Agenda item

Petition requesting a controlled parking zone (CPZ).

The community council received a petition from local residents of Bushey Hill Road, Crofton Road, Gairloch Road, Linnell Road, Oswyth Road and Shenley Road regarding reopening a consultation by Southwark Council about implementing a controlled parking zone (CPZ) in these roads. James Waller, the spokesperson of the group, outlined that there had previously been opposition to a CPZ, but that parking pressure in the named streets had increased significantly since, especially from commuters using Denmark Hill station. This had had a negative impact on many residents in the roads who were now unable to find parking spaces in the daytime. There were security concerns because of motorists breaking the 20mph speed-limit in order to secure a parking spot before another motorist, which often also led to altercations. For these reasons the petition called for the CPZ consultation to be reopened, and for one to be introduced, if the outcome of the consultation was positive. 

Councillors thanked the group submitting the petition and echoed residents’ concerns about the quality of life of residents. The chair said that feedback on the proposal for a CPZ in the wider area, which included the above streets, was sought from councillors under agenda item 7. Councillors reminded the meeting that, if this was agreed and the outcome of the consultation was positive, the introduction of the CPZ would still be some time away, probably a year. The meeting heard that a two-hour operation of the CPZ would be sufficient to deter commuters using the streets to park. 

The community council then received a deputation request from local residents regarding the proposed development of Brunswick Park play ground. The deputation request read:

“A group of residents living around Brunswick Park have concerns about the  proposed development of the playground. Those concerns are that a significant proportion of the park will be cut off to the largest number of users with the closing of the present circular route used hundreds of times every week. The alternative is detrimental to the historic layout and atmosphere of the park and most of us that use it every day. We are not against having upgraded safe facilities for children, we just want the development kept to the current playground area.”

Keith Doyle, the group’s spokesperson, explained that the deputation was not opposed to improving the park. However, a large number of people used the circular route around the park, and the proposals would cut off 20% of the park. The resulting decrease in footfall would encourage anti-social behaviour on the north side, and would also get rid of a safe way through the park. There was no need to maximise the play area, the pathway should be kept.

Concerns about the methodology of the consultation were expressed. The meeting heard that the survey was biased towards positive responses to the changes, as it used closed questions, and the friends of Brunswick Park had not been consulted.

The community council noted the deputation.

The chair pointed out that under item 16, the community council were only asked to make comments about the general principle of releasing the Section 106 funding, not the details of the scheme.

Michelle Normanly, from Environment and Leisure, told the meeting that no decision had been made, and that a number of on-site events would still be taking place. Comments would be taken on board and she would be happy to come back to a future community council meeting with the consultation feedback. She asked the representatives of Friends of Brunswick Park to come and see her to discuss how they could be involved in the consultation. Based on the feedback, officers would go back a step in the process. She invited people to look at the plans online and to join the mailing list.