxx>; xxxx>
Subject: Re: Melbourne Grove South CPZ

 

xxxx

 

Thanks for your reply, which is frankly baffling!

 

xxxxx stated in xxx email to me of 14.03.25:

 

our position is that we do not think there will be much displacement to the eastern side of Lordship Lane, based on scheme we have put in within the borough in the last year

 

However you have now responded 

 

we would not be able to provide you with examples of recently installed permit schemes in Southwark where there has been little or no displacement, similar to the Melbourne Grove South CPZ area.  This is because every scheme we implement is different.

 

These statements clearly contradict each other?

 

 

I think this merits airing more publicly and therefore intend to post on the relevant East Dulwich Forum thread for this cpz initiative, however in the essence of fairness, and in case there is a manifest mistake in one of the statements will give you until c.o.b. Monday to respond further

 

g

From: xxxx>
Date: Friday, 21 March 2025 at 16:24
To: xxxxxx
Cc: xxxxx, xxxxxx
Subject: RE: Melbourne Grove South CPZ

Dear Mr xxxxx

 

In regards to your request below, we would not be able to provide you with examples of recently installed permit schemes in Southwark where there has been little or no displacement, similar to the Melbourne Grove South CPZ area.  This is because every scheme we implement is different. For example, in 2022 we implemented the Rotherhithe and Surrey Docks (Zone S) CPZ but the surrounding area was already mostly controlled by permit schemes, the same for the Old Kent Road CPZ which was installed in 2024.  The Queens Road permit scheme area was implemented in an area which already high levels of parking pressure, therefore the excluded roads would not be able to accommodate more vehicles.  We did not receive many complaints from roads nearby with newly installed CPZs, which would indicate that parking pressure has not greatly increased.  We are also currently in the process of implementing 2 other zones in the Nunhead and Rotherhithe area and would not know the impact of parking pressure on the nearby roads as yet. 

 

The area around the proposed Melbourne Grove South CPZ is mostly uncontrolled, particularly to the east of Lordship Lane, and therefore not comparable to the schemes mentioned above.  We always say that there will be a level displacement whenever we implement any new parking restriction, this includes new permit zones or yellow lines.  For this area we do not know what this will be until the scheme is implemented, if it is implemented at all, but we believe due to the number of uncontrolled roads in the area, this will be minimal. 

 

Regards, 

 

xxxxxx

 

From: xxxxx 
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 3:36 PM
To: xxxxxx xxxxx; xxxxx
Subject: Re: Melbourne Grove South CPZ

 

Further to my email of Monday would you be able to share the details of the scheme enacted in the Borough last year please?

 

Thanks

 

g

 

From: xxxxxxx
Date: Monday, 17 March 2025 at 17:37
To: xxxxxx, xxxxxxx, xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Melbourne Grove South CPZ

Thanks for your response, 

 

At the Saturday drop in I was given the very clear impression that all businesses on Lordship Lane would be consulted with, and there was no distinction between the eastern and western sides for this consultation, and certainly no utterance of the councils now stated view that eastern side business will not be affected.

 

I think its naive (at best) to claim that businesses to the eastern side of Lordship Lane won’t be impacted by a CPZ to the western side, and to exclude them from consultation is divisive.

 

Most retailers, large or small will share similar views on the imposition of parking charges and trade.

 

Would you share your example of a scheme enacted elsewhere in the borough that did not create displacement stress on the retail community please?

 

Thanks

 

xxxxxx

 

 

From: xxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, 14 March 2025 at 13:55
To: xxx, xxxxxx, xxxxxx
Subject: Re: Melbourne Grove South CPZ

Dear Mr xxxxx 

 

I was at the drop-in session on Saturday the 1^st in the morning and xxxx was there in the afternoon.  I believe we were clear with those who we spoke to, Lordship Lane is out of scope of the proposed CPZ and that we were speaking to the businesses which are closest to the proposed scheme to make them aware, but we are not proposing changes to Lordship Lane.  We apologise if we indicated that all the businesses on Lordship Lane would be visited, however it was never in scope to visit the businesses on the east of Lordship Lane.

 

As xxxxx has advised below, with any CPZ consultation, not just in Southwark, those out of the proposed area are not normally consulted as they should not be affected by the changes.  The business in Lordship Lane appear to disagree with us on this from the feedback at the drop in sessions, however, our position is that we do not think there will be much displacement to the eastern side of Lordship Lane, based on scheme we have put in within the borough in the last year, but also based on many years’ experience of doing this work across the UK. 

 

 

Kind regards

xxxxxx 

Interim Head of Controlled Parking 

Environment, Sustainability & Leisure 

Southwark Council

160 Tooley Street

London SE1 2QH

Email: xxxxxxx

www.southwark.gov.uk

 

[Rockets]

@geh they are clearly making things up as they go along. Not consulting businesses on the Eastern side of Lordship Lane is unforgiveable and clearly done to manipulate the process. This council is out of control and has to be held accountable - they repeatedly lie and mislead constituents. 

Can anyone trust anything the council says anymore?

[Penguin68]

Clearly their 'nuclear' intent to impose blanket CPZs across the borough - which  were overtly  not triggered by parking pressures (the only legal justification) but for political (equal pain) and clearly revenue generation intent - both illegal reasons - I'm guessing they were advised of this by their lawyers as something which might then call into question all the borough CPZs and have now gone back to their sleight of hand approaches - piecemeal and allowing their cohorts of willing idiots to 'vote' willy nilly and without regard to actual 'interest' in any proceedings, but with sufficient deniability that they can claim anything for any result.

There are many good things that the borough does, but these do not excuse or validate their underhand double dealing as regards privately owned vehicles in the south of the borough comparatively poorly served by alternates - and where the topology militates against the human powered alternatives they favour.

[malumbu]

"The area around the proposed Melbourne Grove South CPZ is mostly uncontrolled, particularly to the east of Lordship Lane, and therefore not comparable to the schemes mentioned above.  We always say that there will be a level displacement whenever we implement any new parking restriction, this includes new permit zones or yellow lines.  For this area we do not know what this will be until the scheme is implemented, if it is implemented at all, but we believe due to the number of uncontrolled roads in the area, this will be minimal."

Sounds reasonable to me. 

 

[geh]

our position is that we do not think there will be much displacement to the eastern side of Lordship Lane, based on scheme we have put in within the borough in the last year

 

 

we would not be able to provide you with examples of recently installed permit schemes in Southwark where there has been little or no displacement, similar to the Melbourne Grove South CPZ area.  This is because every scheme we implement is different.

[Penguin68]

32 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Sounds reasonable to me. 

Did you write it? 

[Rockets]

Well I think we can point the council to what has happened on the roads surrounding Calton and Townley since their CPZ went in - utter chaos and misery from those now having to live with the displacement.

A lot of residents have emailed Margy and Richard and the response is along the lines of: "Yes we are aware of the increased parking problems as a result. Would you like a CPZ as well?"

The fact they are doing this after they failed to get the area-wide CPZ plans in place shows what a bunch of untrustworthy charlatans they are - never ever trust a politician. One day I do hope constituents hold them accountable - next local elections may be interesting especially if they become victims rather than victors of a central government protest vote - and the way the Labour govenernment is going that could well be a stark reality for them - could well be a double whammy.

[march46]

Or…it suggests residents on Dovercourt Rd who’ve complained about parking for years would have been wise to support a CPZ.

[Rockets]

@march46 given 71% of Dovercourt Road respondents said no to the CPZ in the council consultation then it looks far more likely that my summation is for closer to reality than yours....

Its so transparent what the council are doing and it's scandalous. CPZ displacement and expansion of double yellow lines to force CPZs on residents. Someone should remind them they are here to represent their constituents not resent them. One day the electorate will get wise to it and punish them in the polls.

Given that 66% and 74% of respondents on Calton and Townley also said no how on earth did the council gerrymander that decision? Given the weight of feeling against CPZs across the area this is a massive political gamble by Southwark Labour.

Edited Saturday at 17:44 by Rockets