first mate

But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?

We'll have to see how that rationale stands up when we have more e-bikes and delivery e-bike/motorcyles using the 'pedestrianised' areas as useful cut-throughs, who, I wonder will take precedence? Motorbikes and cars are not allowed to use these areas yet we see e-bike/motorbikes use them daily.

I think one of the organiser's marketing lines for the event describes the festival as 'nestled' in the park- clearly having the trees and park as a backdrop is viewed as a major selling point.

It may be good to check the meter is not malfunctioning; this can happen. Equally there may be a slow leak. If TW were sure metering would reduce your bills- I think there is some kind of comparison transition period, where they get a sense of how much water you actually use- then I'd think it is worth checking.

Nah, 'maybe' just another example of council profligacy and incompetence. I was there around 2pm and the queue of stationary traffic was very long. Glad it was not all day!

Well, what a huge surprise! So, while the council digs up local footpaths to plant trees and 'green' the roads, it simultaneously offers up our parkland to private hire for a further extended period of annual damage. It is hard to see from the map, but it looks as though the footpath that was formerly available to walk along the length of the event site of old will now also be partially used up by the new footprint, it looks like it will be partly roped off? I love how the final council report advise that 'while locals will be unable to use this nicer part of the park for a month ( and actually much of summer as it all gets churned up and has to be reseeded) that this is fine as they can just use the Common instead. It feels wrong that the nicer part of the park is given over for festival use. I do not buy that, as has been stated, the Common is just not big enough for the Gala event.

Traffic backed up, bumper to bumper, yesterday, along the length of the road. The hope is this does not continue once the works are complete. This is a main route into and out of ED.

Not yet, but who knows what might be on the horizon. Wasn't a late licence mooted for something on MG North at some point?

Yes, you are quite right, I had them back to front. So when I have referred to MGS, I actually meant MGN.

@ ed pete "there still has to be the demand". I don't know but wondering if developers have been able to make a case based on the increase in demand from 2023-2024. The research I looked at said demand had risen by 500 in that period, but was still below an all time high in 2022. There will be others who know much more about this area who can give the rationale in favour; perhaps this latest govt. research is incorrect or only gives part of the story. My point is if, as seems likely, this development does little to solve the current housing crisis at local level for the non student population, I hope that the council is very, very sure that this level of student accommodation is warranted at this location. I have not managed to look at the plans in detail but how sustainable are the plans for the build; how will it be heated, what about impact on water and waste services?

A govt. research briefing (25 March 2025) indicates that while higher education student numbers reached record levels in the early 2020's, those numbers are dropping. The rise was largely international students in postgraduate courses who are now being put off by higher university fees and visa costs/issues, whereas the trend for entrants to other undergraduate courses has fallen. Applications for full time undergraduate places in 2024 were lower than the high of 2022. Schools are closing and it is projected there will be fewer 18 year olds going into higher education. Very short term there may or may not be demand for this level of student housing, but a development of this size and scale and impact on the locale must be future-proofed. Are we sure this has been done?

The S is for south. This is a council invention. When they did their first CPZ consultation for the area, they promised that no road with a majority against CPZ would be made to have it. The majority of Melbourne Grove was against CPZ, so the council divided the road into two, Melbourne Grove South and Melbourne Grove North. This enabled them to get CPZ into the Southern end of the road.

Melbourne Grove S is literally right next to the station, you have just mentioned it yourself. As to whether people have 'gotten used to' the road being blocked off to traffic, I beg to differ. I think they just have no choice but to work with it, as that decision was made for us, not really with us. The document shows works along much of the main route into ED. Do you think this will not cause disruption? That is on top of all the other ongoing roadworks? That is why I asked if anyone knew the timeframe for all this to be completed?