Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[LurkyMcLurker]

Genuine question:

469 people weighed in, in which 72% said they didn't want the CPZ. Southwark council reports East Dulwich as having approx. 32,400 residents. Call it 50% adults. 469/16,200 equates to 2.8% of residents weighing in on the matter. Let's also be generous and assume that each respondent speaks for 5 different people. Even then it comes out to 14% of the residents in the area weighing in. Even after cooking the numbers pretty liberally it's not a very large proportion of the community.

So my question is: is the silence by the rest of the community considered to be tacit approval?

 

[Moovart]

12 minutes ago, LurkyMcLurker said:

So my question is: is the silence by the rest of the community considered to be tacit approval?

I would think most people were totally unaware of the consultation.  There was no notification of the consultation immediately outside of the selected area even though residents of adjacent streets would obviously be affected.  I believe it was First Mate who put the consultation meeting dates on the forum which was helpful, but most people don't read the forum.  At one of the consultation meetings, the council staff suggested residents of adjacent streets should do their own leafleting if they were concerned.  

[Gardens101]

As someone who lives near the Gardens, we get all the parking from the Peckham side where the CPZ is in force. During the day it’s hard to find a parking spot. Sometimes I’d like a CPZ, but on  reflection I’d prefer not to have to pay the exorbitant fees for parking outside my own house. 

[geh]

22 hours ago, march46 said:

The report has been available online since 16th June. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=8364&LLL=0

There’s no evidence of any attempt to hide the report, the information is in the public domain and has been for some time.

 

I'm somewhat confused by the above, as when I asked the council for an update I received the following on Monday 23.06.25:

 

 

Edited July 1, 2025 by geh
Typo

[march46]

28 minutes ago, geh said:

I'm somewhat confused by the above, as when I asked the council for an update I received the following on Monday 23.06.25:

 

 

What’s causing your confusion? 

[first mate]

If all the info was up online and signed off by James McAsh on 16 June, how could the Head of Controlled Parking be saying on June 23rd that a decision had not yet been made?

[march46]

6 hours ago, first mate said:

I am still trying to understand why the June 6th document, different to the June 16 document posted by March, refers to an October implementation subject to statutory consultation? I cannot see reference to this in the June 16 version?

There is no ‘different document’. If you read the report carefully you will find what you’re looking for under ‘timeframes’.

Just now, first mate said:

If all the info was up online and signed off by James McAsh on 16 June, how could the Head of Controlled Parking be saying on June 23rd that a decision had not yet been made?

The decision was made on the 16th June, but will have been subject to a standard 1 week call-in period so only became effective on 24th June (see ‘effective from’ date). 

[first mate]

I found timeframes, but the wording if the section is different to that I read in the earlier document, that definitely said it would go live in October "subject to statutory consultation" read by me early June.

 

[geh]

19 minutes ago, march46 said:

What’s causing your confusion? 

That I was told on 23.06.25 that no decision had been made, which is contradicted by the on line report. 

[march46]

16 minutes ago, first mate said:

I found timeframes, but the wording if the section is different to that I read in the earlier document, that definitely said it would go live in October "subject to statutory consultation" read by me early June.

 

How is the wording I directed you to different?

11 minutes ago, geh said:

That I was told on 23.06.25 that no decision had been made, which is contradicted by the on line report. 

See above, the decision only became effective on 24th June. Hope that clears it up for you.

[geh]

No, sorry it does not. The correspondence from the council issued 23.06.25 clearly states no decision had been made.

This is contracted by the published report, stated to have been on the website since 16.06.25, which indicates ‘date of decision 16.06.25’

[march46]

The decision is only effective on 24th June, this is visible on the website. 
 

 

The attempts by some here to find smoking guns or ‘gotcha’ moments is quite impressive - if not a bit tiresome. 

[geh]

I’m not disputing the effective date
 

I am questioning why the Head of Controlled Parking would state no decision had been made in contradiction to the confirmed decision date published on the Southwark website. 

[march46]

I can only guess, but it seems very likely it’s because the decision was still subject to call-in, and was not yet effective. Why don’t you email them if you’re still not sure? Not sure what you are hoping to achieve though. 

Edited July 1, 2025 by march46

[geh]

Surely, if that were the case then the response should have indicated that a decision subject to call-in had been made, rather than a clear statement that ‘the decision has not yet been made’?

Edited July 1, 2025 by geh

[first mate]

48 minutes ago, march46 said:

How is the wording I directed you to different?

 

The wording I read said that the new reduced CPZ was due to go live in October "subject to statutory consultation". This new 16 June document you linked does not use that wording. It suggests consultation would take place in June. What consultation does the earlier document I saw, which then could not be found using exactly the same search terms, refer to? And, what consultation does the newer version, you posted up, refer to?

Clearly this is not the consultation on the wider scheme as that was already closed by this time. Is anyone else aware of another consultation last month on the reduced scheme?

38 minutes ago, march46 said:

The attempts by some here to find smoking guns or ‘gotcha’ moments is quite impressive - if not a bit tiresome. 

You may find it tiresome but many of us do not trust the council or its new leader on this and associated matters.

As it is, there do seem to be some odd things going on, with versions of information and documents stumbled upon online, then seeming to disappear until replaced with revised versions, while the person in charge of implementing the scheme is apparently out of the loop on those same documents which are somehow 'easily' found by March46 on this forum and allegedly available to the public since the 16  June. That document is also signed and dated by James McAsh on 16 stating with immediate effect, meaning the decision was made on 16. How could The person in charge of CPZ implementation still not know on 23rd June whether decision had been made?

Edited July 1, 2025 by first mate

[march46]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

The wording I read said that the new reduced CPZ was due to go live in October "subject to statutory consultation". This new 16 June document you linked does not use that wording. It suggests consultation would take place in June. What consultation does the earlier document I saw, which then could not be found using exactly the same search terms, refer to? And, what consultation does the newer version, you posted up, refer to?

With respect, it seems you’re wrapping yourself up in knots. What you are saying was in the ‘earlier, different document’ you saw (but can’t provide any evidence of) is the same as the publicly available document - the CPZ will go live in October, subject to statutory consultation (hoped to be done in June, but presumably this is a bit behind schedule unless anyone is otherwise aware?). 
 

[first mate]

March, the document I saw on June 7th and posted about on here, was in a different format to the one you linked to on June 16.

That aside, I am now clear that a second statutory consultation for the new reduced CPZ has yet to take place and was slated to be done in June, so presumably it will be carried out this month?

Edited July 2, 2025 by first mate

[Penguin68]

15 hours ago, LurkyMcLurker said:

469 people weighed in, in which 72% said they didn't want the CPZ. Southwark council reports East Dulwich as having approx. 32,400 residents. Call it 50% adults. 469/16,200 equates to 2.8% of residents weighing in on the matter. Let's also be generous and assume that each respondent speaks for 5 different people. Even then it comes out to 14% of the residents in the area weighing in. Even after cooking the numbers pretty liberally it's not a very large proportion of the community.

I'm sorry, but this is an entirely rubbish analysis. The numbers of people who were either residentially qualified to, or were aware of, this' consultation' were only a few streets in East Dulwich and not the whole of the area, which is made up of more than one ward. We know that those (well, at least one) who back the council's agenda participated in the consultation, although not even Southwark residents. Making an assumption that those who didn't say 'no' to a CPZ would have said 'yes' is statistically unsound. When there was a wider consultation a few years ago which involved those on both sides of Lordship Lane, as I recall, those registering against a CPZ were still equally and proportionally as high.

[Rockets]

Clearly 72% of the residents in the consultation area said "no". No two ways about it - the overwhelming majority said no. To get what they wanted the council then went down to street level, after running an area consultation, to make street-by-street decisions and treat the positive responses as a referendum for that street. They are quite happy to make it a referendum for the streets but a consultation for the area.....hmmm, they seem to be moving the goalposts a bit....what a surprise.

[LurkyMcLurker]

Ah ok, going back and reading it I see where I made an error. 

Even going back and looking at it having been 886 respondents, the 72% DOES take into consideration people who do not live on the roads impacted. I think it's still fair to consider the local population, since a CPZ does have impacts beyond the immediate street. So perhaps I should have looked more locally. Goose Green Ward has a population of 13,600. 886/13,600 is 6.5%. 

 

8 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Making an assumption that those who didn't say 'no' to a CPZ would have said 'yes' is statistically unsound.

I'm not sitting here and saying what they should have done. What I am doing is trying to get an understanding of how the council came to the conclusion that they have.

Whether it's sound, unsound, or "rubbish" doesn't matter. It happened. 

Considering the 72% negative response rate, there must have been something else for them to continue on as they have. So is it a consideration of the wider population and the response rate? 

[CPR Dave]

A well drafted FOI request could answer some of these questions.

 

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, LurkyMcLurker said:

So is it a consideration of the wider population and the response rate? 

No, it's because they won't let  something as petty as public opinion stand in their way. Which is why they initially targeted an area, but fell back onto individual roads, and they've even gone to part roads in the past to squeeze something into start the rot rolling. 

[first mate]

On 02/07/2025 at 11:11, Rockets said:

Clearly 72% of the residents in the consultation area said "no". No two ways about it - the overwhelming majority said no. To get what they wanted the council then went down to street level, after running an area consultation, to make street-by-street decisions and treat the positive responses as a referendum for that street. They are quite happy to make it a referendum for the streets but a consultation for the area.....hmmm, they seem to be moving the goalposts a bit....what a surprise.

Has anyone heard anything more about a second consultation given Cllr McAsh' signed approval of the recommendation for a reduced 3-road CPZ?

[Rockets]

Is he still the one signing these off given the leadership issues?