Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A parking zone ?Melbourne Grove zone? to be implemented in the

area bordered by and including Grove Vale, by the western

boundary of the study area, by and excluding Lordship Lane and

excluding a small group of side streets to Melbourne Grove in the

south of the area (Lytcott Grove, Playfield Crescent and Colwell

Road).

There was majority support (54%) for a

zone from respondents in this area

Melbourne Grove zone to operate all day 8.30am to 6.30pm,

Monday to Friday comprising different types of bays including

permit and paid (visitors able to pay for up to 4 hours, ?2.75 per

hour for petrol, ?3.25 per hour for diesel), short stay bays (see



It's the whitewash many of us feared.....the fact that it is all day makes no sense as commuter parking would be impacted by a two-hour timing just as much all day. The council is showing this is nothing about the issue but all about money and that they care not on jot for Lordship Lane as a thriving business community....

@Redpost - not strictly true, of the whole area the study said:

The overall response showed the majority of those who responded (69%) were against a parking zone, 25%

wanting a zone and 6% were undecided. It's only in the "Melbourne Grove" area that the 54% figure applied and within that area "14 streets were in favour of a parking zone, 12 were not in favour and 8 were undecided."

Errr not really RedPost....of the 2,244 people who responded to the consultation document who live within the boundary area 69% voted against it.


The 54% figure you state is the council's cherry-picking of supportive responses to justify the implementation in a subset of the overall consultation area....they have cut the area to give them the justification they need.

redpost Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The silent majority who want controlled parking

> (54%) have voiced their opinion, despite all the

> bleating on this forum most people approve of it.


You seem not to have read the report. From page 2 - 3:


The overall response showed the majority of those who responded (69%) were against a parking zone, 25%

wanting a zone and 6% were undecided. Results were very similar when excluding visitors to the area (68%,

25% and 7%).


Street-by-street analysis shows that within the whole study area 15 streets supported a parking zone while 54

streets were against. 10 streets were undecided and there was no response from two streets.


69% were against. How from that do you come to the conclusion "most people approve of it".


People close to the station have had their say and they can have a parking zone if they want one. By the time the number of residents cars displaced by the new double yellow lines are taken into account I doubt they will be that much better off.


Overall the result seems like a victory for common sense so far.

If you look at the Peckham West figures the results are much closer, in fact a slim majority are in favour. Particularly when you take into account the adjustments made for being in favour of neighbouring streets being included in a CPZ. The stress around the station and Peckham West zone are clearly very polarising. It?s not about creating a money making machine for the council, it?s about helping vulnerable and disabled people park closer to their homes during peak hours, and quite clearly a slim majority are in favour in Peckham West.


Louisa.

Hi all


Now that we have the consultation responses and the interim report and recommendations , I am keen to hear the views of local residents on what to do next. I have written about the next stages of the process over on my thread here: https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1932267,page=10


Best wishes

James

Not exactly small as the majority of roads that didn't want it adjacent to lordship lane seem to have been included in it


Wouldn't it have been more sensible to just add the few roads that were vocal near the station to the dog kennel hill scheme and not make the proposed zone so big ?

Yep it's pretty much every street west of Lordship lane as far as the Townley Road East Dulwich Grove Junction and

all the way up to Grove Vale and it will be mon - fri 8,.30 to 6,30


Probably about one third of the total area consulted.


The council must be thrilled.

This is going to create utter chaos. If the two sets of recommendations are implemented the East Side of LL south of EDR will be at permanent saturation. It will lead to a swarm of additional circulating traffic on really narrow roads and means permanent misery for everyone. Whether they voted for or against.


Do nothing at all rather than this appalling 'committee' solution. What have we done to deserve this?

Can we do this with Brexit then? Just implement it for the people who voted for it!


69% of residents voted against a CPZ. That's pretty conclusive to me. But no, hang on, Southwark Council know better, lets implement a partial CPZ - which will ultimately affect everyone - and probably be worse than having a blanket CPZ!

Take a look at Cllr James Cash' comments on his thread. He is making some sensible suggestions, in that it seems there may be room for tweaks. He notes that 4 of the streets in the Melbourne Grove CPZ proposal were overall anti CPZ and that perhaps these should be excluded and CPZ line drawn closer to the station. He argues the 4 currently inlcuded roads are not really used for station parking but more by shoppers. Excluding these would help shops and traders who fear impact of CPZ.


I'd support this.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...