- The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002   11,000+ members   72,000+ posts

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | About | Advertising | Contact | |
 Armstrong & Co Solicitors

Post Reply  Post Topic 
Lewisham agree the Crofton Park & Honor Oak CPZ
Author Message

Posts: 80
Joined: Apr 2011
Post: #1
10-12-2022 05:36 PM

The council have approved a CPZ consultation that covers much of Crofton Park & Honor Oak The document can be downloaded here:

The area is shown here:


Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 449
Joined: Feb 2016
Post: #2
10-12-2022 10:03 PM

Perhaps include the word consultation in the title of this thread stage 1, Stage 2 moves further into Forest Hill

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 80
Joined: Apr 2011
Post: #3
11-12-2022 12:56 AM

I am unableto edit the title. However, the body makes it clear.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 216
Joined: Oct 2011
Post: #4
11-12-2022 01:00 PM

This looks like a done deal in terms of whether it will happen or not.

Point 1.9 on the linked pdf says:

The existing Parking Policy (2014) notes that “CPZs will be introduced where over
50% of consultees in the proposed area are in support of a CPZ implementation
Since this policy was published, the Council has declared a Climate Emergency, set
out an ambitious Air Quality Action Plan, the population in the borough has grown to
exceed 300,000 people, and car ownership has reduced to 47% of households. The
Parking Policy requires updating to reflect the needs of Lewisham residents and
contemporary policy guidance. In order to minimise the impacts of displacement,
CPZs should be implemented based on the recommendation of officers with
consideration to the feedback of residents on each street
, in conjunction with data of
parking pressure, road safety, air quality, and walking and cycling needs, as set out
in Section 8 of this report. This will enable the implementation of bespoke zones
created that meet the needs of residents, businesses and the local area.

So this sounds like the consultation will be more about how it should be implemented, as opposed to whether it will.

I guess (and it may be in the document) there will be an analysis of what problem they are trying to solve with this. Part of it clearly is to reduce car traffic and encourage other means of transport, though this is stated as in addition:

In addition, each agreed CPZ will be taken forward with
measures to encourage residents to switch to more sustainable ways to travel to their destination, like walking, cycling or public transport. These measures may include:
 Electric vehicle charging points
 Bike hangars
 Improved pedestrian crossings
 Tree planting
 Parklets and green spaces
 Footway widening
 Car clubs
 Cycle hire

I think it's going to be one of these schemes where the aim is to get people using 'greener' forms of transport and move people further away from car ownership, but the actual aim may be stated differently causing confusion.

Of course, if this comes in, for those people who need a car there will be an additional cost when moneny is scarce for many, something recognised in the PDF.

Historically these schemes have often come in to stop people driving to stations, venues etc and parking all day stopping residents being able to park. I'm not sure if that is still the case now.

I'd prefer to have a scheme that doens't allow non-residents to park say 12-2 but where residents can purchase tickets for family / tradespeople etc who are required to visit for who public transport might not be an option. This would stop the all day parking, but provide a balance where people can still be visited.

In terms of other options, I'd like more work done with police to crack down on bicylcle theft. If we want people to cycle to the shops, train stations etc those people need to be able to do so reasonably safe in the knowledge their bikes will still be there when they return.

I'm all for making the area greener with various plants and trees, though it has to be done properly of course.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 95
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #5
14-12-2022 12:24 PM

I think there is a need to rethink CPZs.

It seems very regressive that somebody with a shiny £30-50K electric car gets to pay very little while those with an older/low value car have to pay a lot. The ULEZ has removed the older more polluting petrol and diesel vehicles while it is now known that electric cars spew out more equally toxic cyanide laced brake dust because of their heavier weight.

A lot of the commuter parking had disappeared but many people prefer one car blocking up a space for 8 hours with one set of pollution than 8 cars parking in the same space with 8 times the pollution.

All the sustainable measures sound really good, why don't they just put them in now as a lot of them pay for themselves or aren't expensive rather than tell people you will only get them if you agree a CPZ.

Slightly off topic, the Council should be looking at what they control. They own the Forest Hill swimming pool which generates an enormous amount of vehicle traffic mainly single or two person occupied cars which in many cases passes the windows of a school 5 metres from the road. Does the Climate Emergency not apply to the indirect pollution they generate?

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 3,257
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #6
14-12-2022 12:58 PM

What should the council do? Close the swimming pool because people drive there? A CPZ might mean that visitors to the pool use one of the designated car parks or possibly even use a bus / bike.

I'm sure the permits for electric cars will start increased once the most polluting cars have been priced off the roads.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 95
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #7
14-12-2022 01:27 PM

Nobody wants the swimming pool closed just an acknowledgement by the Council to local residents that their justification for not providing parking "We expect all users of the swimming pool to use public transport" was wrong and they should work towards reducing the impact on local schools and residents of the pollution it causes. There are many ways this can be done but the first step is acknowledging the pollution and working from there with some carrot and stick policies.

You can do both, have a high charge for the most polluting cars and for expensive EVs. The government in the latest budget is phasing in road tax for EVs with many of them also being caught by the expensive car tax rate. Lewisham should do the same now.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 1,414
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #8
14-12-2022 02:00 PM

Why are electric vehicles being targeted? I thought they were the long-term solution. I have heard that their tyres are noisy! Now they are heavy. If there is a problem with their brakes, it needs to be fixed.

If the policy is no cars, that needs to be addressed directly and not indirectly.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 80
Joined: Apr 2011
Post: #9
14-12-2022 03:48 PM

EVs are 'less worse' than internal combustion engined (ICE) vehicles in creating less damaging pollution and emissions. But that's all. They cause the same congestion - are probably up there with SUVs in collision risk.

The problem is that most of our public space is occupied by vehicles. Most of them being empty and denying space to people. That's people on foot on bikes or even in cars, vans, busses and lorries trying to get somewhere. Cars can offer great convenience but managing the inconvenience is the challenging bit.

CPZs are just one imperfect step.

This post was last modified: 14-12-2022 03:50 PM by StuartG.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 627
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #10
20-01-2023 05:18 PM

Thanks for posting this StuartG.

Once again, Honor Oak is like the forgotten child. The way the consultation boundaries are drawn up are deeply flawed it seems.

Am not aware of a parking problem in any part of Crofton Park ward except near Honor Oak Park station. There has historically been a problem with this on both sides of the tracks near HOP but post-COVID/ULEZ expansion there is much less of an issue with parking. However, by consulting just East of the tracks, and assuming this gets approved, this will just result in all the park and ride going to the west (Forest Hill ward) side instead, thereby creating a problem all lined up for the next stage!

Meanwhile, there is this proposal, which seems most unimaginative and also seems to have in-built assumption that a CPZ will get approved.

What does happen, every weekday, is massive rat-running down Devonshire Road: car damage, pollution, unsociable behaviour and unsafe driving all stem from this. Some focus on LTN in this area is horrendously overdue, especially given that the area about to consulted on has already had them for decades. This would be tricky to solve but not insurmountable and way more productive than tinkering with CPZs and no clear objective.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 2
Joined: Sep 2022
Post: #11
23-01-2023 02:49 PM

Couldn't agree more and I suspect the money will run-out before Devonshire gets a look in.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 6
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #12
23-01-2023 05:46 PM

When it comes to parking, I think the Council is trying to create a problem which doesn't really exist. As far as I am aware, apart from the immediate vicinity of trains stations there are no problems with parking. People will still need cars to cover situations that aren't covered by public transport / cycling / walking, etc.
What will happen is that more front gardens will be paved over to create driveways. As for the environmental aspects of this push, why then on Bexhill Road are they proposing only one EV charging point for 130+ properties, chopping one fully grown tree to be replaced by a small young one? If the council really had environmental issues at heart, then they should be putting loads of EV chargers and lining the streets with lots of trees / plants. What about traffic calming initiatives, dealing with speeding, pavement parking, pedestrian crossings?

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 627
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #13
01-02-2023 01:55 PM

Completely agreed @michal.

The Friends of Honor Oak have posted about this:

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 627
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #14
06-02-2023 06:43 PM

Got confirmation at the Ackroyd Centre meeting from councillor present that the CPZ element in the consultation is purely for the purpose of raising revenue. If the CPZ is not agreed then none of the improvements will happen, under this scheme anyway. Not a great surprise there.

What was shocking though was the revelation that Project Centre, who are running the (badly designed with leading questions and addressing the wrong areas) consultation, are the consultancy arm of Marston Holdings. Marston Holdings is the company outsourced to do the parking enforcement. They also just so happen to have subsidiaries which deal with debt management, air quality testing and pre-paid meter installation. Massive conflict of interest and one wonders if they get paid on 'results' of the survey too?

This post was last modified: 06-02-2023 06:44 PM by lacb.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 1,414
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #15
06-02-2023 11:03 PM

The CPZ will transfer parking from the fringes of the area controlled into neighbouring uncontrolled roads.

Most of these schemes do not limit the number of parking permits issued to the number of parking spaces available. You can buy a permit and not find a place to park!

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Posts: 9
Joined: Mar 2015
Post: #16
14-07-2023 06:39 PM

Lewisham have published the outcome of their consultation on controlled parking in Honor Oak and Crofton Park. This seems like they have scaled back ambitions for a wide swathe of controlled parking altogether which makes it seem like they listened to the views of residents:

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields

Possibly Related Topics ...
Topic: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Crofton Park and Honor Oak Park Neighbourhood Forum michael 35 42,359 11-07-2017 01:30 PM
Last Post: hillview
  St Hilda's Crofton Park urgently needs your help!!! Toony77 0 3,071 20-04-2016 01:06 PM
Last Post: Toony77
  New Councillor for Crofton Park Lord Kennedy 1 4,960 09-06-2014 10:12 AM
Last Post: Medley
  Crofton Park Assembly meeting Wednesday 23 March, 7.30pm Crofton Park Assembly 0 3,728 17-03-2011 03:48 PM
Last Post: Crofton Park Assembly
  Threatened closure of Crofton Park libary Karen Jonason 6 8,626 22-07-2010 03:53 PM
Last Post: john-f
  Crofton Park Assembly meeting Thursday 24th June , 7.30pm, at the Ackroyd Centre Crofton Park Assembly 0 3,369 23-06-2010 09:50 AM
Last Post: Crofton Park Assembly
  Crofton Park Assembly Ghis 0 3,273 10-06-2010 12:23 PM
Last Post: Ghis
  Crofton Park Assembly Meeting Sat 30 Jan derbybill 1 4,189 31-01-2010 05:24 PM
Last Post: derbybill
  The Crofton Park Assembly, this Saturday SarahCooper 0 3,036 28-01-2010 02:39 PM
Last Post: SarahCooper
  HOP and Crofton Park Police Key Individual Scheme Ghis 0 3,907 09-11-2007 02:29 PM
Last Post: Ghis