Southwark Council’s streets boss has said the council was “within the law” with its borough-wide CPZ (controlled parking zones) plans.
Cllr James McAsh’s claim comes after the council scrapped its controversial plans to impose a parking permit system on the entire borough following vocal public outcry.
Campaign group ‘Oppose the CPZ’, which argued the council’s consultations sidestepped legal guidelines, had raised £10,000 ahead of a possible legal challenge against the council.
Southwark Council scraps plans for CPZ covering the entire the borough
The Cabinet Member for Climate Emergency, Clean Air and Streets said: “As you’d expect we’re constantly making sure we’re within the law and I’m confident that we are within the law.
“I understand that they’ve still got a legal fund but I don’t anticipate that being needed.”
He added that Southwark Council had shown “flexibility” and “a willingness to listen” by heeding residents’ concerns.
However Corin Burr, spokesperson for ‘Oppose the CPZ’, said he believed the looming legal challenge was “probably the deciding factor” prompting the council’s u-turn.
The council’s change of heart means it’s now dropped CPZs planned for Dulwich Hill and Dulwich Wood.
Local groups react to council’s decision to abandon borough-wide CPZ scheme
However, it will now consult on new CPZs within the Queen’s Road, Dulwich Village and Nunhead areas.
Southwark Council is now finalising the boundaries of those proposed CPZs and will provide “evidence to justify” them.
Residents have previously complained that CPZs didn’t give them an option to say ‘no’ to CPZs.
In the upcoming consultations, Cllr McAsh said: “We will be including a question where people can very clearly say whether they support the proposals.”
However, Cllr McAsh said these consultations were not “referenda”. Asked if an 80 per cent ‘no’ vote would be enough to prevent future CPZs, he said: “I’m not going into any hypotheticals because it would be based on a number of other different factors.
“Resident feedback is one part of it but then looking at all the evidence that we’re gathering as well. That is all important.”
Campaigners had long argued that controlled parking, which would have meant compulsory parking permits costing up to £300, was not necessarily needed in some areas, including Dulwich Hill and Dulwich Wood.
This stoked concerns that the council had failed to do enough research on parking pressures in those areas.
Cllr McAsh could not say whether data on parking pressures had been gathered in those areas prior to announcing a borough-wide CPZ.
Concerns have been raised over money spent on the consultation processes to date, as well as a £4.4 million outlay on 48 traffic wardens and new cameras to “enforce the wider controlled parking in the borough”.
Cllr McAsh said the council would still go ahead with the £4.4 million spend saying it was “unrelated to the expansion of controlled parking”.
He added that consultations to date had been “very useful and the council was “committed to spending public money as if it was from our own pocket”.
‘Oppose the CPZ’ spokesperson Corin Burr said the money sounded like an “irresponsible use of taxpayers’ money” especially given that the CPZ coverage would now be significantly smaller.
Cllr McAsh said the council’s principles of cleaner air and safer streets had “not changed one iota” as the council pushes for net zero by 2030.
He said: “I think that in politics, including in local politics, you need two things and one of the things you need is a very clear vision. And I’m confident that… our residents know what we believe in and what we’re trying to achieve.
“We want cleaner air, we want healthier streets, we want safe routes for our children to get to school, places for our communities to socialise, people want to be surrounded by tens of thousands of trees and that’s absolutely what we stand by and that’s what we’re doing.
“Controlled parking is a way of delivering some of those things; reducing parking pressure, ensuring safe and free movement of cyclists, pedestrians and indeed motor vehicles.
“As well as having a vision I think the other thing you need is flexibility and a willingness to listen and change your mind. We’ve not changed our mind on our vision… but sometimes it’s right to stop and to think ‘is this the right route to get there?’. And on this, clearly, we’ve been told that it wasn’t.”