geh

"Jazz and Roast" nice!

I don’t think that’s entirely correct, and how about imposing your views on those who do live in that location, or is it ok because you live there (part time) which you don’t in the current consultation area?

Hey Malumbu, wondering what do you think should be done to discourage people from driving to their second homes on the continent? Do you agitate for parking controls there too? At least you "live there" I guess, rather than in the current proposed CPZ area! Sorry, can't resist!!!

our position is that we do not think there will be much displacement to the eastern side of Lordship Lane, based on scheme we have put in within the borough in the last year we would not be able to provide you with examples of recently installed permit schemes in Southwark where there has been little or no displacement, similar to the Melbourne Grove South CPZ area. This is because every scheme we implement is different.

I have received a 'response' from Southwark, but am somewhat confused by it, therefore am posting the email trail (names/addresses redacted) for others to decide whether I am mistaken, or Southwark is acting with (in my view) characteristic duplicity. They have not offered uu the promised evidence of a scheme implemented elsewhere in the borough that was initially claimed caused little/no displacement. The thread reads from the bottom up, with the last exchange being this morning: Thanks for your email, I’m sorry but the statements are contradictory, you offered up an unnamed example of a recently introduced scheme which you stated caused little displacement, I requested details of it, and xxxx states he is unable to provide this supporting evidence. I am at a loss! g From: xxxxx Date: Saturday, 22 March 2025 at 10:23 To: xxxx Cc: xxxx Subject: RE: Melbourne Grove South CPZ Dear Mr xxxx Both xxxx and I say the same thing in our emails, which is we do expect some displacement when a CPZ is implemented. You question was specific about the schemes we have implemented recently, which as xxxx explained, we have no had feedback that there was displacement, either due to surrounding roads either being at capacity (i.e. there is no room for any more vehicles to park) or there are parking controls surrounding the area and therefore there is no where for the vehicles to displace too. I hope this explains the situation. Kind regards xxx Head of Controlled Parking Environment, Neighbourhoods & Growth Southwark Council 160 Tooley Street London SE1 2QH Email: xxxxxxx www.southwark.gov.uk From: xxxxx Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 4:58 PM To: xxxx Cc: Cxxx>; xxxx> Subject: Re: Melbourne Grove South CPZ xxxx Thanks for your reply, which is frankly baffling! xxxxx stated in xxx email to me of 14.03.25: our position is that we do not think there will be much displacement to the eastern side of Lordship Lane, based on scheme we have put in within the borough in the last year However you have now responded we would not be able to provide you with examples of recently installed permit schemes in Southwark where there has been little or no displacement, similar to the Melbourne Grove South CPZ area. This is because every scheme we implement is different. These statements clearly contradict each other? I think this merits airing more publicly and therefore intend to post on the relevant East Dulwich Forum thread for this cpz initiative, however in the essence of fairness, and in case there is a manifest mistake in one of the statements will give you until c.o.b. Monday to respond further g From: xxxx> Date: Friday, 21 March 2025 at 16:24 To: xxxxxx Cc: xxxxx, xxxxxx Subject: RE: Melbourne Grove South CPZ Dear Mr xxxxx In regards to your request below, we would not be able to provide you with examples of recently installed permit schemes in Southwark where there has been little or no displacement, similar to the Melbourne Grove South CPZ area. This is because every scheme we implement is different. For example, in 2022 we implemented the Rotherhithe and Surrey Docks (Zone S) CPZ but the surrounding area was already mostly controlled by permit schemes, the same for the Old Kent Road CPZ which was installed in 2024. The Queens Road permit scheme area was implemented in an area which already high levels of parking pressure, therefore the excluded roads would not be able to accommodate more vehicles. We did not receive many complaints from roads nearby with newly installed CPZs, which would indicate that parking pressure has not greatly increased. We are also currently in the process of implementing 2 other zones in the Nunhead and Rotherhithe area and would not know the impact of parking pressure on the nearby roads as yet. The area around the proposed Melbourne Grove South CPZ is mostly uncontrolled, particularly to the east of Lordship Lane, and therefore not comparable to the schemes mentioned above. We always say that there will be a level displacement whenever we implement any new parking restriction, this includes new permit zones or yellow lines. For this area we do not know what this will be until the scheme is implemented, if it is implemented at all, but we believe due to the number of uncontrolled roads in the area, this will be minimal. Regards, xxxxxx From: xxxxx Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 3:36 PM To: xxxxxx xxxxx; xxxxx Subject: Re: Melbourne Grove South CPZ Further to my email of Monday would you be able to share the details of the scheme enacted in the Borough last year please? Thanks g From: xxxxxxx Date: Monday, 17 March 2025 at 17:37 To: xxxxxx, xxxxxxx, xxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Melbourne Grove South CPZ Thanks for your response, At the Saturday drop in I was given the very clear impression that all businesses on Lordship Lane would be consulted with, and there was no distinction between the eastern and western sides for this consultation, and certainly no utterance of the councils now stated view that eastern side business will not be affected. I think its naive (at best) to claim that businesses to the eastern side of Lordship Lane won’t be impacted by a CPZ to the western side, and to exclude them from consultation is divisive. Most retailers, large or small will share similar views on the imposition of parking charges and trade. Would you share your example of a scheme enacted elsewhere in the borough that did not create displacement stress on the retail community please? Thanks xxxxxx From: xxxxxxxxx Date: Friday, 14 March 2025 at 13:55 To: xxx, xxxxxx, xxxxxx Subject: Re: Melbourne Grove South CPZ Dear Mr xxxxx I was at the drop-in session on Saturday the 1st in the morning and xxxx was there in the afternoon. I believe we were clear with those who we spoke to, Lordship Lane is out of scope of the proposed CPZ and that we were speaking to the businesses which are closest to the proposed scheme to make them aware, but we are not proposing changes to Lordship Lane. We apologise if we indicated that all the businesses on Lordship Lane would be visited, however it was never in scope to visit the businesses on the east of Lordship Lane. As xxxxx has advised below, with any CPZ consultation, not just in Southwark, those out of the proposed area are not normally consulted as they should not be affected by the changes. The business in Lordship Lane appear to disagree with us on this from the feedback at the drop in sessions, however, our position is that we do not think there will be much displacement to the eastern side of Lordship Lane, based on scheme we have put in within the borough in the last year, but also based on many years’ experience of doing this work across the UK. Kind regards xxxxxx Interim Head of Controlled Parking Environment, Sustainability & Leisure Southwark Council 160 Tooley Street London SE1 2QH Email: xxxxxxx www.southwark.gov.uk

Southwarks response (in part) to my query "why at the Sat drop in I was given the very clear undertaking that L/L businesses would be consulted, when it appears not to be the case": our position is that we do not think there will be much displacement to the eastern side of Lordship Lane, based on scheme we have put in within the borough in the last year, but also based on many years’ experience of doing this work across the UK. I have requested details of the scheme referred to!

I attended the drop in on Sat 1st March and asked the representatives given Southwark Labours track record of failing to consult with business (Melbourne Grove) would they confirm there will be a full consultation with business on and adjacent to Lordship Lane. “Yes, we will drop in to see every business” was the response . I’ve just spoken to a local business owner, their experience is not only have the borough not done this, but they appear to have deliberately excluded businesses to the eastern side of Lordship Lane (Franklins side) deeming them “unaffected by the proposals”. What ever side of the argument you’re on this is disingenuous, dishonest and underhand behaviour from an administration driven by dogma rather than the wishes of its constituents.

you can have some of mine if you like, dm me

terrible news

As most readers will be aware, this is an issue that has persisted since the closure of the East Dulwich sorting office. I have been complaining to the Royal Mail periodically over the course of summer, and finally raised it with Ellie Reeves as our new MP, when a bulk delivery was received containing PCN's, court letters relating to those PCN's, hospital appointments and much that has been referenced by other forum posters! It appears this was acted on swiftly, and ER paid a visit to the Peckham Sorting Office, which is welcomed, and indeed, we have received some post, but it is sporadic, and it is very obvious that non essential mail (for example magazines/periodicals that have differing publishing dates) are being lumped together and delivered in a single weekly delivery. My father (Peckham Rye borders of SE22) has not had mail for 3 weeks now. My concern is, rather than admitting that the closure of the East Dulwich sorting office has caused systemic issues that have not been addressed, The Royal Mail continues to blame staff sickness and recruitment problems. In my view, they continue to lie to their paying customers, and have also lied to the MP when challenged. Does this make any difference, probably not, it's another example of how in my view utilities/infrastructure and public services do not sit well with the privatisation model. What will happen, ultimately I suspect the Royal Mail will be subsumed into one of the more efficient carriers, and letters by post will become a thing of the past (if they are not already!!) Its like a reverse highway robbery, instead of the mail coach being held up, it's paying customers who have their money stolen, for which they gain no service.

Boom ! https://www.theflygerians.com/ friends of my son ran this, I've never been to this one, but have been to a sister restaurant - ver y good!! https://www.805restaurants.com

there is a proper pedestrian controlled crossing nearby, which is arguably safer than crossing at the junction of 4 roads?

missing here too, the post is particular bad at the moment, even by our standards. Postie apologetically dropped a load (I mean a load) off a few weeks ago, apologising that they had been off sick, and no one covered the round. Suspect they are away again, because no post for 2 weeks now, bank cards, driving licence, postal vote, it goes on and on.....

begs the question, how would you provoke a crow?