Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

 

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.  

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. 

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:

 

image.thumb.png.eb1b08caf6c4b14be8016c0d1d3ff30e.png 

Edited by geh
Typo
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). 

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.

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’

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 by march46
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 by first mate
  • Agree 1
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?). 
 

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 by first mate
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.

  • Like 1

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.

  • Like 1

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? 

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. 

  • 2 weeks later...
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?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...