Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[first mate]

The Melbourne Grove South CPZ is due to start in October, following statutory consultation. Sounds like that will take place over the summer holidays then.

The recent consultation results shows overwhelming local opposition to an East Dulwich CPZ. So, in line with its now familiar MO, the council are going for a reduced CPZ, this will be the whole of Melbourne Grove, Chesterfield and Colwell.

The council is anticipating parking pressure on other streets around the new, proposed CPZ and have said they will therefore have more consultations in future, without waiting as long as they would have done in the past.

They know they cannot get overall support so they aim to slowly pick off streets one by one, as parking pressure increases, to expand the CPZ to as much of ED as they can. Extending double yellows is another method that helps this overall aim.

 

 

[Moovart]

First Mate do you know what the hours will be of the new cpz?

[malumbu]

Correct me if I am wrong but us this a case of having to pay at certain times of the day?  So you can still park but it can cost you.  So there is no or limited loss of parking.  So that should not lead to parking pressures. Or am I being stupid?

[CPR Dave]

Its not free. Most of us who own cars also pay council tax at the full rate without discounts.

That covers the cost.

The council actually makes a profit from ttaxing motorists. They have more money than they know what to do with when it comes to roads, hence the extraordinarily lavish expenditure on landscaping the LTNs on Grive Vale etc.

They are awash with cash they have extracted from car owners.

[malumbu]

So, yes, it is not free.  But does it reduce parking spaces?

We've had many posts to explain the case why drivers may have to pay for parking on public roads; this is the norm for most of central London for much of the week. And most town centres in the country.  

[Moovart]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

So, yes, it is not free.  But does it reduce parking spaces?

We've had many posts to explain the case why drivers may have to pay for parking on public roads; this is the norm for most of central London for much of the week. And most town centres in the country.  

Is that a rhetorical question?...it will depend on the nature of the restriction...if it's residents only then residents will pay for a permit and there will be reduced parking for non residents/non permit holders. 

If it's time restricted paid parking then the amount of parking might stay the same but non permit holders will be able to park for a a limited time and it could be paid or free etc etc. 

There are many permutations but residents will need to pay for permits if they want to park on their street at restricted times.

So it just depends what the council installs.  Has that been published?

[malumbu]

Yes good points, why don't we, who are opinionated, but not directly affected, wait for the details.  A sort of truce.

[first mate]

@malumbu Presumably you are using the royal we?

Any case for CPZ should be based on parking pressure only. In this case, the council say they want to support visiting shoppers in cars as a matter of fairness, but charge them for it by offering a number of shared use bays at certain times of the day on a few select streets, along with permits for those that live on the 'chosen' streets.

This means that those who may have commuted in by car and need to park for longer will now have to park on surrounding streets, thereby increasing parking pressure on those streets at certain times of day. Shoppers who do not want to pay at certain times of day will also park on surrounding streets. Car using residents on the surrounding streets may find that at certain times of day it is very difficult to park as well, since their own street is in use by shoppers and other streets are permit holder only.

Even now, it is clear that there are parking spaces on the proposed CPZ streets, so quite how the council have decided these need to be CPZ is not clear; it cannot be based on parking pressure.

As you are fully aware, this is all part of the CPZ creep plan- it is not about solving parking pressure. Rather like LTNs and pollution, it is impose your issue on your neighbours;  you might say it is a form of nimbyism.

Edited June 8 by first mate

[tiddles]

Yes it does reduce parking as it is usually accompanied by extended yellow lines. Dulwich village is a perfect example. The council creates parking pressure by reducing space to convince residents to accept a cpz. The other trick is to introduce lots of e bike and scooter bays whether or not they are needed. An example is by the Herne Tavern. One was put next to the bike hanger on st aidans, another is next to the bius stop where on the pavement, and another is now on the road just opposite - three all within 15 paces of each other. They are usually empty. 

Edited June 8 by tiddles

[Rockets]

Funny isn't it but before the council started meddling no-one ever complained about parking pressure? Dulwich parking pressure is being created by a council hell bent on securing revenue from CPZs. It's so transparent it's laughable. 

[first mate]

I think there will always be those who complain if they cannot park right outside their home at all and any hours, those who (gasp) may have to park down their road and walk or very occasionally have to park on another road. I think these few have complained to the council and for Cllr McAsh this is manna from heaven. It enables him to say residents have complained and therefore it is only 'fair' we CPZ some streets.
 

As you noted on another thread, the council cleverly misrepresents the views of one or two as something much bigger and uses this to further their own agenda. They have consistently favoured the few over the many.

[Rockets]

Yes and I think the council we able to lean in on vested-interest local lobby groups like EDST, Mumsforlungs, Melbourne Grove RA etc to do their bidding for them.

[malumbu]

10 hours ago, tiddles said:

Yes it does reduce parking as it is usually accompanied by extended yellow lines. Dulwich village is a perfect example. The council creates parking pressure by reducing space to convince residents to accept a cpz. The other trick is to introduce lots of e bike and scooter bays whether or not they are needed. An example is by the Herne Tavern. One was put next to the bike hanger on st aidans, another is next to the bius stop where on the pavement, and another is now on the road just opposite - three all within 15 paces of each other. They are usually empty. 

So I think what you and others are saying it that you don't want scooter bays, bike hangers and double yellow lines.  That cars come first, not pedestrian safety, encouraging residents to have a more active life style, and the personal mobility that hire bikes and scooters bring. A message that is implied by a number of you.    Well at least you are honest.

[jazzer]

Never see anyone over 40 on a hire bike or scooter. These methods of transportation seem to be targeted at 16 - late 20's. 

[Rockets]

And many of these journeys on Lime bikes and scooters are replacing journeys that could easily be walked - they're creating a generation of non- walkers. 

 

[first mate]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

That cars come first, not pedestrian safety, encouraging residents to have a more active life style, a

I don't know what is 'more active' about riding scooters or e-bikes? Get those rose tinted specs off. The speeds at which I have seen e-bikes, scooters and motorbikes bombing down Melbourne Grove recently does not look any safer to me.

[tiddles]

Malumbo - Umm no, I didn’t say or suggest any of those things. I said that the council is trying to create parking pressure so as to introduce blankets CpZ. There is no need for 3 bike bays within steps of each other. I find it amusing  that you cannot tolerate any (often justified)whisper of critism of the council. BTW I frequently use lime bikes and am over 60. 

[geh]

May I ask where the info on this cpz introduction is coming from please?  Nothing on the Southwark website (Friday last week) and no other coms from Southwark. Thanks

[Earl Aelfheah]

18 hours ago, jazzer said:

Never see anyone over 40 on a hire bike or scooter. These methods of transportation seem to be targeted at 16 - late 20's. 

I'm over 40 and quite regularly use Lime bikes. But so what if it is younger people using them in the main? They do also have to get about.

On 07/06/2025 at 16:15, CPR Dave said:

Its not free. Most of us who own cars also pay council tax at the full rate without discounts.

That covers the cost.

The council actually makes a profit from ttaxing motorists. They have more money than they know what to do with when it comes to roads, hence the extraordinarily lavish expenditure on landscaping the LTNs on Grive Vale etc.

They are awash with cash they have extracted from car owners.

Eh? What money do you pay to the Council as a car owner specifically? Why should car owners get a discount on their council tax? 

[LordshipPain]

19 hours ago, malumbu said:

So I think what you and others are saying it that you don't want scooter bays, bike hangers and double yellow lines.  That cars come first, not pedestrian safety, encouraging residents to have a more active life style, and the personal mobility that hire bikes and scooters bring. A message that is implied by a number of you.    Well at least you are honest.

Bad faith nonsense from someone that doesn't even live here. Go away and focus on your own neighbourhood.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 07/06/2025 at 16:15, CPR Dave said:

Most of us who own cars also pay council tax at the full rate without discounts.

Private motor vehicles contribute to air pollution, (leading to respiratory and cardiovascular problems, especially in urban areas) and are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Congestion from car travel has major economic costs. Inactivity, impacts physical and mental health impacting our public health services. Motor vehicles kill and seriously injure 1,000's every year. Environments built around the car, lead to greater social isolation, especially impacting children, who tend to spend more time 'trapped' inside causing a host of public health issues. Most of the costs of these things are externalised (i.e. born by others), whilst the benefits are mostly accrued by the motorist.

Most households in our borough don't have access to a car, and yet I would guess around 80% of our public space is given over to private motorists, a significant amount of it for the storage of cars which are stationary around 90% of the time. There is a huge opportunity cost to this loss of public space / amenity.

Yet we have people arguing for a discount on their council tax if they drive around everywhere? Does this not seem a little entitled?

19 hours ago, first mate said:

I don't know what is 'more active' about riding scooters or e-bikes? Get those rose tinted specs off.

Perhaps e-scooters are not more active, but normal scooters and e-bikes, and push bikes, are clearly more active than siting in a car. Both scooters and e-bikes have fewer negative externalities than a motor car (they take up less room, contribute less to congestion and pollution, to respiratory and cardiovascular problems, to the deaths and serious injury of others etc).

Edited June 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Perhaps e-scooters are not more active, but normal scooters and e-bikes, and push bikes, are clearly more active than siting in a car.

But do you think the majority of these journeys are replacing car journeys - seems to me that most/a large majority are replacing walking, which, if so, is actually contributing to the problem? Is the average Lime bike journey still under one mile? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

24 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But do you think the majority of these journeys are replacing car journeys - seems to me that most/a large majority are replacing walking, which, if so, is actually contributing to the problem? Is the average Lime bike journey still under one mile? 

Some might be, for sure. Probably a greater proportion replace bus journeys or cab rides. I will fairly regularly jump on a lime bike to / from Brixton for example, where previously I may have called a cab or got someone to drop me off in the car.

If you’re asking me to guess, I would say that the proliferation of electric bikes has likely increased the total amount of ‘active travel’ happening in London.

Lime's own research (so treat with caution), suggests around 8% of journeys replace one that might otherwise have been undertaken by car. If correct that would represent a significant amount of car miles saved: https://cdn.li.me/content/uploads/Lime-in-London-final-report-2-min.pdf

...it's also worth noting that people like them, find them significantly more convenient than the alternatives - Arguments that apparently hold weight when applied to cars, but don't for any other form of transport?

Edited June 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

37 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

 

Yet we have people arguing for a discount on their council tax if they drive around everywhere? Does this not seem a little entitled?

Blimey Earl.

Thats a complete misquote of what CPR Dave actually said, should have gone to specsavers comes to mind 😉 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Blimey Earl.

Thats a complete misquote of what CPR Dave actually said, should have gone to specsavers comes to mind 😉 

 

On 07/06/2025 at 16:15, CPR Dave said:

Its not free. Most of us who own cars also pay council tax at the full rate without discounts.

That covers the cost.

The council actually makes a profit from ttaxing motorists. They have more money than they know what to do with when it comes to roads, hence the extraordinarily lavish expenditure on landscaping the LTNs on Grive Vale etc.

They are awash with cash they have extracted from car owners.

Not really. To say that car owners ‘pay council tax at the full rate without discounts', suggests that a discount should be given does it not - either on parking, or their council tax (the wording suggest the latter to me)? I would like to know what additional money car owners (I am one), pay in council tax, over those without a car? It sounds to me as though CPR Dave thinks the council / local tax payers owe car drivers something.

I'd point you to the bit in my post above, re. the negative externalities of motor vehicles.

Edited June 9 by Earl Aelfheah