Minutes of the community meeting to discuss the Controlled Parking Zone

4th October 2011


Jenny Bentall – Chair – Wells Way Triangle Residents AssociationEdit

Cllr Ian Wingfield – Deputy leader of the council and cabinet member for Housing.

Tim Walker – Senior Parking Engineer for Southwark Council.


Jenny Bentall opened the meeting and explained the agenda as a discussion of the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). She encouraged civility amongst attendees.


Cllr Ian Wingfield gave an overview of the proposals. Key points were

Political agenda

  • Council is absolutely clear about the need to reduce car usage in the Borough.
  • People are more environmentally aware and concerned and want to protect heritage. This is the starting point.
  • The world is changing around us because of human behaviour and pollution. Pollution affects the climate the atmosphere and our health
  • We also want to reduce the high number of accidents within the borough. Where there are schools and children we have a responsibility to protect areas near schools.
  • CPZs help to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour. Reduced break-ins to cars and other vehicles. Parked cars induce other anti-social behaviours as well, such as drug dealing.
  • These are the principles upon which the policy is being taken forward.
  • Since 1998 Ian Wingfield has led many initiatives around traffic, including the introduction of a one way system around Wells Way and Cottage Green. Traffic initiatives have been a part of his contribution for some time.

Tim Walker talked through some of the process.

  • The Wells Way Triangle area was consulted about the introduction of a CPZ at the same time as a neighbouring area (Lucas Gardens).
  • There has been concern about “spill over” from those areas that already have a CPZ.
  • A consultation was commenced between December 2010 and January 2011 for seven weeks in total.
  • The consultation was carried out in line with the normal process for consulting on a CPZ within this area.
  • Questionnaires were placed through residents letterboxes and notices were put up in the streets. These asked about the details of how people parked, what feelings people had about the introduction of a CPZ and also asked for further comments. 626 households were asked. 15% responded.
  • A parking occupancy survey was carried out.
  • The consultation responses were mapped against the streets. 39% of households were in favour of a CPZ and 54% against.
  • There was clear support for a CPZ across the Lucas Gardens area.
  • Results were analysed on a street by street basis. The council literature shows which roads were in favour and which roads were against.
  • Wells Way and Bonsor Street households were in favour.
  • Southampton Way was split with the north end in favour and the south end against.
  • The recommendation was that the CPZ should be introduced in Bonsor Street where 73% were in favour and 19% were against.
  • A draft report of the consultation findings and recommendations was sent to the community council for discussion, as promised in the questionnaire.
  • This recommended the introduction of a small CPZ. However the community council overruled this and suggested that this would place excessive pressure on nearby streets that are not included in the proposals.
  • The community council recommendations can be followed where a consultation response is below 20%.
  • Proposals for a CPZ are subject to statutory consultation and residents will be notified of the start of the consultation.
  • There are 21 days consultation for planning permission. Anyone can object or comment during consultation. This should commence from the 20th October 2011 and the council will write to affected residents at this time.
  • The scheme should be introduced on a trial basis in line with the recommendations of the community council.

Cllr Wingfield

  • The Council members decided to include the whole area within the CPZ as there was a very mixed view from the consultation.
  • It would not have made sense to implement the CPZ for some streets and not others.
  • At the community council meeting, at which the CPZ was discussed, 12 residents lobbied in favour of the CPZ for the whole area. They used the following five key arguments.

i) Residents in CPZ streets park in our area, even though we can’t park in theirs

ii) People who work here during the day park in this area

iii) This is the most north westerly part of the borough and attracts commuters who jump on the 343 bus to the city.

iv) A large number of white vans and other vehicles with no connection to the area park here.

v) New developments being built do not have provision for residents parking.

  • When we extended the parking zone down Havil Street the residents of Lucas Gardens became in favour of the CPZ because of the affect of overspill from other streets.
  • Cllr Wingfield was concerned that the same thing would happen if the CPZ did not include the whole of the Wells Way Triangle, as well as other streets.
  • The CPZ can be rejected after the 12 months trial period if residents are still opposed to it after this time.

Q&A SessionEdit


Comments in favourEdit

  • Residents had not been able to park in front of their own homes. The CPZ would help to prevent this.
  • People were selling cars from the street, which would also be prevented by the CPZ.
  • Commercial vehicles had been left in the street.
  • People with CPZ permits were using our spaces, even though we can’t use theirs.
  • Responsibility to children to make the roads safe.

Comments againstEdit

  • The whole thing is unnecessary
  • Residents won’t be able to even unload shopping without a permit.
  • Loss of car spaces will occur.
  • The CPZ will not affect car ownership or use. It will just make owning a car more expensive.
  • The charge for permits will rise year on year.
  • Visitors and friends will have to pay to park cars, even if they’re only stopping for an hour or two.
  • Residents believed that this was all about making money out of motorists, with no possible other benefits.
  • The CPZ will cause problems for local businesses.
  • The CPZ will cost too much, at £125 per year it’s more expensive than anticipated.
  • If the council won’t make any money from the scheme, as they always argue then why are they bothering?
  • The scheme will (probably) raise 400k per annum from motorists through permits and fines.

Other comments and ideasEdit

  • A 12 till 2 CPZ would be better than an all day one.
  • Why does the proposal exclude weekends?
  • How often will the cost increase and by how much each time?
  • Will the number of spaces match the number of cars owned by residents?
  • Could more environmentally friendly cars be charged less?
  • Newent close should have been blocked off but hasn’t been.
  • How will community centres cope, where will their users park?
  • Why is guest parking less expensive than a residents permit.


Tom Tibbits chaired the Q&A session

A community centre worker asked about how services would be provided if service users cannot park in the streets?

Tim Walker – the consultation asked whether survey respondents were residents or businesses. There is a hierarchy of prioritisation when there are more cars than road space. This is the case for the WWT area. Disabled residents go at the top of the list and commuters coming into the borough at the bottom. Residents and businesses have been prioritised over community service users. About 9% of permits are for businesses. The community centre can apply for business permits.

How can the Council possibly justify going ahead with a proposal when a majority of consultation respondents were opposed to the proposals.

Cllr Wingfield – The consultation is only part of the decision making process (as specified under English law). There were split streets so some people would have been disappointed either way. Councillors had used their experience to reach a decision as they believed that residents would be lobbying in favour of a CPZ if the council had not decided in favour.

We weren’t notified about the imposition of the CPZ following the decision at the community council?Edit

Tim Walker – The Council have followed the established protocol for consultation. The consultation document perhaps had not made clear that residents would not be written to about the results of the consultation prior to the cabinet decision.

There has been a questionnaire submitted to the council. This gave 197 signatures against the CPZ and only 3 in favour. Was this taken into account as part of the consultation?

Tim Walker – The petition was not taken into account as part of the consultation. Three CPZs have been introduced since the petition was created and so the petition is out of date as it was done back in 2006.

What about blue badge bays? If someone with a blue badge bay cannot park in it because it’s already taken they will not be able to park nearby.Edit

Tim Walker – The council will install blue badge bays in front of houses where they are needed. Not everyone with a blue badge needs a blue badge bay. Anyone with a blue badge can park in a bay.

There will be a review of whether we remain within the European blue badge scheme. Blue badge holders can only park in blue badge bays. They will not be able to park in residents bays.

Some of the blue badge bays are empty? Are there too many bays or are they underused?

Cllr Wingfield – We are aware that some disabled bays are no longer used. But no one informs the council that bays are no longer being used [A further comment requested that disabled bays should not be taken away].

Explain how the scheme will help residents in Tilson Close when they will not be able to park in front of their own house, as yellow lines will be drawn in front of garages?

Cllr Wingfield – The properties in Tilson Close have been built with drop curbs and off street parking in mind. This is why the Council will be putting yellow lines wherever there are no parking bays.

Why has Newent Close not been closed off. This has made the roads more dangerous. If CPZs are to make the roads safer then their implementation needs to be undertaken along with a broader review of road safety.

Cllr Wingfield – I have lobbied for the closure of Newent Close for some 10 years. We expect the Newent Close issue to be looked at as part of the consultation. Newent close covers two ward areas and so closing it off will require consultation with the Peckham Ward Cllrs [Cllr Wingfield promised to raise the issue with Peckham Cllrs].

Why will we not be able to use permit holders bays for visitors? Visitors should be able to use residents bays and should not have to pay to park for a short time?Edit

Tim Walker – A number of options are available. One would operate as a pay and display. There could be a shared space for pay and display or visitors. An alternative is that residents buy a visitors permit which gives visitors the right to park all day. Consulting on the type of permits issued is not part of this consultation. The cabinet members would have to make an ultimate decision on this. Some residents do not want shared spaces outside of their home as this could increase traffic parking outside their property.

What happened to the 10 till 2 option?Edit

Tim Walker – About a third of survey respondents were in favour of eight hour controls. A smaller group (25%?) were in favour of the 10 till 2. The remainder had alternative views. This is why we have gone for the 8.30 till 6.30 option.

How can we get to work if we don’t implement the CPZ. Commuters will park in our streets and then use our transport?Edit

Cllr Wingfield – This demonstrates why the scheme is needed.

12 people came and lobbied the council but this is a tiny number of people compared to those who are opposed so why is it going ahead.

Cllr Wingfield – The consultation response was mixed. If we had not included the area within the CPZ then residents would have ended up lobbying for it six months after it had been introduced in nearby streets. We still have three weeks statutory consultation to go and then residents will have a chance to vote on continuation of the scheme after the first 12 months.

Why will the scheme cost so much?Edit

Tim Walker – the council will be required to operate ring fenced parking accounts. We can only use income from parking to enforce parking. The council has a surplus on the parking account of about £3.5 million per year. This has to be spent on road infrastructure. We wouldn’t consider free parking permits for residents. 64% of income from the scheme will be fines.

Will the Council open up the car parking spaces at the back of the council houses next to St George’s school?Edit

Cllr Winfield – I wasn’t aware of these spaces. I will look into this as part of the review process. I have encouraged the extended use of the Council’s garages since coming to power.

Why not introduce the scheme across the whole borough? If residents will suffer if they are next to a CPZ then surely the whole borough will eventually be covered with a CPZ.Edit

Cllr Wingfield – There is not a policy to cover the whole borough in CPZs. In spite of the political agenda this would not be achieved entirely by CPZs across the borough.

How many CPZs have been removed after 12 monthsEdit

Tim Walker – To my knowledge one.

Cllr Wingfield – 70 to 80% of residents support CPZs after they have been introduced.

Tom Tibbits brought the Q&A session to an end.


Jenny wrapped up the meeting by asking who was in favour, who would like changes and who was against. 3 people were in favour, 3 wanted changes and the remainder were against.

Tim Walker committed to listening to responses to the 21 day statutory consultation.