Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[malumbu]

2 hours ago, geh said:

heartened to see the administration's had a change of heart and the people have been re-empowered - pure chutzpah comes to mind:

 

 

 

Dear East Dulwich residents, 

 

You are invited to the inaugural East Dulwich Neighbourhood meeting on Wednesday 2^nd July at 7pm at Charter School East Dulwich (Sports Hall entrance on East Dulwich Grove) to launch the new Neighbourhoods programme and introduce your Neighbourhood Champion.

 

 

 

 

Why criticise the council for trying to build some bridges?  What on earth do you want,???  And I had to Google chutzpah as never used the word and probably never read it before. I hadn't realised that a Mr Johnson had in deed moved into the area after all. 

[Rockets]

6 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

You are presented with evidence that crowded streets could well be in part caused by semi-dumped cars.

What evidence is that because according to the active travel lobbyists on here personal assessments/opinions presented on here cannot be taken as fact...do you have anything beyond your own personal opinion to back that up.

Still looking for a rational explanation as to why people doing a car sale ride hustle would "semi-abandon" cars on Gilkes yet seemingly no other road and what the motivation for that is....cars depreciate over time....

6 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

If, as happened in Gilkes Crescent, a large number of dumped vehicles disappeared after the introduction of a CPZ, this has clear ramifications for other streets. Instead you ignore the evidence, as I suspect it is inconvenient to your unrelenting and dubious anti-council agenda across a range of issues. 

Look, we get it. Your street is now much less crowded than it used to be - you are clearly very happy with that but if what you say is true then have you given even a moments thought to what this has meant for other streets nearby or does that not come into your consideration?

Do you also realise there is a perfectly good mechanism for reporting abandoned cars? We had one near us, that had been involved in an accident. Someone reported it to the council a notice was stuck to it and then it was removed after a set period of time.

No-one thought a CPZ was the best way to deal with it.

Edited June 15 by Rockets

[geh]

On 15/06/2025 at 16:35, malumbu said:

Why criticise the council for trying to build some bridges?  What on earth do you want,???  And I had to Google chutzpah as never used the word and probably never read it before. I hadn't realised that a Mr Johnson had in deed moved into the area after all. 

assuming 'what on earth do you want?' is rhetorical, and Mr Johnson refers to Samuel?

[first mate]

21 hours ago, Rockets said:

  On 15/06/2025 at 15:18, DulvilleRes said:

You are presented with evidence that crowded streets could well be in part caused by semi-dumped cars.

Anyone that knew for a fact that a load of dumped cars were the primary reason for loss of parking on their street, would not express this as "could well in part". Weasel words!

On 15/06/2025 at 16:35, malumbu said:

Dear East Dulwich residents, 

 

You are invited to the inaugural East Dulwich Neighbourhood meeting on Wednesday 2^nd July at 7pm at Charter School East Dulwich (Sports Hall entrance on East Dulwich Grove) to launch the new Neighbourhoods programme and introduce your Neighbourhood Champion.

Is the proposed ED CPZ up for discussion, I wonder. 

[DulvilleRes]

22 hours ago, Rockets said:

What evidence is that because according to the active travel lobbyists on here personal assessments/opinions presented on here cannot be taken as fact...do you have anything beyond your own personal opinion to back that up.

Still looking for a rational explanation as to why people doing a car sale ride hustle would "semi-abandon" cars on Gilkes yet seemingly no other road and what the motivation for that is....cars depreciate over time....

Look, we get it. Your street is now much less crowded than it used to be - you are clearly very happy with that but if what you say is true then have you given even a moments thought to what this has meant for other streets nearby or does that not come into your consideration?

Do you also realise there is a perfectly good mechanism for reporting abandoned cars? We had one near us, that had been involved in an accident. Someone reported it to the council a notice was stuck to it and then it was removed after a set period of time.

No-one thought a CPZ was the best way to deal with it.

As pointed out, the Gilkes Residents Association did a survey of vehicles that didn't move, which then evaporated after the introduction of the CPZ, so it isn't an opinion. You can of course keep ignoring this inconvenient fact to your narrative.

If a vehicle is taxed, it can stay on an open parking street as long as it likes, so it isn't abandoned. As I suggested, take a walk down the Crescent, and see what a road looks like without being clogged by cars - I think a lot of people in whatever road they are in would settle for that. Also it isn't my road. 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

As pointed out, the Gilkes Residents Association did a survey of vehicles that didn't move, which then evaporated after the introduction of the CPZ, so it isn't an opinion. You can of course keep ignoring this inconvenient fact to your narrative.

If a vehicle is taxed, it can stay on an open parking street as long as it likes, so it isn't abandoned. As I suggested, take a walk down the Crescent, and see what a road looks like without being clogged by cars - I think a lot of people in whatever road they are in would settle for that. Also it isn't my road. 

Bully for Gilkes!  They probably just "evaporated" on another local road instead.

[march46]

Which road would that be?

[Rockets]

36 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

As pointed out, the Gilkes Residents Association did a survey of vehicles that didn't move, which then evaporated after the introduction of the CPZ, so it isn't an opinion. You can of course keep ignoring this inconvenient fact to your narrative.

No, you hadn't bothered sharing that information. Perhaps you would be so kind as to share the report as I do not live on Gilkes so am not privy to it? Also I am not familiar with Gilkes - was there a big parking problem there - I know there have been concerns about school drop off and pick-ups but CPZs do nothing to alleviate that?

Also, not sure how long it  has been since you went to school but nothing just evaporates....it evaporates, condensates and then falls as precipitation elsewhere...but it seems that as you are so happy about how clear Gilkes is (and the council no doubt over the moon they can chalk another street as being an additional revenue source) that what happens elsewhere probably isn't much of a concern.

29 minutes ago, Kathleen Olander said:

If a vehicle is taxed, it can stay on an open parking street as long as it likes, so it isn't abandoned.

Not necessarily - Southwark have a number of criteria about what qualifies as an abandoned vehicle. If you report it they will visit the car to see if it qualifies - yes they will check if it is taxed or has been registered as SORN but they will also look to see if there are signs it has been left for a long time - disrepair of car, grass or weeds growing around/beneath it, flat tyres, damage to car, missing number plates etc. If so, they will put a sign on it alerting the owner that they have 7 days to contact the council or it will be removed.

Did the Gilkes RA advise people to follow that process to have semi-abandoned cars removed before lobbying for a CPZ? Still struggling to understand why anyone would semi-abandon a car, especially on Gilkes Crescent.

 

[CPR Dave]

DulvilleRes, are you a Southwark councillor by any chance?

[LordshipPain]

On 18/06/2025 at 20:44, CPR Dave said:

DulvilleRes, are you a Southwark councillor by any chance?

There are several astro-turfers on this forum - some are quite prolific in their dedication to their work.

Edited June 24 by LordshipPain

[Moovart]

What is an astro-turfer? 🤔

Explanation please.

[first mate]

I have searched briefly again, still cannot find the very recent consultation report for the council's proposed CPZ plan for Melbourne Grove South. 

If anyone else finds it please post a link online. In terms of the area and local interest this is a major initiative and a council report on the matter should not be hard to find.

Despite the council saying the matter has to go to statutory consultation the CPZ is set to go in October. So the report had to be released and the matter go to statutory consultation between now and then. I wonder how close together the release of the report and new consultation will be? I also wonder if the consultation will take place when lots of people are away, on holiday?

[Spartacus]

Maybe they are waiting on the new leader if the council to be announced before publishing it 

[march46]

The report has been available online since 16th June. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=8364&LLL=0

There’s no evidence of any attempt to hide the report, the information is in the public domain and has been for some time.

 

[Rockets]

I see just 72% of residents opposed the measures....but it wasn't a referendum was it....good grief this council.

[march46]

A different take - the roads where a majority of residents wanted a CPZ are getting one. The roads where a majority of residents didn’t want a CPZ aren’t getting one. 

[Rockets]

@march46 only if you are prepared to parrot the council's weak spin to justify their approach.

72% said no...that is a fact. Another fact is that the council, once again, are shoe horning CPZs in against the will of the majority knowing full well that there will be increased parking pressure created by them. The council consults as an area but issues on a street by street basis...that's the very definition of dividing and conquering.

More devious behaviour from our democratically elected officials making a mockery of the office they hold.

I hope people remember this come May next year....

 

Edited June 30 by Rockets

[first mate]

Thanks March, I had a feeling you would know how to access information. I should point out this is not the same document I saw on 7th June. That document mentioned the new reduced three road CPZ going live in October, subject to statutory consultation. 

I am dubious about 'the roads that wanted it got it', the wording at point 30 is very careful; they talk about taking on board the wishes of residents within certain roads who wanted a CPZ- but that is not stating a majority and I really do not believe that a majority on all three roads within the 'new' CPZ were in favour; it just does not tally with what residents are saying.

There are a minority of residents who have always want to park outside their home and resent having to park a little further away on the odd day, I have no doubt Cllr McAsh has been all ears to their concerns.

I think this is a very carefully worded report that creates an impression that a majority on three streets were in favour of a CPZ, it is a familiar council MO and I don't buy it. I'd also be interested to know if the numbers cited are per household or from individuals within households. A further issue is, it seems you could participate online saying you lived in a street, even if you did not. It is notable that the whole consultation was kicked off by just 16 requests for CPZ from the whole original area.

I am not clear how the council can possibly squeeze in more double yellows on the grounds of safety...that ship has already sailed, surely?

The bit I could not understand before was the advisory in the June 7th document that the 'new' three road CPZ was subject to statutory consultation. Perhaps it was badly worded, but it sounded as though there would be another consultation. It sounded like a decision had been taken but had yet to be formalised. You would also think that those living within the new reduced CPZ would have received some sort of notification from the council, who have email addresses for most consultees?

 

 

Edited June 30 by first mate

[march46]

7 hours ago, first mate said:

I should point out this is not the same document I saw on 7th June. That document mentioned the new reduced three road CPZ going live in October, subject to statutory consultation. 

It was the same report (just hadn’t been approved at that stage). This document mentions those things if you read carefully.

7 hours ago, first mate said:

I really do not believe that a majority on all three roads within the 'new' CPZ were in favour; it just does not tally with what residents are saying

Page 5 of Appendix A shows the consultation responses, there is a clear majority on those three roads. 

[Rockets]

The consultation was an area consultation and run as such. Surely the area has decided they do not want a CPZ?

You know this makes a mockery of those who spout the council narrative that "a consultation is not a referendum". It very much seems that it is a referendum for individual streets should they say yes.....

Those who defend the council for this devious approach are very much part of the problem.

72% of the people within the consultation area said no. Three steets managed to garner slime majorities of support yet 100% of the people within the streets will be impacted.

Welcome to Southwark democracy.

Edited July 1 by Rockets

[first mate]

I did read through but could not find mention of October implementation 'subject to statutory consultation'. Where does it say this, please? I ask because at Cllr McAsh sign off it reads like the CPZ will go in with immediate effect.

In terms of the three roads, the majorities in favour is interesting. It occurs that family members, if allowed to participate as individuals, can boost the ' majority' in favour, I do not think there is a count per household (flats within a house being separate households). Happy to be corrected.

Just out and about talking to people, it does not feel like there is majority support on all three roads. It seems like the council has been having 'informal' meetings and talks with some individuals on these streets for some time. Unsurprisingly other residents seem never to get a knock on the door. The council will have a good idea which families are in support. The majorities in favour are not huge, had they been I would not have questioned the results. 

Edited July 1 by first mate

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

The council will have a good idea which families are in support.

Yes and remember many years ago Cllr McAsh was out door-knocking with leaflets telling residents about the likely knock-on effects from the DV closures as part of his lobbying efforts.

I am also reminded of when I overheard the councillors talking in a cafe in Dulwich when they talked about targeting "weak" Labour voters ahead of an election who they could "encourage" to support them. One wonders whether the council is relying on a base of Labour supporters to gerrymander their CPZs in...

Edited July 1 by Rockets

[Penguin68]

5 hours ago, march46 said:

Page 5 of Appendix A shows the consultation responses, there is a clear majority on those three roads. 

That logic would suggest that, taken to extremes, if I was the only one in a road who wanted a CPZ, a liitle one outside my house would be created, just for me. Which is probably the mindset of those who did vote for a CPZ and will be livid when someone else on the street parks outside their house. Which they will. The CPZ logic has always been to reduce the parking space in CPZ roads to fewer places than residents cars need to spread the pain to adjacent streets. That's how it works

[first mate]

Yes, I think CPZ next to the very busy Lordship Lane will ramp parking pressure up nicely.

The report is contradictory, within the CPZ they say they want to protect resident parking but simultaneously also want residents to give up using their cars. They do not want commuters but do want people to visit and shop in their cars. They really hope there will be no displaced parking and have researched and planned so this won't happen on surrounding streets but also feel shoppers will be okay as they can park on surrounding streets for free if they do not want to pay within the CPZ. They also advise that it is likely there will be parking displacement and calls for CPZ on surrounding streets as a result, so intend to consult with more streets very soon. 

I am still trying to understand why the June 6th document, different to the June 16 document posted by March, refers to an October implementation subject to statutory consultation? I cannot see reference to this in the June 16 version?

[Rockets]

It's interesting as 72% of residents said they didn't want one and 60% of residents said they didn't want one if a neighbouring road had one - which is also quite telling. What the council are doing here is unforgivable and a lot of people are seeing through it for what it is.

Maybe Cllr McCash is actually a very nice example of nominative determinism....