first mate

No mention in the manifesto on developing lots of CPZ', no mandate for them, however you try to spin it. Whatever said in 2023 not in manifesto, not mandated. Anyway, there is currently no pressing need for CPZ in the area the council so desperately want it in ED. The fact that they are so concerned about the 'rights' of visiting shoppers in cars is hilarious and a complete u-turn from their earlier position, but illustrates well how they leap from one narrative to another to 'make' CPZ happen. As Fred Ricketts said, when the Council allowed M&S to build over the Iceland car park, it was maintained by them that this parking was not necessary for shoppers, not only was there plenty of parking for everyone, but they anticipated most shopper would walk or use public transport. Funny that.

The consultation should really be limited to the streets it affects. If the initial rationale is we need to consult because we have had 16 people from that area complain, then surely it should only be the streets within the area, together with adjacent/ contiguous streets that are consulted. As Penguin said, these consultations are political tools, designed to maximise the result the council wants but with deniability if it goes the other way. Finally, they are required to do them as a preliminary to 'proving' parking controls are needed. I would not worry about costs- in this case a red herring. Don't they have those millions upon millions in parking funds to dip into?

Not mandated. That is the point. They were not voted in to develop more and more CPZs because this was not addressed n their manifesto. Do we think the words of the Council spokesperson at the first meeting can be trusted? That is, if the majority of consultees is against CPZ it will not happen? The problem with even that, is, as Kalamity Kel identified, the consultation process seems wide open to abuse, if anyone, anywhere can 'vote'.

Yes, that is certainly another possibility. I am sure a number of residents probably feel ground down by consultation after consultation, especially when you know that even when a majority response is against, the parking controls are put in anyway.

Thanks Fred. Are you able to name who from the Council stated this? Also, are they doing it as overall majority or as a street by street exercise? Are responses from anyone, whether they live in the area or not, included?

I suspect the meetings will have a fair share of LCC borough-wide CPZ supporters in attendance and they may give the impression of local support.

Apparently, one of the wider 'benefits' now is to balance the needs of local residents with cars against visitors using cars. This is based on a new proposition that visitors cannot park because residents are blocking the side roads. This is patent nonsense, plenty of shoppers already visit and park their cars on side roads to shop. However, this new narrative gives the council a reason to put in lots of pay per hour parking slots on side roads, simultaneously reducing resident parking even further (along with displaced parking from the first ED CPZ, more extended double yellow lines and more bays for Lime bikes) so then residents will ask for CPZs. Then the other side of Lordship Lane will feel the heat and will be next. Meantime, the council will claim they are supporting businesses by leaving parking on Lordship Lane, but think how many on here have complained about parking on LL and thereby blocking buses (the same people arguing for wall to wall CPZ). I imagine they hope that long-term this manufactured problem will further increase anger against car use. Cllr McAsh said he would like to see no cars on our streets.

I don't think local residents need tutoring on how to respond. I assume the event you attended, if CPZ related, was in another borough, where you live.

Case in point, the new East Dulwich CPZ questionnaire, currently out to residents on Melbourne Grove South and roads off it. That questionnaire forces you to give a preference response for CPZ timings, but you cannot answer that you do not want CPZ at all,not in that bit. So they are skewing the results. You are also told that if you refuse to answer that bit your whole questionnaire response will be invalidated. In other words, they need your response, because it helps them construct their preferred narrative. The CPZ narrative is now being reframed as balancing the needs of visitors using cars with those of residents who use cars. They are also now trumpeting that they will be leaving plenty of parking on Lordship Lane. But, won't that just increase pressure on buses? When CPZ was first proposed in the area, it was all about discouraging visitors in cars, because, allegedly, these car-using visitors were placing huge pressure on local residents. Funny how things change. Now the Council is seemingly falling over itself to accommodate visiting car-users... First CPZ was anti visitor -'we must protect local residents and keep car-using visitors out'; Then it was anti any cars- 'we must green our streets and tax all car users so hard the pips squeak, and to make this happen we will force through a combination of LTNs, CPZ and double yellow lines and soon there will be borough wide CPZ and (if Cllr McAsh has his way) no cars at all'. The latest narrative it is all about protecting the rights of car- using visitors and shoppers. 'We must ensure there is enough parking for visitors, because the evil and greedy, car- using residents are all clogging up the local streets where they live. We will helpfully put in lots of paid parking bays and ensure cars can park along Lordship Lane (creating even more chaos and congestion). For the council all these conflicting narratives are great fun and so lucrative, with more opportunities to charge everyone.

First session is tomorrow. People should try to attend. If this CPZ goes ahead it will have major consequences and not in a good way.

You begin to wonder what might be in those pools of water on the Rye, is it purely ground water? I hope your dogs are okay.

I disagree. As Spartacus says, this will displace parking to the other side of Lordship Lane, and they'll be next. The idea that CPZ is going to increase parking for shoppers is just nonsense and you know it. And how slippery of you to seem to support this fabricated positive. Aren't you generally against shoppers using their cars to shop? How hypocritical to laud them for excluding Lordship Lane itself from the proposed new CPZ zone, when the very next moment you'll be bleating about parked cars blocking the buses. Suddenly you are interested in 'balancing' the needs of shoppers and visitors who travel to the area by car, but the first lot of CPZ were shoehorned in on the basis that 'evil' visitors who did not live in the area, as well as commuters, were parking their cars and 'pressuring' and 'harassing' locals for spaces. Now you want them all back? I suppose next we'll hear it is important to 'balance' the needs of those who need to jump in the car and shop for a latte.

CPR, glad to have warned you. It is a disgrace the questionnaire is so obviously loaded in this way. When the results of the consultation are shared it will be presented as percentages that want CPZ for 3 hours, or all day, or whatever other options they give, however it will be spun to look as though the majority is in favour of some kind of controlled parking; given there is no option in to say "nil hours, I do not want CPZ". So those not wanting any CPZ will not be represented in that breakdown. That is how you skew results. The other way to skew things is to open a very local consultation up to lobby and activist groups. Note, Malumbu and his cycling activist chums will be scuttling down to vote in favour- even though he and his mates often maintain that consultations do not mean anything, yet they are happy to make the journey ( he is not a local) to cast their vote. On that basis, because we now know how the process is gamed, I am hoping anyone who reads One Dulwich updates, from anywhere in London, also gets involved in this consultation. People can access online information here: https://southwark.gov.uk/melbourne-grove-south-cpz

Various groups, like LCC, will be encouraging members far and wide to support CPZ in this area and to actively get in on the consultation, so it is vital if residents are unhappy with this latest move that they get involved and object. I will check, but I thought that unless you answer all the questions your response is discounted?

If people are not going to start cycling in great numbers then it is hard to justify investment in further infrastructure when we have a cost of living crisis. We also need to consider why more people are not taking to cycling. I think it is a combination of factors- geography, weather, crime. How are you going to change those?

I beg to differ. To those in the know, they may be easy to spot, but to the general public, as well as types of enforcement personnel, I do not think they are easy to spot. The whole area is a muddle and In think, in part, we are not seeing much enforcement, because it is not clear.

Great point Moovart. I doubt it as in the game of Council CPZ chess, they have learned to divide and rule, taking areas in segments to create parking pressure on the next and then they do another consultation in that new area. if they make the area too big, as they did in one of the early consultations they get a resounding response not in favour, not what they want at all. They have learned how to game the consultation process and the questionnaires to advantage, to get what they want. Note when Dulwich Village was consulted there was an overwhelming majority of hundreds of respondents against, but CPZ was forced through anyway. For the East Dulwich consultation, this has been kicked off by just 16 complaints asking for CPZ, and we have no idea if they even live in the area. Isn't that interesting? The council will use every trick to get ED CPZ forced through, but just remember that Cllr McAsh, in charge of all this, as well as a local councillor, is on the record promising no road that did not want CPZ would be made to have it. There is also no mandate for CPZ.

The problem is, you never offer solutions, but simply get picky on legal terms or other deflections, rather than admitting an issue. It is a fact, that pedalled and powered two wheeled vehicles are between them, daily exceeding 20 mph speed limits, jumping red lights, cycling on pavements and pedestrianised areas, not stopping at pedestrian crossing. In the eyes of the public, anything on two wheels that looks like a bicycle is a bicycle. For the vehicle users, many also view themselves as outside the law and that confusion is down to an unhelpfully grey area where bicycles that look very similar to the eye are treated differently in law. This is why a blanket speed limit would be helpful and we might get a bit more enforcement on the other areas.

Weasle words in intro too: "if implemented the proposed CPZ, could help reduce parking pressure" that is could not will. Meetings at Dulwich Grove United Reformed Church: Thurs 27 Feb 6-8pm Sat 1 March 10am-4pm Thurs 6 March 6-8pm See more and to respond go to: https://southwark.gov.uk/melbourne-grove-south-cpz

I understand this has gone out and Cllr McAsh has another large slice of East Dulwich in his sights. Apparently the consultation wording uses the same old tricks and under the 'what if' questions for preferred times for a scheme 'if' there is one there is no option to say you do not want any times at all, as you do not want a CPZ. So we can imagine how the results and stats will be spun. Apparently the document states that over the whole area which includes multiple streets off the full length of Melbourne Grove the council have had 16 requests for a CPZ, which they say is unusually high. That is a relatively tiny amount of requests against the hundreds that voted against in the Dulwich Village CPZ. Does anyone else remember McAsh promising that no street that did not want a CPZ would be forced to have one? I hope people take a stand. There are 3 meetings at the United Reformed Church on East Dulwich Grove.

No comment, I see, on the video posted above, showing cyclists breaking the law and cycling recklessly.

I think using comedic licence to spread distortions of what has actually been expressed is just spreading lies with a smiley face. Which posters have said they don't want any enforcement against cars that break the law, but do want enforcement against bicycles? Who has said they only want speed limits for pedal bikes? Perhaps you were just insinuating all that for comedic value too?

But you do not have to consistently maintain a speed over 20mph for it to be a risk factor, do you? Being hit by a fast moving vehicle may cause significant damage. Presumably speed limits are applied to try to reduce risk.

Or try to listen and take into account the views and experiences of others, even if they do not accord with your own.