first mate

Because it is not clear what the SD benefits are so why trial it now? Why, among many other possible measures is this being prioritised? What is the view of emergency services, have they commented? I for one do not believe that a measure the Council have been trying to implement for years will be easily given up by them once installed. What mechanisms for feedback will be in place? If minority support is being cited by the Cllr as reason enough to implement why would a majority against make any difference in future?

I did ask this very question to James McAsh. He did not comment on that aspect. It?s not just SD on Melbourne but the whole area. Why has this particular measure been prioritised. Also, what impact will it have on surrounding streets? MG will now lose parking spaces because of double yellow lines viewed as necessary for this measure. Where will those cars park now?

A proportion of Melbourne is also to get double yellow lines (we are told this is to enable cars that need to turn around and go back ). So car owners on MG will also lose parking. This is being introduced as an emergency measure to achieve social distancing. However, many of you will know that the Council have been trying to close Melbourne Grove for years. James McAsh seems to indicate that a minority of households on MG supported this, not a majority. Surrounding streets will suffer. The council say this is a temporary measure but can we trust them?

Would it not be more sensible to look at the security angle before pursuing this? These are not inexpensive.

If only we could believe that.

Asking residents if they want CPZ on their road was always disingenuous since parking displacement is a well known phenomenon, especially when various other measures to reduce parking space are also underway. Let?s not pretend this was in any way even-handed. We get it, the Council needs the dosh, but please don?t dress it up as democracy, concern for our health or anything else.

So just to be clear, those that responded did not represent a majority of households or individuals within each street, but of the minority that did respond 80% were in favour? Or have I misunderstood?

But as you well know James, that methodology, dressed up as a fair approach, was assumed because it was the only way the Council could get CPZ underway across more than a few streets. Additionally, you deviated when it suited, Melbourne Grove Southside as a case in point. It is interesting that you see it as a matter of sides rather than the majority view. The majority of ED did not want it but are slowly being squeezed into capitulation. It is a long game now being speeded up using Covid.

James, thank you for your reply but the 80% is meaningless unless we know how many households of a total within each street that figure represents. It is not clear either if you are counting households or individuals? How many streets were included in your Councillor survey? Did you keep to the same method as for CPZ, that is a majority within a street? To understand just how much support there is, it is important to have this detail.

Please can someone explain exactly how the ?emergency? measures in MG encourage and help social distancing in ED? The south side is to be blocked adjacent to Tell Grove. Double yellow lines will be put in (an odd ?temporary measure?) apparently to suspend parking so that cars have room to turn and go the other way. So the hordes of pedestrians and cyclists now able to somehow better socially distance will also be weaving through cars doing three point turns? Meantime, parking pressure on all the surrounding streets will increase and will at some point beg for CPZ. The hope is that every resident who voted for the above will immediately sell their car if they own one.

Think Concordia, Hambledon and another organisation, have all merged into one mega super practice with a new name...so transparent. I am still uncomfortable that Southwark?s fave ?pet? super practice Concordia (run by a doctor and a clutch of investment bankers) and responsible for the historically appalling MGMP, won this bid. What a prize for so little merit.

I think they are using Covid as a tool to drive them through as emergency measures. We are told they are temporary and feedback will be monitored - believe that if you want. But, isn?t it a coincidence that many of the measures they wanted to implement long, long before Covid just happen to somehow be exactly the right ?Fix? for the current situation?

We need someone truly independent that cares about constituency issues and representing the majority more than internal party politics.

I think it is interesting that James refers to his work on ED CP as carving out a proposal that? most people could live with?. I would say hardly, most people did not want it but most people have no choice but to live with it.

What is clear is that it does not have to be a majority, it just needs to be some people whose thinking aligns with the Council agenda ( a very long-term agenda in this case, nothing to do with Covid and first mooted when James Barber was Cllr). Farewell democracy, all residents are equal just the views of some are more equal than others!

In reply to Snake-filth. Has there been a decrease in break-ins to bike hangers and bike theft in general since lockdown?

Sorry James, to say a couple of hundred people ?responded? gives no indication of whether they are in favour. Please can you tell us if the whole of Melbourne was ?consulted? or just one end and then, for whichever case applies, how many total households were in the area of consultation and within that how many households were ?consulted? and of those how many in favour? So are you saying there were two consultative processes around this, a ?survey? by Councillors and Then another within Healthy Street? What a lot of effort around just a part of one street? Can you explain please? I clicked on the Southwark link in geh?s post, just a few posts up from your reply James. You should have a look. Within that there is a PDF labelled Melbourne Grove, it states and I quote: ?Recent engagement from Our Healthy Street Dulwich scheme shows around 70% of respondents? ...in favour. So 70% of how many asked? What is that figure and what proportion of all the households on Melbourne is that? How many consulted First Mate - a couple of hundred people responded to the survey. You are absolutely right that this is not a majority of the households on these streets but it is does give an indication of what people think. As emphasised above, any measures implemented will be followed by a monitoring period where changes can be made or the measures removed. The southern section of Melbourne Grove has previously been consulted as part of the Our Healthy Streets consultation. Edit:In the time it took to write this first mate mentioned a figure of 70%. I have just glanced over the documents and cannot see that anywhere but I suspect that it refers to Our Healthy Streets, not the survey we councillors d

Wow it states 70% of Melbourne Grove residents support closing the street, but where is the evidence for this and is this the whole of Melbourne or just one side ( for CPZ they massaged the results by treating the North and South side of Melbourne Grove as two separate roads). I think if they are going to shunt through a long held aim using Covid as the excuse they should be forced to show the rest of us the evidence that 70% support it. I asked James McAsh about this twice and he never answered.

The fear is these hangars are not secure and with bike use on the rise bike theft may become better organised and more frequent. Not sure what the solution is.

yourmomma Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hilariously they have uploaded a new parking > survey that suggests that parking is not an issue > in the surrounding streets, well why then have the > council just instigated a CPZ in those very same > streets! Because it is a load of b*** that's why. They are making it up as they go along, shifting the goal posts each time per specific goal.Their parking surveys for planning purposes are 'cooked' and so in turn are their surveys for CPZ.

Yes, it just may not have carried the same health risks historically.

Nor me

Now I think you are being a tiny bit provocative!:)

I think the social distancing issue is to the point. Extinction rebellion have managed socially distanced and online protest. Not a good idea to urge large amounts of people to protest on the street, in close proximity, if that is what happened? That said, also appalled by what happened in USA. Unfortunately, this may be an incident where Trump can turn the mode of protest to his advantage where events distract from his woeful handling of Covid 19, which has and will cost hundreds of BAME lives.

Yes, but not onto the pavement. Social distancing on pavements for those that want and need must be the priority, as must free access for the disabled etc.. We must not push people to walk on the roads. For those premises lucky enough to have outdoor space to accommodate ?parklets? or for the occasional incredibly wide section of public pavement it might work but not realistic for the bulk of ED streets.