Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[Earl Aelfheah]

8 minutes ago, first mate said:

I suspect you are wrong.

You think it's going to collapse the high street? Really?

BTW, I think (could be wrong - hopefully someone will know more), that shop workers can obtain business parking permits for CPZs. So it may help those who really need to travel to their place of work by car, to actually park (although I suspect the vast majority use public transport).

Edited March 17 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Businesses on LL have set out reasons why this could be an issue for them.  If you live in the area you will surely be aware of these. 

I would add that I do not personally think CPZ will lead to the complete collapse of the Lane but it could make life very difficult for some of the independents and I would hate to lose those. Long term, if businesses fold there will always be others to step in, the chains in particular. But part of EDs charm lies in its independent shops. 
 
Aside from that, currently parking pressure is not enough to warrant a CPZ and parking pressure is the only legal reason to impose one.

I do have a problem with cycling activists that live outside the area taking it upon themselves to try to impose CPZ on others for ideological reasons.

Edited March 17 by first mate

[Spartacus]

6 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You think it's going to collapse the high street? Really?

BTW, I think (could be wrong - hopefully someone will know more), that shop workers can obtain business parking permits for CPZs. So it may actually help those who need to travel to their place of work by car to park.

Another cost for them 

Don't forget the increase in business rates, higher employers NI, minimum wage increase, and if people are discouraged from shopping local a potential dip in revenue  then additional costs for parking may be the straw that breaks their backs. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Like I say, I don't feel strongly either way on this. But I think the idea that a CPZ on Melbourne Grove will destroy the high street is absolute fantasy. I wish people would just make the argument and not resort to such hyperbole. If you genuinely need a vehicle to get to work, then parking permits probably help. It's not easy to park at the moment.

[first mate]

But, for someone who has no strong feelings you are focused on just one aspect and repeat it to seem like it is the main and only point . What about the fact that there is not sufficient parking pressure to warrant a CPZ? What do you say about that and why then is the council so very keen to make it happen?

Why is the council suddenly so keen to facilitate shoppers in cars when the reason for the first CPZ was to deter this? Only recently, a pro CPZ/LTN activist posted criticism of shoppers in cars in ED. Do you agree that a major reason to impose unnecessary CPZ on ED is because zones much closer to central London have them, even though they benefit from vastly superior transport links? The messaging is muddled and inconsistent.

What do you think about the consultation wording and design? 

[Rockets]

I don't think anyone is surprised that the council have returned to their borough-wide CPZ plans so quickly - they now clearly have to take one road at a time and we can expect a similar approach across the rest of Dulwich. Dulwich spoke and told them we do not want CPZs but they are now chipping off one road at a time and creating parking pressures that never existed before. Around Calton they made Townley and Calton a CPZ which is utterly ludicrous as they are the two most sparsely populated streets in the whole borough and they have created parking pressure problems across Beauval, Dovercourt, Woodwarde, Druce etc which never existed before. No doubt a few knows on the door of some Labour members and they'll get a hdnaful of people to support the drive for a CPZ and before you know it another consultation for those streets will be run.

Southwark wilfully manipulate the process to their benefit and there is nothing anyone can ever do about it as they cannot be held accountable.

[Earl Aelfheah]

17 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Southwark wilfully manipulate the process to their benefit and there is nothing anyone can ever do about it as they cannot be held accountable.

There are local elections. 

38 minutes ago, first mate said:

But, for someone who has no strong feelings you are focused on just one aspect and repeat it to seem like it is the main and only point

I mention it, because it's on the top of the poster that was shared:

As I said:

"There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make without resorting to hyperbole. I also want a thriving high street. I don't for one second believe this proposal will threaten that. I suspect no one really does."

So I'm 'focussed on' (responding to) this point, because it's the one I specifically disagree with. 

Ultimately, I don't live on those roads and can't say what residents might want (although I know they're pretty chocka). 

[first mate]

Thanks for drawing attention to that campaign Earl. I hope residents will get involved. I imagine local businesses are best placed to know the threats or challenges local CPZ might place on them. I know a number of local businesses are very worried and galvanising support.

What do you think about the council encouraging visitors in cars to park on the high street? Aren't you one of those that gets upset about the impact of parked cars on the high street on cyclists and buses? Do you agree with what the council are doing in this respect?

[Rockets]

27 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There are local elections. 

There are but between elections they pretty much do what they want and bend every process to get what they want - even when it goes against the wishes of their constituents.

On the subject of Lordship Lane I do not see how anyone can say that they do not think it will have an effect. Lordship Lane is a destination location and whilst many fo us walk to and from the shops there are still a large number of people who drive to Lordship Lane (the last council survey said that it was a large proportion - I think about 25% but it was done some time ago - who drive from neighbouring boroughs). Lordship Lane is already under threat from soulless chains like Megans, Jo the Juice and Chipotle so I would suggest that anyone who wants to try to retain what remains of  the unique nature of the Lane  and supports the independent traders does everything they can to resist this blinkered CPZ land grab.

[Earl Aelfheah]

So to be clear, you would like to encourage people to drive to Lordship lane and to park on the residential roads just off it? 

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

 

I do have a problem with cycling activists that live outside the area taking it upon themselves to try to impose CPZ on others for ideological reasons.

That's worrying, who are these activists?  Why have they come to our part of SE London?  Unlike me I bet they don't even know the roads affected, use the shops, the 176/185/P13, drink in the Castle, occasionally go to DHFC (much more in the past).

Out of interest who amongst us actually live on Melbourne Road? I'm a mile or so away but it was once one of my commuting routes and I now use it when over at TJ.  

[Spartacus]

3 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So to be clear, you would like to encourage people to drive to Lordship lane and to park on the residential roads just off it? 

To be clear 

There really isn't a problem with that happening at the moment, so why is it an issue in your mind 

Been meaning to ask, which part of the council do you work for? 

[first mate]

@Malumbu So you live well out of area but say you participated in the consultation. What I do not understand is when you answered the question about whether you want CPZ on your street, how did you answer? This is to help me understand how it works, because your street is not within the consultation area?

BTW it is Melbourne Grove, not road. 

Edited March 17 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Been meaning to ask, which part of the council do you work for? 

This is such a silly comment. I've said quite clearly "There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make", but simply pointed out that claiming a CPZ will destroy the high street is not really the best one to lead with. It's hyperbole and no one seriously believes it. One step away from 'will no one think of the children!?!?'

[first mate]

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So to be clear, you would like to encourage people to drive to Lordship lane and to park on the residential roads just off it? 

It happens already, it has always happened,  and I am fine with it. It just means sometimes we cannot park outside the house and occasionally have to park on another street. There is no need for a CPZ.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Fair enough. I'm surprised as you've often said you're concerned with congestion, pollution, and with traffic slowing the buses on lordship lane. Seems slightly at odds with wanting to encourage people to drive to the shops.

I'm surprised those living on Melbourne grove and surrounding streets want to encourage shoppers to use those roads for parking, but up to them ultimately.

Edited March 17 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

That is because more traffic has been funnelled onto Lordship Lane after imposition of the Melbourne Grove LTN. 

What surprises me and ought to surprise you is that it seems the council are happy to see congestion on LL get even worse, by encouraging shoppers to park there. It just seems so contradictory.

[Rockets]

21 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So to be clear, you would like to encourage people to drive to Lordship lane and to park on the residential roads just off it?

Earl, this was a conversation about the impact it could have on the traders of Lordship Lane and why the CPZ may impact those traders. Why are you trying to flip the story to somehow suggest we are encouraging people to drive to Lordship Lane? I was stating facts based on the council's own report on how many people drive to Lordship Lane as it is a destination venue - that's not hyperbole.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I was responding to this.

46 minutes ago, first mate said:

What do you think about the council encouraging visitors in cars to park on the high street? Aren't you one of those that gets upset about the impact of parked cars on the high street on cyclists and buses? Do you agree with what the council are doing in this respect?

I've said quite clearly "There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make". But if you want to lead with the claim that a CPZ will destroy the high street be my guest.

[first mate]

It is also the council that have made a case for CPZ citing the need to balance resident parking needs against those of visiting shoppers in cars, so it is the council that is making the case for visitors in cars and not only that, they also point out that they are supporting business on LL by letting cars park in the high street.

Please show where I have led with the claim that "CPZ will destroy the high street". You posted a leaflet and said you were talking about that.

 

Edited March 17 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

8 minutes ago, first mate said:

What surprises me and ought to surprise you is that it seems the council are happy to see congestion on LL get even worse, by encouraging shoppers to park there. It just seems so contradictory.

This makes no sense. You think that people are driving to Lordship lane but shunning spaces on the Lane in favour of the surrounding streets? 

[first mate]

I agree what the council are proposing makes no sense. If CPZ makes it harder to park on side streets surely providing more spaces on the Lane will increase existing problems with congestion etc.?

It is not just about shoppers either.Many in the local workforce drive in and park on side streets. It may not be that easy for them to use public transport or cycle, though I expect all the usual rhetoric about laziness etc..

Edited March 17 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 minutes ago, first mate said:

I agree what the council are proposing makes no sense. If CPZ makes it harder to park on side streets surely providing more spaces on the Lane will increase existing problems with congestion etc.?

Ah, Ok I see what you're saying. I hadn't realised the council were proposing additional parking on Lordship Lane. Is this right? I haven't seen this - do you have any further info.

Edited March 17 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

They also want to install 'metered' parking at the end of every side street. What you'll get is more congestion and more driving round waiting for spaces. I genuinely do not think this is the positive move it has been presented as. Quite apart from that, it is a large chunk of money every year on a permit, then any visitors / necessary building and maintenance work on top, and by all accounts still no guarantee you will necessarily be able to park when you need to.

Edited March 17 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

@first mate - Where are the proposals for additional parking spaces on Lordship Lane please?