Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah said : "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".

Actually, I don't think you have clearly stated removing space on LL to improve bus passage on this thread, perhaps I missed it, I am sure you will re- post if I did.

Can we conclude then that you do think there is an issue with slower bus speeds on LL? Can we also conclude that you would not support the Council's stated CPZ plans where they say they will preserve existing parking on LL to support visitors in cars to shops on the Lane? 
 

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:33 by first mate

[Sue]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

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.

Oh, for goodness sake.

Would have put **S, but you might have complained to admin about that as well 🙄

Edited Wednesday at 09:20 by Sue

[march46]

47 minutes ago, first mate said:

Can we conclude then that you do think there is an issue with slower bus speeds on LL? Can we also conclude that you would not support the Council's stated CPZ plans where they say they will preserve existing parking on LL to support visitors in cars to shops on the Lane? 
 

 

Pretty sure Lordship Lane was out of scope for the Melbourne Grove CPZ, I’m not sure why you’re conflating these two things. It would be helpful if you could provide a source for what you say the council stated, as in the past you’ve said the council have said things and then ‘not been able to find them’.

Edited Wednesday at 09:19 by march46

[first mate]

March, it was specifically mentioned in the overall plans. Clearly CPZ would remove swathes of parking for visitors in cars at various time of day, do the Council made a point of saying parking provision on LL would not be affected. This was a Council statement not my conflation.

At the time of the CPZ consultation all of you who want to remove parking on LL stayed very quiet. I flagged the bus issue up in the relevant threads- not one of you commented.

Once the consultation was over and CPZ results and implementation announced, then suddenly the clamour to remove all parking on LL begins. It does look like playing the long game.

Edited Wednesday at 09:38 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

5 hours ago, first mate said:

@Earl Aelfheah said : "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".

Actually, I don't think you have clearly stated removing space on LL to improve bus passage on this thread, perhaps I missed it, I am sure you will re- post if I did.

Can we conclude then that you do think there is an issue with slower bus speeds on LL? Can we also conclude that you would not support the Council's stated CPZ plans where they say they will preserve existing parking on LL to support visitors in cars to shops on the Lane? 
 

 

You're repeating yourself. I've stated numerous times that I support the removal of parking on Lordship Lane. Do you?

The CPZ plans (which I have no view on) don't effect parking on lordship lane in any way - which is true of 101 other schemes. You seem to think this is a reason to object to them - that doesn't' make sense.

Edited Wednesday at 14:11 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

5 hours ago, Sue said:

Oh, for goodness sake.

Would have put **S, but you might have complained to admin about that as well 🙄

@Sue admin had to put more stringent rules in place because things were getting out of hand - not sure if you remember that but they were clear on what was considered acceptable, especially when it came to issues of questioning mental health of other posters.

[first mate]

Below is what the Council said about their CPZ plans, explaining LL would not be included, although streets adjacent on one side would be. The reason for this non inclusion was explained as preserving parking for visitors to LL thereby protecting business interests. It was added that to further improve visitor parking paid for spaces would be added to streets adjacent to LL. To pretend the LL and CPZ plans were in no way linked is disingenuous. The Council knew that businesses would be more likely to object to local CPZ if they lost parking spaces.

Edited Wednesday at 14:41 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

17 minutes ago, Rockets said:

@Sue admin had to put more stringent rules in place because things were getting out of hand

That's right, weren't you banned for a while? 

[CPR Dave]

They are all so disingenuous, First Mate. The council and their ban the car supporters together. 

Can't trust a word any of them say.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Below is what the Council said about their CPZ plans, explaining LL would not be included, although streets adjacent on one side would be. The reason for this non inclusion was explained as preserving parking for visitors to LL thereby protecting business interests. It was added that to further improve visitor parking paid for spaces would be added to streets adjacent to LL. To pretend the LL and CPZ plans were in no way linked is disingenuous. The Council knew that businesses would be more likely to object to local CPZ if they lost parking spaces.

@first mate I genuinely don't understand your point here. Whilst I'm sure what you say is true, the fact is that the CPZ has no impact on parking on Lordship Lane.

The fact that I would support widening the pavement and removing some parking, seems completely disconnected with the CPZ proposals. There are lot's of schemes that make no changes to parking on Lordship Lane - must I object to them on the grounds that they're irrelevant?

You keep asking me the same questions on this across several threads (which I keep answering). It's confusing and a bit strange. May I ask that you return the same courtesy and clarify your views on Lordship Lane parking, pavement widening and bike lanes?

1 hour ago, CPR Dave said:

They are all so disingenuous, First Mate. The council and their ban the car supporters together.

No one has called for cars to be banned.

Edited Wednesday at 16:17 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah The Council's own statement, which I have just given you, makes that link. Were the impact of CPZ and parking on LL completely unrelated, as you maintain, then the Council would have had no need to highlight it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The CPZ is completely unrelated to the number of parking spaces, or the pavement width on Lordship Lane.

19 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You keep asking me the same questions on this across several threads (which I keep answering). Could you return the same courtesy and clarify your views on Lordship Lane parking, pavement widening and bike lanes?

I guess not.

[first mate]

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The CPZ is completely unrelated to the number of parking spaces, or the pavement width on Lordship Lane.

If that was the case, the Council would not have highlighted the relationship between businesses and parking on LL alongside its CPZ plans.

I don't know why you have suddenly popped in pavement width. The Council did not mention it in its CPZ statement and neither did I. 

 

Edited Wednesday at 15:34 by first mate

[march46]

The council’s statement simply clarifies that Lordship Lane is not within the scope of the scheme. It’s seems once again that you’re trying to find a smoking gun where there isn’t one @first mate.

[first mate]

It is the Council who have referenced LL in regard to parking and businesses in their piece on CPZ. If completely unrelated it seems an odd thing to do.

 

[CPR Dave]

Exactly.

Parking on Lordship Lane is inextricably linked to imposing new parking restrictions on roads adjacent to Lordship Lane.  

That's why residents of Lordship Lane were included in the consultation on the CPZ. 

 

Edited Wednesday at 18:27 by CPR Dave

[malumbu]

3 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

They are all so disingenuous, First Mate. The council and their ban the car supporters together. 

Can't trust a word any of them say.

What ban?  I don't think any road legal car is banned in the UK. Drivers may be if they have been naughty or surrender their license for other reasons. 

Not really sure what car supporters are.  Do they carry rosettes and scarfs like 1960s football fans.  Maybe they look like this.  Anyone identify with Victor?

[first mate]

Ah yes, all car drivers and those that 'support' car use are angry and look exactly like Victor Meldrew. But wait, don't you also use a car from time to time, when you go off on your hols to the continent or do your community service thang, driving round checking bus lanes and junctions? Is this perchance who you see in the mirror of a mornin'? 😉

Edited Wednesday at 19:21 by first mate

[CPR Dave]

You've even banned yourself from car ownership haven't you Malumbu?

[Sue]

On 17/12/2025 at 14:34, Rockets said:

@Sue admin had to put more stringent rules in place because things were getting out of hand - not sure if you remember that but they were clear on what was considered acceptable, especially when it came to issues of questioning mental health of other posters.

No I don't remember that. Do you have a link to these "more stringent  rules"?

I don't think anyone on here has ever  seriously questioned another poster's mental health?

I used to work in diversity many years ago,  and I'm pretty sure I would have noticed if I had read something like that.

I realise that what is offensive is up to the person on the receiving end of it to decide (within reason) , but I've only ever seen "are you ok/r u ok" used as a joke online between friends.

However I have just googled it and apparently it could  indeed be offensive, as  apparently it is associated with a suicide prevention campaign. In Australia. Not over here, so far as I know.

Is that your problem with its use on here? I realise I am decades out of touch.

[CPR Dave]

It was clearly passive aggressive and not meant with any genuine concern.

[Sue]

1 hour ago, CPR Dave said:

It was clearly passive aggressive and not meant with any genuine concern.

I'm sure it wasn't meant with any genuine concern, but that's rather different from questioning someone's mental health. Isn't it?

I have never understood this "passive aggressive" thing. I was once accused of being passive aggressive, but when I asked exactly how I was being passive aggressive, I got no response.

Why do you think it was passive aggressive, and why do you think it was so bad as to warrant these "more stringent rules" being introduced?

Have they been publicised somewhere on here,  because I genuinely don't recall seeing them?