Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[geh]

5 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I cycle there. 

I don’t think that’s entirely correct, and how about imposing your views on those who do live in that location, or is it ok because you live there (part time) which you don’t in the current consultation area?

Edited March 29 by geh
Spelling

[first mate]

11 hours ago, malumbu said:

I cycle there. 

Hmm, I am sure you do cycle when you are 'there'; you are an exceedingly keen cyclist. But, do you really cycle door to door, each time, that is to the ferry terminals and train stations either side, or to airports? Perhaps you do, but your part of France is a good way. If so, good on you; it is wonderful you enjoy the fitness, health and time to make that journey each way.

Back on thread, I was not quoting you in terms of asserting people should move house if they are not close enough to their workplace to cycle. That was someone different, but someone else very involved with LCC/Southwark Cyclists.

In terms of the current Melbourne CPZ consultation, I was taken aback that the large development planned for land to the back of Charter and adjacent to Melbourne Grove, includes plans for car parking. I do not personally object to that but it seems at odds with the council's declared aspiration to rid the area of cars. Perhaps I misread the plans- I did skim.

[march46]

Where does it say it includes car parking?

[first mate]

I used the link provided in the development thread and found the link to the development and it was there is the first para, if I recall. I may have misread it. 
 

Suggest this is pursued in relevant thread in main section and keep this focused on the CPZ consultation. I have also commented in the other thread.

Edited March 30 by first mate

[6musicdad]

Has anyone heard any more on this / next steps?

[first mate]

No, nothing as yet. I very much hope I am wrong but my expectation is for the council to announce they have 'listened' and 'considered' but decided that all the area should be fully CPZ. This decision will be based on 'greening' the environment and 'fairness'.

[6musicdad]

On 23/05/2025 at 09:53, first mate said:

No, nothing as yet. I very much hope I am wrong but my expectation is for the council to announce they have 'listened' and 'considered' but decided that all the area should be fully CPZ. This decision will be based on 'greening' the environment and 'fairness'.

Remind me again why you think you should be allowed to store your private property, for free, on public land?

[Spartacus]

15 minutes ago, melbournemarcus said:

Remind me again why you think you should be allowed to store your private property, for free, on public land?

I believe its called Parking  not storage 

But possibly the same reason that we can walk or cycle freely down the road. 

 

[Penguin68]

19 minutes ago, melbournemarcus said:

Remind me again why you think you should be allowed to store your private property, for free, on public land?

Because that has been the custom in this country, and hence the law (because there is no law requiring otherwise). We are not charged to ride bicycles on public roads, or to walk on public pavements- are you suggesting that these too should now be monetised? I can also access (Gala notwithstanding) public parks for free - should these also be charged for? Just because you could, or in some cases can, charge for the use of things in this country doesn't mean you should.

The law says that you can introduce CPZs where there is parking pressure and if the the residents (broady) concur. It does not say you can introduce CPZs as a money raising scheme or because they exist in other parts of your borough (where, explicitly, there is parking pressure).

I do recognise that councils round here, and their cheerleaders, have contempt for the law, but that is not something I share.

Edited May 25 by Penguin68

[6musicdad]

56 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Because that has been the custom in this country, and hence the law (because there is no law requiring otherwise). We are not charged to ride bicycles on public roads, or to walk on public pavements- are you suggesting that these too should now be monetised? I can also access (Gala notwithstanding) public parks for free - should these also be charged for? Just because you could, or in some cases can, charge for the use of things in this country doesn't mean you should.

The law says that you can introduce CPZs where there is parking pressure and if the the residents (broady) concur. It does not say you can introduce CPZs as a money raising scheme or because they exist in other parts of your borough (where, explicitly, there is parking pressure).

I do recognise that councils round here, and their cheerleaders, have contempt for the law, but that is not something I share.

Usage and storage are different things though? They should be taxed/subsidised in line with the externalities which they cause. There are almost no negative externalities with walking/cycling hence these shouldn’t be taxed. It’s widely known current car tax is below the externalities which cars cause (pollution, noise, accidents etc).

Anyway, as a resident of the street most of my neighbours are in support and hopefully we here some positive news soon!

[Rockets]

@melbournemarcus are you feeling parking pressure on that part of Melbourne Grove, do you have challenges parking your car and did those problems get worse when the council imposed the other CPZs in the vicinity?

[malumbu]

There's a lot of nonsense bout the law and motoring restrictions.

Local authorities have statutory powers introduce restrictions through Traffic Regulation Orders.  This link provided a good explanation.

https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/tros/what-is-a-traffic-regulation-order-tro/

There is a statutory consultation.  This is not a referendum.

I don't park in Melbourne Grove, certainly not in the last ten years so this doesn't affect me.  I expect that this similarly doesn't affects some who post on this thread.  Obviously excludes Marcus based on the address 

[first mate]

There is no mandate for these measures. The council was not voted in on an agenda to create lots of CPZ and LTN because neither were mentioned. 

Should add, I am as local as Marcus and do not support this latest attempt to CPZ East Dulwich- which is what will happen if this is pushed through- though given the Council's past form on CPZ, I am not holding my breath.

Edited May 26 by first mate

[Spartacus]

@melbournemarcus you say cars are "stored" for free 

Aside nornal taxes, including council, income and NI, car drivers pay additional taxes in the form of VED, insurance tax, fuel duty amongst others which all comtribute centrally towards maintaining the inferstructure.

On thw other hand cyclists and pedestrians don't pay additional taxes to the same extent. 

Therefore what justifies your desire to squeeze the pips of vehicle owners even more ? 

I'm sure you would soon be up in arms if yiur ocado delivery couldn't occur because the cost of driving onto yiur street prohibited it ! 

[malumbu]

So Marcus is in support and lives there. Most of the rest of us don't live in the vicinity.  But apparently some of us know better.

We all pay taxes.  The rich more.  Drinkers and smokers a little more.  Motorists a little more.  We could change the system, move to an insurance based health system, private/toll roads, cut other public services.  But I expect most are loosely happy with the ways of raising revenue.  Me? I'm disappointed that Starmer wimped out of removing the temporary reduction to fuel duty, and supported Blair's government's inflation plus policy.  With money going into public transport.

But, hey, I am for the broader good rather than self interest.  Although surely it is all our interests to have less congestion, less pollution, less carbon emissions even if we have to pay a little more and may be a little inconvenienced.

For those new to the forum we've been having repetitive conversations for years.

Big picture stuff.  I'm not getting involved directly with Melbourne Grove beyond using it to cycle to TJ surgery.  

[DulvilleRes]

If the CPZ does goes through, all the evidence points to the fact that the residents of Melbourne Grove can look forward to a transformed street. Any semi-dumped cars will go, put there by people who use free parking streets as storage for their buying and selling businesses, who will be forced to move their vehicles. Take a walk down Gilkes Crescent, a street that voted for the CPZ, and see the difference. 

[first mate]

 Malumbu said: "Big picture stuff.  I'm not getting involved directly with Melbourne Grove beyond using it to cycle to TJ surgery".  

So can we keep on thread and the issue of this specific CPZ.

Not all locals are in favour, not by a long shot. The original North Melbourne Grove CPZ was imposed because a few of those living close to the train station complained they could not park outside their homes, because of commuters. I would hazard a guess that complaints about inability to park outside or close by one's home are the driver with a few behind this latest Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation. Many of us have long accepted that we should not expect to park outside of our house or even on the same street, but we have always been able to park.

53 minutes ago, malumbu said:

So Marcus is in support and lives there. Most of the rest of us don't live in the vicinity.  But apparently some of us know better.

But, you, who live miles away yet told us on here you had entered into the consultation, so presumably you feel you know better too.

Edited May 26 by first mate

[malumbu]

Don't live miles away.  Used Melbourne as an occasional rat run back in the day.  Thought 'fair enough' when they blocked it.

Ah yes, someone provided the  link and I'm sure people were complaining that there was a problem.  So thought I'd check it out. As my response included that I didn't reside on this or adjacent streets it would be rightly ignored.  Bit cheeky I know.  

Those driving to the station to park as part of their commute should pay.  What is the objection to that?  

[first mate]

2 miles from Peckham Rye to Forest Hill.

The thing is, I doubt your response will be ignored. If it were to be, they would only allow those living within or adjacent to the proposed CPZ roads to respond. As it is, anyone can join in, but of course you know that anyway, LCC are always exhorting their people to get in on all and any local traffic consultations, whether they are local to the area or not, because, I guess, they think they know better.

Edited May 26 by first mate

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Those driving to the station to park as part of their commute should pay.  What is the objection to that?  

That's not the problem this is trying to fix!

[Penguin68]

14 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

That's not the problem this is trying to fix!

To be fair, the problem they are trying to fix is a cap on their taxation scope and central government underfunding. Using CPZ revenues is of course against the law, these are meant simply to cover the cost of the CPZ scheme, but that doesn't worry them. Oh, and they hate private ownership of 4 wheeled transport. 

[malumbu]

Going round in circles here.  Revenue has already been discussed and infinitum 

https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/355914-just-what-does-southwark-spend-cpz-and-pcn-money-on/

[Moovart]

And, as stated by one of the council officials at one of the consultation meetings, the council doesn't want anyone commuting to ED in a car....which is a bit difficult for the people living a distance away and starting work here at 6am.

[malumbu]

They can commute.  Just have to pay for their parking.  Although at that time of the morning there may be some free parking.  Most of central London has controlled parking, and the world hasn't stopped turning.  Let's have hands up.  Who starts work at 6am?  Not me and I am sure not many of us. Occasionally I am on a bus at 6 and stunned how busy it is.  Cleaners busing into central London to do the offices.  None obviously driving in.  

Anyway this I'm not campaigning for a CPZ on Melbourne Grove but it amazes me how many are jumping in to defend the right to street park free of charge all of the working day.

Edited May 26 by malumbu

[first mate]

32 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Anyway this I'm not campaigning for a CPZ on Melbourne Grove but it amazes me how many are jumping in to defend the right to street park free of charge all of the working day.

Really? It sure sounds like you are and presumably you said you would like it imposed when you participated in the Melbourne Grove South consultation exercise?