first mate

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.

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.