Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[first mate]

Issues kept public may help hold the council to account. It is pretty clear no-one really seems to know what is going on with this one or quite why Cllr Charlie Smith chose to announce in a local magazine that the reduced CPZ had now been agreed. Obvs, if this is of no interest to you Earl then feel free to stop reading my posts on the matter. 

[CPR Dave]

Does anyone have the councillors email addresses please? 

 

I will email them this afternoon asking if the new CPZ has been agreed for Melbourne Grove, when that decision was taken and where the consultation documents and other papers can be found. 

I will then post any replies I get on this thread. 

[Moovart]

McAsh, James • [email protected]
Mwangangye, Portia • [email protected]
Smith, Charlie • [email protected]

[Rockets]

I would also suggest using this too as politicians  seem motivated to respond as I believe their response rate is monitored.

https://www.writetothem.com/

[CPR Dave]

Thanks, will let you know how I get on.

[CPR Dave]

Have had a prompt reply from Mr McAsh. 

 

The documents are available here...

 

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=8364

[first mate]

Interesting, the wording in an earlier version which said "subject to statutory consultation" has seemingly been changed to "statutory procedures". The earlier wording suggested the reduced CPZ would require further consultation (and poster March suggested they were behind schedule). Now it seems they are counting the consultation where a majority was against a CPZ as satisfying any statutory requirements? if anyone can clarify in terms of usual process that would be great.

It is claimed that (some) residents on these streets want a CPZ, hence the decision, yet the council has not been in direct contact with these streets since the decision was made. Unless, they are only speaking to those residents that allegedly asked for a CPZ.

[Rockets]

The Record of Decision materials on the link says (point 3):

Notes that the design of the permit scheme will be amended to include only the roads noted in paragraph 1 for the statutory consultation.

That is dated May so does that not suggest there will be a statutory consultation?  

Record of Decision.pdf

Edited September 15 by Rockets

[first mate]

It rather does and that is my point. If someone in the know can clarify exact meaning of wording ( including wording changes) and process, that would be helpful.

One of the documents I read stated implementation in October. They are cutting it a bit fine if there is meant to be a consultation.

Edited September 15 by first mate

[malumbu]

Can you show me where there has to be a referendum?

[first mate]

Statutory consultation, now rephrased as statutory procedures.

PS, Referendum not mentioned anywhere, except by you, Mal (aka Mr, Mrs or Ms Mischief);)

[Rockets]

1 minute ago, malumbu said:

Can you show me where there has to be a referendum?

@malumbu no one is suggesting there needs to be a referendum but the council documents online certainly suggest there needs to be/will be a statutory consultation which, as far as I am aware has not been executed yet.

The Record of Decision is very clear in that regard. I mean, let's be honest, the council regularly chooses to ignore the results of stat consultations anyway but if they go ahead without it then that's a significant point of attack for campaigners against the measures - although weren't there stories of the government wanting to give councils more power to roll these out without the need for consultations etc?

 

 

[first mate]

So how many of us think the council will just go ahead and implement the reduced CPZ without the statutory consultation (procedures) their own documents indicate is required?

[march46]

What makes you think that is a likely outcome?

[HeadNun]

11 minutes ago, first mate said:

So how many of us think the council will just go ahead and implement the reduced CPZ without the statutory consultation (procedures) their own documents indicate is required?

I do, and I watch with interest and quite a bit of concern. It doesn’t affect me directly but it smells bad. 

[first mate]

Lots of teenage boys skateboarding up and down the MGN LTN this evening, along with random e-bikes, cars, motorbikes and pedestrians. Is that the intention, that the local roads become a skateboard park?

[Rockets]

Ah that started to happen in Dulwich Square too way back when but the fun police soon put a stop to it....apparently the space was opened for the exclusive use of bikes only - skateboards were seen as a potential hazard and the kids doing it were told to go somewhere else!!!

[first mate]

Do skateboards count as 'wheeling'? These youngsters were not travelling they were practising their skills. It just feels a slightly odd mix, commuters in cars, kids going up and down playing on skateboards, commuters on e-bikes, scooters and motorbikes, pedestrians- all on the roads together.

[first mate]

Perhaps the Melbourne Grove LTN should be renamed as Melbourne Grove skateboard park. 

[first mate]

No hint of statutory consultation for the proposed ( or 'agreed) reduced MGS CPZ. Slated for implementation in October.

March, what makes you think this will not go ahead without further consultation, as flagged in the online documents (genuine question)? 

Edited September 23 by first mate

[march46]

On 23/09/2025 at 22:35, first mate said:

March, what makes you think this will not go ahead without further consultation, as flagged in the online documents (genuine question)? 

Because they have to do statutory consultation.

What makes you think they will go ahead without it?

[first mate]

Because a Councillor for the proposed CPZ area announced it was "agreed" and the last I read online it was set for implementation in October. Would a councillor announce a CPZ was agreed before it had gone to statutory consultation? If not, what could be meant by the announcement?

Edited September 26 by first mate

[march46]

Here we are again…perhaps if you email the councillor they could clarify? 

I suspect they meant the decision has been taken to proceed, subject to statutory consultation. 

[first mate]

Really? I hope your generous interpretation of the exact meaning of Councillor Smith's statement about the CPZ  is correct. I, for one, will be very pleased.

Just a reminder, his article in SE22 magazine opened with:

"The Melbourne Grove South Controlled Parking Zone has been agreed".

He then goes on to explain that 'due to resident feedback the zone will be smaller than what was originally proposed' and explains what the hours of operation will be. In such a detailed article you'd think he say something like, 'subject to statutory consultation.'

 

[march46]

Perhaps email him to clarify?