Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[first mate]

I would imagine he is already aware, after all if the council choose to use a freebie magazine to announce things it seems likely they (or their supporters 😉 ) will also dip into threads on here from time to time. The forum is reasonably well-known.

I know James McAsh used to post on here when he started, following in James Barber's footsteps, but then he declined to post stating a preference for private emails, so it is also clear that is the council's preferred mode of comms and it keeps a lid on things, I guess. Charlie Smith could clarify on here or perhaps he'll put something into the next issue of SE22?

[ianr]

A councillor is not the council.

[first mate]

True but Cllr Charlie Smith and Cllr James McAsh are local councillors representing residents on the same specific roads to be affected by the revised CPZ ( if it goes ahead). James McAsh is also the Cabinet Member in charge of streets across the borough. Presumably, as joint local reps they discuss matters that will affect their Wards? Especially events like consultations? Do you not think it a bit odd then for one of them to disseminate information about local street changes if it is not correct?

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 17/09/2025 at 18:52, first mate said:

Lots of teenage boys skateboarding up and down the MGN LTN this evening... Is that the intention, that the local roads become a skateboard park?

That kids are able to play outside in a residential area without fear of being run over? I hope so.

It used to be considered quite normal.

Edited September 30 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

It is two days until October, the month the council's own online documents stated would see implementation of the proposed and reduced MGS CPZ, subject to statutory consultation. No sign of any consultation yet?

[first mate]

Reading SE22 magazine today. A piece by Ward councillor and Cabinet Member for Streets, James McAsh. No mention of the MGS CPZ at all, nothing. He asks us all to go and look at the lovely street redesign and planting in MGS North.

[malumbu]

Yes, I like the planting/planters

[first mate]

I have searched and no update on this CPZ. I know local residents in the roads that would be in the proposed CPZ have not been contacted about a consultation or implementation either. It all seems very peculiar.

[first mate]

Please, if any of the council/CPZ suporters can shed light on what is happening with this CPZ do say.

[CPR Dave]

I don't think there is any doubt it is going ahead in the form set out in the link that James McAsh provided.

Those documents state very clearly the smaller scheme has been approved (by him) and I think references in there to "statutory consultation" are references to the so-called consultation that has already been undertaken. 

References to "statutory procedures" I take to mean simply drafting and approving the necessary Road Traffic Acts notices for the new parking bays and hundreds of metres of new double yellow lines that will be imposed to punish those who voted against the CPZ.

[first mate]

I fear you are right. But, on the online document I read earlier in the year, which now seems to have disappeared, the use of the phrase "subject to statutory consultation was used in such a way as to suggest imposition would only occur after a consultation, indicating further consultation. I don't see how proposed measures can be termed "subject to statutory consultation" if those exact measures have not been consulted on? 

Edited October 3 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 15/09/2025 at 11:47, CPR Dave said:

Have had a prompt reply from Mr McAsh. 

 

The documents are available here...

 

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

Thanks for actually writing to the local councillor and sharing the reply, it's really helpful.

I've not taken much interest in this to be honest, because I feel it's mainly up to those who live on the roads in question. Having taken a quick look through the documents though, am I right in thinking that they've consulted with residents and only intend to introduce controlled parking on streets where it has the support of the majority of those who live there? 

Also looks like they're only introducing controls on three streets? Maybe I've missed something.

Edited October 3 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

The strange thing is I cannot find one person in the relevant streets who say they are in favour. As for the 'it is only three streets' line, we all know this is just the beginning. Displaced parking is certain, meaning adjacent streets will soon be wanting CPZ too and so the domino effect will continue- resulting in the Council's original aim to CPZ all of ED.

[Rockets]

Displacement is very much at the centre of the council's CPZ strategy - I suspect they might have an internal motto of "One street at a time, to reap the gold mine"

[first mate]

On 24/02/2025 at 21:42, first mate said:

How hypocritical to laud them for excluding Lordship Lane itself from the proposed new CPZ zone, when the very next moment you'll be bleating about parked cars blocking the buses.

Suddenly you are interested in 'balancing' the needs of shoppers and visitors who travel to the area by car, but the first lot of CPZ were shoehorned in on the basis that 'evil' visitors who did not live in the area, as well as commuters, were parking their cars and 'pressuring' and 'harassing' locals for spaces. Now you want them all back?

I responded with the above. Not one of the pro CPZ/LTN crowd commented on the bus aspect. Now suddenly a number of you are pursuing this. It really does look like a cynical long game.

[CPR Dave]

Heh, well spotted.

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

I responded with the above. Not one of the pro CPZ/LTN crowd commented on the bus aspect. Now suddenly a number of you are pursuing this. It really does look like a cynical long game.

Why do you think this will have an impact on Lordship Lane buses? There is no additional parking being proposed, or have I missed something? Are you supporting the removal of parking on Lordship Lane, as you're obviously concerned about the impact it has on buses?

Edited 10 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Isn't removal of parking spaces on LL what you are asking for? Aren't you suggesting this would improve local bus service speeds along LL or are you now saying there is not a problem with buses on LL? If the latter, then fine, no need to remove spaces after all.

Edited 11 hours ago by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

Are you OK? I've said that, yes I would like to see less space allocated to parked cars on Lordship Lane, multiple times.

Do you ever answer a question, without a question?

What is your view on this?

 

Edited 10 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Earl, I'm fine, are you okay?

I keep asking you if you want removal of parking on LL in order to mitigate bus speeds, or are bus speeds on LL not a factor, in your view? You seem unwilling to answer this directly, for some reason?

The Council CPZ stated plans have factored in retaining the parking spaces on LL; would you then say you disagree with that plan? Remember, they felt it was important to include parking on LL to protect businesses and "balance" the needs of visitors in cars with those of residents. Do you disagree with the Council on the importance of supporting the needs of businesses and visitors in cars to Lordship Lane?

 

[Penguin68]

If you don't think drivers of private vehicles have any needs which require being met, then excising them as a group from your world view is rather top of mind. Earl would be entirely happy if there were no cars or car drivers in ED and the only self driven vehicles would be bicycles, ideally with no restrictions on their drivers. That's a perfectly valid point of view, but it isn't compatable with many other viewpoints held by other posters. Trying to square that circle is a complete waste of time and bandwidth. 

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Are you OK? I

I thought this type of language wasn't allowed anymore?

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's not OK to enquire if someone is OK? I have clearly stated more than once that I support the removal of some parking on Lordship Lane, both to increase the space for pedestrians and also to improve bus passage along the road - so it seems odd that he keeps asking me the same question.

2 hours ago, first mate said:

I keep asking you if you want removal of parking on LL in order to mitigate bus speeds, or are bus speeds on LL not a factor, in your view? You seem unwilling to answer this directly, for some reason?

Again, are you not reading my posts before asking me questions? 

Also, is there any chance of either you or Rocks ever answering a question, without posing a different question? 

Edited 7 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[CPR Dave]

If we could just get rid of all the shops and flats on Lordship Lane too then we could have even more space for pedestrians and buses. 

 

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's not OK to enquire if someone is OK?

In the context of how you used it, it was clearly meant to be derogatory. You were questioning their mental state were you not? @Administrator has been very clear in the past that such posts are not permitted as a few have ventured down this distateful path before. It would probably be wise to remove it.

Edited 2 hours ago by Rockets