first mate

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?

What does location C show? A chunk of road on Melbourne Grove South is to be raised and built over to make it 'easier' for pedestrians. It is effectively widening the pavement. Is this to be known as Melbourne Square in future? Using parklets to narrow roads, and in one case remove a dropping off point, is a nice bit of environmental virtue signalling that looks good on paper, but let's see how it works out in practice.

Let's wait and see how many affordable family homes and social housing actually get built.

I find it quite amusing that having turned the South of Melbourne Grove into an LTN, there is now concern about hordes of commuter and student pedestrians not having enough room to walk. Mind you, if that were true why put in a series of parklets, surely those will be taking up much needed pavement space and with this huge volume of pedestrians moving around how ever will people safely stop and socialise? No problem with pedestrian crossings.

Looking at this it seems like maximum interference for minimal return. How long will the works take, I wonder, and with what level of disruption?

Never knew any of this. Thought it was privately owned and just a not very successful restaurant and wedding venue. Ate there once, many years ago, and food was pretty average. Such a shame such a beautiful venue in a stunning location has not done better. I guess it is a bit out of the way?

Meantime, pushing this development through allows Cllr McAsh and the Council the opportunity to spin 'positive' numbers and data, to show they are meeting the council and Labour's new housing targets.

It's yet another example of the endless meddling to ill effect.

I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.

I would also like to thank James Barber for his full outline. Given what seem to be clear mistakes in interpretation of the plans by Southwark Council planning officers, there seems to have been a lack of due diligence.

Agree. So glad they retained all of this, it adds to the area. Does anyone know what Charter will use this section for?

Good points.

I used the link provided in the development thread and found the link to the development and it was there is the first para, if I recall. I may have misread it. Suggest this is pursued in relevant thread in main section and keep this focused on the CPZ consultation. I have also commented in the other thread.

Quite. I have no objection, in many ways it is sensible, but, unless I misread, it is apparently at odds with Southwark's aim to rid our streets of cars. I have just checked and car parking is mentioned in the Proposal (p 3 of 134), along with ancillary cycle parking, refuse and landscaping. Planning – Application Comments Help with this page(opens in a new window) 24/AP/2314|Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed-use development of 3 buildings being (1) part 5, part 6 part 7 storeys, (2) part 5, part 7, part 8 storeys and (3) part 7 and part 8 storeys, accommodating up to 1,229sqm of storage and distribution space (Use Class B8), up to 53 residential homes (Use Class C3) and up to 360 purpose-built student accommodation rooms (Use Class Sui Generis) with ancillary cycle parking, refuse stores, car parking and landscaping. I would like to point out that when the Lordship Lane M&S was developed, existing car parking on that site was removed, meaning more shoppers parked on surrounding streets- although it was at the time stated that shoppers would cycle in or use public transport, in order to justify on site parking removal. We should note this proposed development is very close to a train station and to bus stops! It will have cycle storage on site.

Hmm, I am sure you do cycle when you are 'there'; you are an exceedingly keen cyclist. But, do you really cycle door to door, each time, that is to the ferry terminals and train stations either side, or to airports? Perhaps you do, but your part of France is a good way. If so, good on you; it is wonderful you enjoy the fitness, health and time to make that journey each way. Back on thread, I was not quoting you in terms of asserting people should move house if they are not close enough to their workplace to cycle. That was someone different, but someone else very involved with LCC/Southwark Cyclists. In terms of the current Melbourne CPZ consultation, I was taken aback that the large development planned for land to the back of Charter and adjacent to Melbourne Grove, includes plans for car parking. I do not personally object to that but it seems at odds with the council's declared aspiration to rid the area of cars. Perhaps I misread the plans- I did skim.

Had a quick look at the plans and the latest 'design'. In my view, it looks absolutely awful; sterile characterless blocks. How disappointing. I also read that there will be car parking for residents and wonder if that is a mistake?

I cycle most places locally, though, confess, not up and down the hills either end of ED. I cycle because I am very local and it is convenient for me. For many of those commuting in for work I imagine cycling may not be a realistic option and public transport links in to ED may be poor. As a someone that cycles regularly I am all for it, but I also appreciate that many may not share the privileged position I enjoy in being able to.

A consequence of CPZ is that driving round streets looking for spaces to park may well increase if the CPZ is imposed as they will start looking further afield to park. The idea that all of those driving in for work, or other reasons, will suddenly stop and instead cycle or take public transport is unlikely, in my view. I remember, some years ago, one of the cycling advocates here suggesting that unless you lived close enough to your work to cycle you should move house.

Saw several incidents yesterday, most on e-bikes of some description. Now the weather is getting better and more take to their bikes, whether motorised or pedalled only, it'll be interesting to see the cycling behaviour at red lights and in pedestrianised areas like Vanity Square.

This is it. The current consultation was fired up by a small number of 'complaints' and not clear about the origin those either, not having seen how loosely local residency is treated in the consultation. Wonder if the 'we do not 'believe' it will affect other streets' close by, was also used in the course of objections to the Townley and Calton CPZ?

Yes, exactly that and, goodness, it only takes a very few people to get the CPZ ball rolling each time, in comparison to the many locals who beg for them not to put it in.