first mate

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.

Both are equally bad, the trashing of the community garden outside the old hospital was awful and loads of work was put into it. Also remember RCH raising funds for fruit trees by the Council flats on Melbourne Grove. Such a shame these things are not better appreciated.

Even more so if they are stating they do not need to widen the consultation area because they do not 'believe' those roads will be adversely affected by the proposed CPZ.

I thought those trees were planted on council property. Are the blocks of what were council flats now all privately owned?

Whereas some posters are pure as the driven snow 😉

Earl said: "That said, I'm not convinced that there are a lot of people driving to Lordship lane and parking on the side streets to the west of it. There are very few (if any) free spaces there. For businesses who need to travel in by car, the provision of business permits may well help ensure they can actually park." That suggests the other side of the consultation area may be affected by displaced parking, if this CPZ succeeds. We may even see a return of the 'commuter parking stalkers'. Remember the reason for imposition of the first Melbourne Grove CPZ, for roads close to the railway station, was that residents were unable to park outside their properties because commuters and visitors in cars were 'harassing' them for spaces. As if by magic, after CPZ was imposed, they all disappeared. I have also been thinking about the 'fairness' point used by the council as partial justification for imposition of CPZ, the rationale being that since those living close to central London have it, then we should too. Is it fair that those living closer to the centre also benefit from proximity to much better transport links, with tube stations? That seems to weight the 'fairness' argument against those of us living further away, as we do not enjoy that benefit.

It is good that geh has posted his email thread with the council as what he was advised at the meeting and then what they said afterwards seem contradictory.

But each time you say this kind of thing about a thread (you are 'bored'; it is 'tedious') you always come back for more. The title of the thread was about a flawed consultation process, so let's update that to what is going on now on the Melbourne Grove consultation and let this one go.

Rude! I reckon most of us that actually live in the area are heartily tired of the endless roadworks and reconfigurations. The best things would be to give it a rest.

Once more, no, this idea that the cycle lane was there to slow traffic was introduced by Malumbu and backed up by you. Rockets and I commented on this and said we had not heard of that before.

I also see a broad range of people using it, just they are not on bicycles. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but at the very least it would have been helpful to see that Strava data.

This is so completely disingenuous. They 'believe' there will only be a little bit of displacement, which they also 'believe' will not cause further parking issues. I wonder if there is a legal test for CPZ imposed to 'fix' parking pressure that then causes parking pressure on the roads close by? The council are gaslighting us.

I drive up that hill regularly and rarely see a cyclist, not even an e-bike/motorcyclist. But if a sports group was going up most weekends, at a time others are not really about, I can see how the numbers would stack up. It could be the same club and same people, each weekend. Anyway, guess we'll never know.

Posted in wrong thread...again.

I was aware that cyclists are not obliged to use cycle lanes. That is why I asked if Strava data or similar accurately show cycle lane usage over a short distance, like Sydenham Hill, or do they simply indicate the amount of journeys up and down the hill, whether in the cycle lane or in the wider road space? Aside from that, I'd imagine this is a hill climb relished by local cycle clubs etc so it would be interesting to know if data for that small section is spread evenly throughout the week and year, or instead there is greater frequency on say early weekend mornings? It's meant to slow the traffic. Narrows the road, so naturally slows the traffic. That is because before it was a race track up to the cameras. Much nicer now. Expand Snowy, may I also just draw your attention to one of Malumbu's earlier comments in response to another poster ( Malumbu's comment below Jazzer's, above)

Oh yes, I remember now there were question marks as to why Underhill was not being monitored. Had forgotten that.

Ex Dulwicher said: Even the most basic look on Strava, the fitness tracking app, shows tens of thousands of rides along there Does Strava differentiate between use of road and of cycle lane?

@Earl Aelfheah Once more, I responded to a comment made by Malumbu, followed up by you. Malumbu said: "Ah, good reminder to post about that cycle lane. It's as much as narrowing the road to deter speeding, to pretty good effect. Rather than criticise I'd congratulate Southwark for some joined up thinking." and Earl said:"It's meant to slow traffic. Previously people caned it along that road and there were a number of serious crashes. Confusingly, you then not only attributed the observation about that cycle lane to me rather than Malumbu but you also to contradicted yourself by saying: Earl said "I mean I think we can see. You suggested on the ‘South circular works’ thread, that ‘a cycle lane was installed on Sydenham Hill to control driving speeds’. This is not correct" Earlier, you had said " It's meant to slow traffic".