first mate

March, the document I saw on June 7th and posted about on here, was in a different format to the one you linked to on June 16. That aside, I am now clear that a second statutory consultation for the new reduced CPZ has yet to take place and was slated to be done in June, so presumably it will be carried out this month?

Think he used to do stuff for Russia Today.

Allegedly, McAsh has been involved in writing articles and campaigned for Momentum, including a step-by-step guide to 'de-selecting Labour MPs' under the pseudonym Eric Sim.

The wording I read said that the new reduced CPZ was due to go live in October "subject to statutory consultation". This new 16 June document you linked does not use that wording. It suggests consultation would take place in June. What consultation does the earlier document I saw, which then could not be found using exactly the same search terms, refer to? And, what consultation does the newer version, you posted up, refer to? Clearly this is not the consultation on the wider scheme as that was already closed by this time. Is anyone else aware of another consultation last month on the reduced scheme? You may find it tiresome but many of us do not trust the council or its new leader on this and associated matters. As it is, there do seem to be some odd things going on, with versions of information and documents stumbled upon online, then seeming to disappear until replaced with revised versions, while the person in charge of implementing the scheme is apparently out of the loop on those same documents which are somehow 'easily' found by March46 on this forum and allegedly available to the public since the 16 June. That document is also signed and dated by James McAsh on 16 stating with immediate effect, meaning the decision was made on 16. How could The person in charge of CPZ implementation still not know on 23rd June whether decision had been made?

I found timeframes, but the wording if the section is different to that I read in the earlier document, that definitely said it would go live in October "subject to statutory consultation" read by me early June.

If all the info was up online and signed off by James McAsh on 16 June, how could the Head of Controlled Parking be saying on June 23rd that a decision had not yet been made?

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?

He is one ambitious young man, no surprise.

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.

Spartacus, your last comment, which I assume is a verbal drum roll, did make me pause for a moment!

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?

Yes, and it is the same few individuals that systematically ascribe certain character traits (flaws) to anyone that disagrees with their perspective. The changes made in Dulwich Village will continue to be referenced for all kinds of reasons; not least the manner in which decisions were made and rolled out, against the majority wishes of those consulted, and may bear similarities to a forthcoming decision for the proposed Melbourne South CPZ- which also seems to have been rejected by the majority of those consulted.

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?

The newly paved, 'landscaped' and pedestrianised end of Melbourne Grove North, looks set to be a Lime Bike and Scooter pick up point. I wonder how much of the 'vital for safety' expanded pedestrian movement area will actually be given over to or even blocked by electric vehicles. Is this anything to do with the huge student accommodation development at Railway Rise?

@sunbob Interesting indeed. Was it a misguided decision to do all the pavement widening and road blocking in this location, just as a massive development requiring lots of heavy vehicle movement is on the cards for the very same area? Should we anticipate lots of traffic holdups and disruption because of even more limited room to manoeuvre? If so, is this just poor planning or an unintended but useful side effect, dovetailing with Cllr McAsh' stated aim to make motor vehicle journeys longer and more difficult?