first mate

Does not seem to mention E-bikes, presumably not seen so much as part of the active travel solution? What is meant by 'wheeling' exactly?

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?

In recent consultation on further ED CPZ the majority of respondents were against. Fully appreciate you may not live on a road proposed for CPZ. If you are close to that area it is likely you will be affected by parking displacement if the CPZ goes in. I was just curious what James Barber's position on this is? Perhaps he'll come on here and let us know. He was always really good at visiting the forum.

They did not in their manifesto state that they would achieve their commitment to clean air and healthy streets by imposing LTNs and CPZ on residents who, when consulted about these, said they did not want them. What they did say in their manifesto was they pledged to put residents at the heart of decisions to make changes to the area they lived in.

@Earl Aelfheah said: Its' your opinion. I would point out that they have made a clear commitment to their 'streets for people' strategy, which is well supported by the public." 'Well supported', in your opinion. I would point out that multiple consultations have delivered clear majority opposition to key elements of their 'streets for people' policy namely LTNs and CPZ.

It's a sad day when the party you trusted to stay true to its manifesto pledges does anything but.

The consultation showed a majority against LTN and CPZ. The consultation was launched by an administration that made an election pledge to put local residents at the heart of decisions that affected them, especially on design and changes to their area.

@Earl Aelfheah "A majority did support the aims of the scheme". What are you basing that on, the same majority that rejected the LTN and CPZ? Southwark Labour were voted in on an election/manifesto promise and pledge they would put residents at the heart of decision making on design and changes to their locale...outright rejection of a majority view on LTN and CPZ conflicts with that pledge.

The consultation and various surveys are the only tools we have to identify the level of local support for the LTN and CPZ. You refer to 'majority' support for the 'aims' of the Streets for People agenda, and seem very happy to cite that as a valid indicator, but then reject the LTN and CPZ consultation majority against? Remember also that in their manifesto, Southwark Labour made a big deal of putting residents at the heart of decision making about the design and changes to their area. This was a pledge, a promise. Instead, it feels more like 'we hear you, but we do not agree, this is what we think should happen, so suck it up.

@Earl Aelfheah Clever use of words; you are rather good at obfuscation. The fact is the majority did not support the Dulwich Village LTN or CPZ; they opposed it. The consultation is the closest thing we have to decide what locals wanted in regard to those specific interventions. Whether or not a majority of locals supported the 'aims' of the Streets for People Strategy, it is clear they did not support the imposed interventions meant to realise those aims.

Sydenham Hill had 20mph and speed cameras long before the road narrowing proposal. It just does not add up. Your rationale seems another sleight of hand to avoid admitting the road was narrowed to install a cycle lane (at some expense, no doubt) and for which there is no evidence base for usage, other than anecdotal -some saying they use it, others they never or rarely see it being used. BTW I was not implying this was your sleight of hand, I am aware how the council framed it all, but with 20mph and speed cameras already in place, it raises questions. It seems a big part of the case in favour was incidents involving cyclists and a point about some drivers getting frustrated- narrowing the road without a cycle lane would surely increase the risk to any cyclist as some drivers would be even more frustrated.