Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[first mate]

On 22/03/2025 at 14:01, geh said:

 

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.

This is so completely disingenuous. They 'believe' there will only be a little bit of displacement, which they also 'believe' will not cause further parking issues. 
 

I wonder if there is a legal test for CPZ imposed to 'fix' parking pressure that then causes parking pressure on the roads close by? 
 

The council are gaslighting us. 

Edited Monday at 07:05 by first mate

[Kathleen Olander]

On 22/03/2025 at 14:50, Rockets said:

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.

The displacement of vehicles since the CPZ went in is unbelievable.  Woodward Road, Desenfans, Dekker, Court Lane etc are now bumper to bumper all day.  It has done nothing to deter all the school staff from bringing their cars in, since Carlton and Townley are no longer an option.

I have no doubt these roads will desperately want their own CPZ soon!  The cars will then migrate further afield and so it goes on.,,,,,

[Rockets]

And the utterly ludicrous thing is the majority of people on both Calton and Townley voted against the CPZs during the consultation and both roads are probably two of the least densely populated roads in the borough and many houses have off-street parking. The council has clearly dropped a CPZ displacement bomb there to create problems elsewhere or as I like to refer to it CIPP (Council Initiated Parking Pressure)!

It's utterly shameless - lose an area-wide consultation and come back straight away with a devious plan to roll it out anyway propped up by a few council-friendly lobby groups and locals.

Edited Monday at 11:39 by Rockets

[first mate]

It is good that geh has posted his email thread with the council as what he was advised at the meeting and then what they said afterwards seem contradictory.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

@geh thanks for posting the thread. Clearly the original statement about 'schemes in the last year' (or however it was worded) was not straight forward. I think the later response is more honest (although they should acknowledge that it contradicts the previous, misleading statement by their collegue).

That said, I'm not convinced that there are a lot of people driving to Lordship lane and parking on the side streets to the west of it. There are very few (if any) free spaces there. For businesses who need to travel in by car, the provision of business permits may well help ensure they can actually park.

Personally, I would like to see some loading bays and some disabled bays and little else. There are regular buses down the lane, very limited parking and unless you're collecting something heavy, or have mobility issues, it's better for people to use the bus. What would help businesses (and traffic flow generally), would be to speed buses up by making the bus lane down lordship lane 24 hours.

Edited Wednesday at 09:24 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Earl said: "That said, I'm not convinced that there are a lot of people driving to Lordship lane and parking on the side streets to the west of it. There are very few (if any) free spaces there. For businesses who need to travel in by car, the provision of business permits may well help ensure they can actually park."

That suggests the other side of the consultation area may be affected by displaced parking, if this CPZ succeeds. We may even see a return of the 'commuter parking stalkers'. Remember the reason for imposition of the first Melbourne Grove CPZ, for roads close to the railway station, was that residents were unable to park outside their properties because commuters and visitors in cars were 'harassing' them for spaces. As if by magic, after CPZ was imposed, they all disappeared. 
 

I have also been thinking about the 'fairness' point used by the council as partial justification for imposition of CPZ, the rationale being that since those living close to central London have it, then we should too. Is it fair that those living closer to the centre also benefit from proximity to much better transport links, with tube stations? That seems to weight the 'fairness' argument against those of us living further away, as we do not enjoy that benefit.

Edited Wednesday at 10:11 by first mate

[Rockets]

In the last Lordship Lane footfall analysis (I believe the last) done by the council in 2015 their research suggested that:

 

• 29% of visitors (and by far the largest group) were from SE22
• 17% of visitors were from SE15
• 11% of visitors were from SE12
• 5% of visitors were from SE5
• 4% of visitors were from SE23
• The rest were spread across a lot of London postcodes further afield but a lot from the wider South London area

 

• 37% of visitors had walked
• 21% had got the bus
• 22% of visitors had driven

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

In the last Lordship Lane footfall analysis (I believe the last) done by the council in 2015 their research suggested that:

 

• 29% of visitors (and by far the largest group) were from SE22
• 17% of visitors were from SE15
• 11% of visitors were from SE12
• 5% of visitors were from SE5
• 4% of visitors were from SE23
• The rest were spread across a lot of London postcodes further afield but a lot from the wider South London area

 

• 37% of visitors had walked
• 21% had got the bus
• 22% of visitors had driven

That's interesting (albeit a decade old now), do you have a link?

I'm surprised there are so many people travelling from Lee? When they've got Blackheath and Greenwich much closer. All those other areas are a short walk or bus trip away.

[edited to add] found the report here https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-09/lsbu_high_street_report_-_lordship_lane_high_street.pdf

It also says that 90% of those shopping on the lane live and / or work locally. The customer base is "predominantly local, shopping little & often". 

I wonder whether there are any plans to repeat this exercise. I suspect that the number of people driving to the lane has significantly reduced over the last decade, but would be interesting to see some more recent data.

Edited Wednesday at 12:53 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

I agree it would be good if the council did the exercise again to see how much has changed. It was research done over two days in February in 2015 so repeating it wouldn't cost the earth. 

[first mate]

Even more so if they are stating they do not need to widen the consultation area because they do not 'believe' those roads will be adversely affected by the proposed CPZ.

[Penguin68]

33 minutes ago, first mate said:

they do not 'believe' those roads will be adversely affected by the proposed CPZ

Until, of course, they are and they can start the process all over again! 

[Rockets]

Funny isn't it - the council rinse and repeats this approach all across the area, they say there will be no displacement but the moment anyone says there is a problem they acknowledge that it is due to the CPZ and, gleefully, ask whether people would like a CPZ on the streets impacted.

[first mate]

Yes, exactly that and, goodness, it only takes a very few people to get the CPZ ball rolling each time, in comparison to the many locals who beg for them not to put it in.

Edited 13 hours ago by first mate

[malumbu]

I expect that it will be the opposite, all those people from Lee will say, I may as well walk/drive to Blackheath.  

Better for local shops and the environment 

[Rockets]

40 minutes ago, first mate said:

Yes, exactly that and, goodness, it only takes a very few people to get the CPZ ball rolling each time, in comparison to the many locals who beg for them not to put it in.

Yes and I do wonder how many of those "asking" for a CPZ may be Labour supporters/activists and been tapped up to do so. 

I still can't work out how the council justified doing the Townley and Calton CPZ seeing as the consultation results showed the majority didn't want it. 

[first mate]

This is it. The current consultation was fired up by a small number of 'complaints' and not clear about the origin those either, not having seen how loosely local residency is treated in the consultation.

Wonder if the 'we do not 'believe' it will affect other streets' close by, was also used in the course of objections to the Townley and Calton CPZ?

[first mate]

A consequence of CPZ is that driving round streets looking for spaces to park may well increase if the CPZ is imposed as they will start looking further afield to park. The idea that all of those driving in for work, or other reasons, will suddenly stop and instead cycle or take public transport is unlikely, in my view. I remember, some years ago, one of the cycling advocates here suggesting that unless you lived close enough to your work to cycle you should move house.