first mate

The subject matter was moved on to that of the thread's title and yet here you are again, taking it back to something else. So much for your debating in 'good faith'. The 'he made me do it' defence is hilarious. Some of you are extremely good with access to Southwark documents, sometimes documents that the rest of us are unable to locate. Do any of you have access to the (recently available but swiftly disappearing) Melbourne Grove South Consultation report?

Malumbu is trying ever so hard to bait, but he will have to find another pond. As for the disappeared consultation report, I do find that really strange as it is fresh off the press news; it should be really easy to find. Perhaps the first person to find that report wins a prize- a night out will Mal and Earl...A date with Mearl?

The thing I am not clear about and perhaps others can explain, is the report I saw but which now seems to have disappeared (?) said that the majority were against CPZ, but laid out plans for a smaller CPZ anyway but then said it must go to statutory consultation. Does this mean because the area has been revised they have to consult all over again or is this something different. It seems they are set on October anyway, despite statutory consultation being required ( over the summer holidays, conveniently).

But you pursued it. Again, why can't you just start another thread, you have done it before. Alternatively offer some thoughts on the Melbourne Grove South CPZ?

What is to stop you taking it to another thread?

I thought you were very much into debating in good faith? Not from what you are doing here, which looks to be shaping up as more point scoring down the rabbit hole. Could you perhaps start a new thread and leave this one to those actually interested in the proposed CPZ on Melbourne Grove? Please? To posters who asked earlier but have probably given up on finding anything relevant to MGS CPZ on this thread, I just want to say that I tried to find the consultation report again and have been unable to, which is really odd, I know.

Yup. This is supposed to be a thread about CPZ on Melbourne Grove South.

Fair enough, but this thread is about a very specific CPZ, perhaps start the 'wider debate' on another thread? To reiterate: the detail on this latest CPZ is out in a report on the consultation. The stated aim is to initiate the CPZ on MGS, Chesterfield and Colwell, in October. First it has to go to 'statutory consultation'. The recent consultation returned a majority of residents against CPZ in the proposed area. Part of the rationale for this specific CPZ was that it was necessary to balance the needs of shoppers visiting in cars against those of residents- make of that what you will.

Earl, are you in favour of MGS CPZ, especially the council rationale that it is should be imposed to balance the needs of shoppers visiting in cars against those of residents?

Can we stay on thread, please. This is about MGS CPZ.

Polite request to stay on topic, please. This thread is about the MGS CPZ. To an answer an earlier poster, I found info buried away on Southwark website and cannot quite remember how I got there. If I can get to it again, I will try to post, but there is definitely a report out there with the details I have flagged, CPZ, Melbourne Grove, Chesterfield and Colwell slated to start October 2025, following statutory consultation- whether this means there is still a chance to stop it I am not clear.

I don't know what is 'more active' about riding scooters or e-bikes? Get those rose tinted specs off. The speeds at which I have seen e-bikes, scooters and motorbikes bombing down Melbourne Grove recently does not look any safer to me.

I think there will always be those who complain if they cannot park right outside their home at all and any hours, those who (gasp) may have to park down their road and walk or very occasionally have to park on another road. I think these few have complained to the council and for Cllr McAsh this is manna from heaven. It enables him to say residents have complained and therefore it is only 'fair' we CPZ some streets. As you noted on another thread, the council cleverly misrepresents the views of one or two as something much bigger and uses this to further their own agenda. They have consistently favoured the few over the many.

@malumbu Presumably you are using the royal we? Any case for CPZ should be based on parking pressure only. In this case, the council say they want to support visiting shoppers in cars as a matter of fairness, but charge them for it by offering a number of shared use bays at certain times of the day on a few select streets, along with permits for those that live on the 'chosen' streets. This means that those who may have commuted in by car and need to park for longer will now have to park on surrounding streets, thereby increasing parking pressure on those streets at certain times of day. Shoppers who do not want to pay at certain times of day will also park on surrounding streets. Car using residents on the surrounding streets may find that at certain times of day it is very difficult to park as well, since their own street is in use by shoppers and other streets are permit holder only. Even now, it is clear that there are parking spaces on the proposed CPZ streets, so quite how the council have decided these need to be CPZ is not clear; it cannot be based on parking pressure. As you are fully aware, this is all part of the CPZ creep plan- it is not about solving parking pressure. Rather like LTNs and pollution, it is impose your issue on your neighbours; you might say it is a form of nimbyism.

The Melbourne Grove South CPZ is due to start in October, following statutory consultation. Sounds like that will take place over the summer holidays then. The recent consultation results shows overwhelming local opposition to an East Dulwich CPZ. So, in line with its now familiar MO, the council are going for a reduced CPZ, this will be the whole of Melbourne Grove, Chesterfield and Colwell. The council is anticipating parking pressure on other streets around the new, proposed CPZ and have said they will therefore have more consultations in future, without waiting as long as they would have done in the past. They know they cannot get overall support so they aim to slowly pick off streets one by one, as parking pressure increases, to expand the CPZ to as much of ED as they can. Extending double yellows is another method that helps this overall aim.

Yes, all part of the wider plan to CPZ East Dulwich, which will happen, slowly but surely. It really only takes a couple of people to suggest extending double yellows or installing a CPZ to ignite the Council into full installation mode. The Melbourne Grove South CPZ is well on its way, due in October. Despite overall and clear local opposition as laid out in the council report on this ED CPZ consultation results, the Council are nonetheless going ahead with a reduced model anyway on MGS, Colwell and Chesterfield- that'll do nicely for starters and will ensure parking pressure elsewhere. Ever helpful, and in anticipation of (knowing full well there will be) parking pressure on adjacent roads, the council say they won't wait as long as they normally would for yet more ED CPZ consultations. This will play wonderfully well for the ambitious Councillor McAsh and his CPZ-besotted base.

James Barber was very involved. I do though recall he was a big supporter of CPZ so am interested to understand his thinking on these locally, plus LTN, now, and how much heed he would take of majority opposition to implementation, as has been the case recently?

Sounds like the "as soon as we can do it safely" statement by Lambeth Council in response to the judgement directing removal of the LTN, may be a wheeze to keep it in place for as long as possible? Nobody wants anything to be done unsafely, but I am interested to learn what actioning the removal "safely" actually involves or means? Others may be able to enlighten us? I had thought that community concerns about this LTN were to do with lack of fairness and inequality, especially about pollution. They felt air quality was being made worse on some roads as a result of the LTN. And round we go.

"The Court’s Order follows the Court’s 9 May 2025 Judgment, which found that Lambeth acted unlawfully by failing to consider critical community-submitted evidence before introducing the Experimental Traffic Orders (ETOs) which put the LTN in place." According to some on here the community-submitted evidence was a load of "bollocks".

I suspect it is really difficult as stuff gets ground in and that is the problem. My own view is the event should be moved to a more suitable site. It is fairly clear they want to expand, I think that is the biggest problem, the risk of the event getting extended or other event organisers getting in on the action. It is great that the barriers are down and the park can be fully enjoyed again. The damage to grass does not seem as bad this year; I suspect that is because there has been much less rainfall.

Traffic along the Ed side of Peckham Rye was crazy yesterday afternoon too. Not great.

I suppose wind could have blown rubbish out of bins down into the pond. But I also counted three footballs and some smaller balls. Regrettably, there is also what seems to be a large dead carp or waterfowl, hard to tell at distance. I just hope the water quality is okay. I am not clear to what extent the pond is managed.

I am hoping that the damage will not be as bad this year, so that the field can be returned to use for the rest of summer, instead of waiting for reseeding. I also wonder how the new bund has fared? It had some lovely wild flowers growing in and around it. Hope all that has survived. Unfortunately, over the GALA period the park pond has suddenly become littered with plastic cups and bottles that have been thrown into the water (I assume thrown as not sure how else they would get in there). This may be pure coincidence but prior to last weekend the pond was clear. Does park management have a way to get onto the pond and fish all the plastic rubbish out, I wonder? It can't be good to leave it.

Yes, but most posting on here against the festival have not said they hate all festivals, it is about location, scale and footprint, duration of the event, including build and dismantling, and the level of impact on wildlife and residents living close by. Last year I said on here that I would, reluctantly, accept the three day event, provided it was no more than that and the footprint was not extended to include more of the park. Now it is reasonably clear there is an intention to scale up I think a new, more suitable location must be found.

I think the request should be to relocate the event to a more suitable site, that would be a win win. I recall that Peckham Common was felt to be too small, which I find surprising. I now wonder if what that really means is less opportunity to expand in future? I agree fishboy, I anticipate a Gala request for 6 days and possibly an even larger footprint.