first mate

The people who drive in for work may not live in areas well served by public transport, it may be much more difficult for them to use public transport. That aside, currently the parking pressure is not so great in the ED consultation area that a CPZ is required. That is the only reason to impose one.

How do you know the detail of what comments were received on that consultation?

Those who are disabled should not have to ask, not when millions of pounds have been spent reconfiguring a road junction into a public space with equal access and facility for all. Perception of safety is a valid issue. Those less able bodied may feel more at risk if pedestrian areas are regularly ridden through by cyclists. Being on edge affects wellbeing negatively. When the junction was a road, the clear demarcation between road and pavement reduced that sense of risk. That clear demarcation has completely gone.

The council knew that people were protesting about their needs from the outset. The council should have thought about all this and factored those needs in, before proceeding. It reflects really badly that DEI clearly has not been carefully considered and reasonable adjustments made to implementation.

Interested to know how the evidence for a majority in favour on that street was collated? If there was a known side hustle on Gilkes it seems odd the council never took action, wouldn't it be illegal to operate a business out on the street without a licence? That aside, the only legal reason for imposing a CPZ is because of parking pressure. A lot of people in the current consultation area do not believe CPZ is warranted on those grounds, that is unless you are someone that expects to park outside your home every day. The current arguments in favour of CPZ on here, and posited by the council, revolve around pollution and making things 'fairer' for shoppers visiting ED in cars as well as 'fairer' to those that live in CPZ zones closer to the city, despite them having far superior transport links. Cllr McAsh also says he wants to rid the streets of all cars, so hopes to pound car owners into submission with increasing CPZ charges. Alongside this, the council is trying to maintain the appearance of concern and support for businesses on Lordship Lane by saying cars can continue to park on the high street. However, think how many anti- car posters on here have moaned about parked cars impeding buses on the high street. Doesn't make sense, does it?

Spot on. There is currently enough room to park most of the time. Sometimes it may need to be a street away.

Charles, this is very useful. The question I would ask is what does the 'majority' mean? Is it the majority of residents in the consultation area or the majority of those who respond to the consultation? Well organised pro CPZ groups, with members living well outside the consultation area will be engaging with this consultation and that could weight the response. Are there any insights into how responses are calculated?

All a bit confusing since that last comparison photo shows a tarmac road with 20mph on it. This must be pre landscaping of the junction? Not sure what this is promoting? Perhaps it was hard to find another photo of the alleged 'community hub' with many people in it? Visiting at the weekend, you get people sitting outside to drink coffee etc they have bought, but they did that anyway, it is not like it is a new thing. Weekdays, well it is pretty much just a bigger cycle thoroughfare...a very expensive way to cheer the likes of Malumbu up.

Ah but the council will love that since electric vehicles are heavier it means they can charge more. They already have plans to penalise owners of electric cars. In summary, on the one hand Cll McAsh and fans want to rid the streets of all cars, but they also want to encourage shoppers to visit the area in cars and ensure they are able to park, as a matter of 'fairness'. They also feel that because areas closer to the city and to tube lines have controlled parking, it is only 'fair' other areas, with weaker transport links, like ED, have it too. The overriding rationale for CPZ in ED has very little to do with parking pressure- the only legal reason to ever have it. The council also presumably think it only fair that the consultation process is open to anyone, meaning someone living much further afield can decide that your street should have CPZ, purely for ideological reasons, not because of any parking pressure. How is that fair?

This is laughable. The landscaped junction is not a 'community hub' the shops where people walk to buy stuff, the restaurants, the pub and nearby parks are what draw people in. I have little doubt though that LCC and Southwark Cyclists will do their very best to make this seem a 'destination'.

We are told the main reason for widening pavements is to make everything 'nicer' and 'safer' for pedestrians. If there is a way to keep cyclists off the pedestrianised 'safer' areas then all well and good. If not, and especially if those spaces are also ridden through by illegal e-bikes/motorbikes as well as other cyclists, then 'safer' becomes empty rhetoric. As for crossings and floating bus stops; I am sure you will have seen the video of cyclists dangerously speeding through one of these outside St Thomases.

Businesses on that side will be viewed by the council as 'unaffected' until a few individuals magically pop up with a 'complaint' about parking and then there will be another consultation on that side. Disingenuous is an understatement.

Undoubtedly that is the case. Nothing like a bit of confusing and contradictory signage to get the penalty cash register pinging. Additionally, it seems access times will apply to some types of motorbike but not to others (illegal e-bikes, which we are told are actually motorbikes in law) can come and go as they please, because people think they are e-bikes. This is a gift to food delivery outfits.

To be honest, I think it makes little difference. The consultation questionnaire seems deeply flawed and designed to allow anyone, anywhere, to vote to impose CPZ in areas they do not even live in. The council and its CPZ supporters, both outside of and in other parts of the borough, are determined ED should be CPZ. Note the latest 'messaging' is if those living closer to the city (with the benefit of tube lines) have to have CPZ then it is 'only fair' we should also have it. I hope everyone remembers that the only legal reason for CPZ is to alleviate parking pressure. In the current consultation area you may occasionally have to park a street away, but otherwise, parking is manageable.

I thought there was a desire to keep motorbikes off that road at certain times? Aren't you always pointing out that illegal e-bikes are actually classed in law as motorbikes? So if they are motorbikes they must be included, surely. Otherwise, it looks like you are arguing they count as motorbikes when it suits and they do not count as motorbikes when it doesn't.

It occurs to me that perhaps there might also need to be an icon included for illegal e-bikes on that sign, given they are very much on the rise. That may be difficult because although they are classified as motorbikes they look like a bicycle. Also what about powered scooters🤔 Anyway, we probably agree that any vehicle that can exceed 15 mph should not be allowed.

Thanks Northern, I also had to use a laptop in the end, so it seems the council questionnaire may not be compatible with a range of handheld devices, which may have put off those who would like to participate. If the case, that is a pretty poor show in this day and age.

We have established that to those in the know, distinguishing legal and illegal e-bikes may be possible but most don't know the difference. A simple solution is to apply 20mph to all and anything that looks like a bike and that might make enforcement a bit easier all round. Getting hit by one of those things will hurt. On the subject of driving and mobile phones, can I just point out the increase in younger cyclists who like to cycle with both hands off the handlebars holding and looking at their mobile phone. That has to be risky.

I think it is pretty much a given they will.

The issue I see is that if you put down the road you live in you have limited options. The only roads named are those within the proposed consultation area. However if you answer that you live in one of those roads there is no way to check if you do or do not. There is also the category of 'other'. By ticking that box it means you may live in a road adjacent to, or very close to, the consultation area and may therefore be directly affected with displaced parking if the CPZ is imposed. But, 'other' could also apply to anyone living in any other road in the borough; so how does this then relate back to the question "do you want permit parking on your road"? Are all the 'other' answers given equal weighting? What about the bit that asks if you are a visitor or a resident to the area. How does that relate to the "other" and "on your road" questions? Someone in an adjacent road or very close by might legitimately say they are resident..but what about the those living further afield?

Not at all, if people feel strongly that a street they do not live in should have CPZ then obviously they are free to post their views on here. This is more about me trying to understand how the results are collated and interpreted. For instance, one poster on here said he was advised that the council would not make those streets that do not want CPZ have CPZ (aligning with Cllr McAsh' 'promise' this would not happen). However, from the design of the consultation questionnaire, how can they be sure what each street wants?

Mal may have somehow sent in a submission to test the link, perhaps he will say. I am however puzzled as to how you can respond in an honest way to the consultation if you do not live in or adjacent to the consultation area? One of the very few mandatory questions asks if you are a resident and if you want permit controls "on your road". There is not an option to say I live further away but I support CPZ in destinations I visit.

I am sorry, but it is more than three people and they actually live in the consultation area which suggests there is a bit of an issue no? If those meant to be consulted cannot actually respond then what is it all meant to be for? Just helping me to understand how this works? Many of the questions are optional but there are a couple that are not; one asks if you "want permit controls on your road"? If you live a bit away from the consultation area, neither on one of the roads in or adjacent to the area, how do you answer that? Doesn't the question suggest you live on one of the roads in the consultation area? I can see that people close and adjacent to the consultation area might be affected and so could answer if CPZ installed then they also want controls as they will take displaced parking. But, if for instance, you live a bus journey away and answer 'yes, I want permit controls on my road" doesn't this suggest you live in or adjacent to the consultation area?

That is simply amazing that you managed first time. I have been trying again today, on various devices and with no luck. Just from this forum alone, that is three of us that have had issues. i wonder why....? Speaking to neighbours; they are also having issues and cannot get beyond the green circle going round and round. One aspect of the questionnaire that puzzles me is how someone like Malumbu, who has managed to fill it in online and submit, answers the question about "Do you want permit controls on your road"- online most of the questions are optional, but that one is not. If you do not actually live in the consultation area how do you answer that question?

I guess their contention would be that someone saying they cannot complete online is lying. That is the problem with these consultations and the way they are operated. I really do think responses should be limited to the streets directly involved as well as those immediately adjacent/ contiguous, otherwise the whole thing is open to abuse. Pro CPZ groups are highly coordinated and motivated. Of course, you may be in favour, so apologies if I seem to be making assumptions. Hand on heart, I feel this is a done deal and the example of Dulwich Village CPZ shows that they will push it through, whatever the result. Cllr McAsh has said he would like to rid the streets of all cars so I think we know what is coming. One thing I understand is that the leaflet gives options of times for parking controls and you have to fill one of the options out or your response is voided. The online consultation did not seem to have these? Is it legal to have two 'varieties' of consultation format operating at the same time, if indeed that is the case?