Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[first mate]

I understand this has gone out and Cllr McAsh has another large slice of East Dulwich in his sights.

Apparently the consultation wording uses the same old tricks and under the 'what if' questions for preferred times for a scheme 'if' there is one there is no option to say you do not want any times at all, as you do not want a CPZ. So we can imagine how the results and stats will be spun.

Apparently the document states that over the whole area which includes multiple streets off the full length of Melbourne Grove the council have had 16 requests for a CPZ, which they say is unusually high. That is a relatively tiny amount of requests against the hundreds that voted against in the Dulwich Village CPZ. Does anyone else remember McAsh promising that no street that did not want a CPZ would be forced to have one? 
 
I hope people take a stand. There are 3 meetings at the United Reformed Church on East Dulwich Grove.

 

 

[Moovart]

Can you kindly list the dates and times of the meetings.  Thanks.

[first mate]

Weasle words in intro too: "if implemented the proposed CPZ, could help reduce parking pressure" that is could not will.

Meetings at Dulwich Grove United Reformed Church:

Thurs 27 Feb 6-8pm

Sat 1 March 10am-4pm

Thurs 6 March 6-8pm

See more and to respond go to:

https://southwark.gov.uk/melbourne-grove-south-cpz

Edited February 19 by first mate

[Spartacus]

Sigh, nibble nibble till they get it all. 

[claresy]

I've had a questionnaire through the door about introducing this where I live (no!!!). It doesn't appear to say anywhere how/where you're supposed to return it! Could this be because they don't actually want to take opinions into account? Does anyone know how I submit the questionnaire?

[Sue]

23 hours ago, claresy said:

Does anyone know how I submit the questionnaire?

I'm tempted to say wrap it round a brick and throw it through their window, but that wouldn't be a great idea for various reasons .... 

[Moovart]

Has anyone on Lordship lane or on the streets to the east of lordship lane received the notification of the cpz consultation? as these are the streets that will experience increased parking pressure if the Melbourne grove cpz is implemented.  So far I haven't heard that those residents are being informed so they can respond to the survey.  Same for businesses on lordship lane who also should be encouraged to respond.

[first mate]

Great point Moovart. I doubt it as in the game of Council CPZ chess, they have learned to divide and rule, taking areas in segments to create parking pressure on the next and then they do another consultation in that new area. if they make the area too big, as they did in one of the early consultations they get a resounding response not in favour, not what they want at all.

They have learned how to game the consultation process and the questionnaires to advantage, to get what they want. 

Note when Dulwich Village was consulted there was an overwhelming majority of hundreds of respondents against, but CPZ was forced through anyway. For the East Dulwich consultation, this has been kicked off by just 16 complaints asking for CPZ, and we have no idea if they even live in the area. Isn't that interesting?

The council will use every trick to get ED CPZ forced through, but just remember that Cllr McAsh, in charge of all this, as well as a local councillor, is on the record promising no road that did not want CPZ would be made to have it. There is also no mandate for CPZ.

 

 

Edited February 22 by first mate

[CPR Dave]

The map for Ashbourne Grove is different to all the others with a hatched blue box covering the whole street suggesting there'll be no parking at all on that street? Appreciate that it has a lot of off-street parking so Southwark's favoured 15m or so of double yellow lines covering each dropped curb would have the same effect anyway.

Also, you can complete the survey and ignore entirely the questions about the timing of their CPZ (if you would have preferred for there to be a "No restrictions at all" option).  All the questions are optional.

And there is no verification process to ensure you actually live in the street you claim to. So anyone can complete this survey and say they live in the affected area.

Edited February 24 by CPR Dave

[first mate]

Various groups, like LCC, will be encouraging members far and wide to support CPZ in this area and to actively get in on the consultation, so it is vital if residents are unhappy with this latest move that they get involved and object.

I will check, but I thought that unless you answer all the questions your response is discounted?

[Flash12]

 

How nice of the council to fill their coffers under the guise of suggesting that a CPZ will make life better for local residents. Yes it's a pain, and no we don't always get a parking spot where we want one, but we shouldn't have to pay to park on our local roads.  Of the 16 consultation requests received by the council, it's unclear if those are all requests from individual people or eight from one person at one end of the map and eight from one person at the other, so difficult to know how many people have actually requested the consultation goes ahead.

 

Introducing a CPZ won't reduce the number of parking spaces required in SE22, so where do those cars go that don't have a permit?  What about those pesky 'commuters', many of whom are working in our local schools and heading up our local businesses, or the people who park up to drop by and spend their cash in SE22? Or the trades people lined up to fix your plumbing?  They may not switch to foot/bike/PT; maybe they don't want to, maybe they can't.  Introducing a CPZ in Melbourne Grove South would only pave the way for the drip-feed roll-out of other CPZ consultations that would spring up as a result of this one being implemented and could potentially go on to cover the majority of East Dulwich. 

 

Thankfully none of us would have to worry about pranging our cars though - their inclusion of 'collision data' from 2016-2024 was quite a touch; apparently five incidents in eight years across nine streets may have been reduced if there'd been a parking permit scheme in place...or you know, made no difference whatsoever.

[malumbu]

Actually there is a case for charging you for parking on your street.  Parking costs should also be part and parcel for those who park near stations, work, school etc.

Here's a blog discussing it.  From a non-political organisation

https://centreforlondon.org/blog/parking-policy/

14 minutes ago, first mate said:

Various groups, like LCC, will be encouraging members far and wide to support CPZ in this area and to actively get in on the consultation, so it is vital if residents are unhappy with this latest move that they get involved and object.

I will check, but I thought that unless you answer all the questions your response is discounted?

Thanks FM for publicizing this, nobody has contacted me separately but now you have reminded me I will respond to the consultation.  I do use Melbourne Grove fairly frequently

 

[CPR Dave]

Quote

I thought that unless you answer all the questions your response is discounted?

Thanks for warning me! 

 

I will complete it a second time and include the most unlikely options in answering all the questions. 

[first mate]

CPR, glad to have warned you. It is a disgrace the questionnaire is so obviously loaded in this way. When the results of the consultation are shared it will be presented as percentages that want CPZ for 3 hours, or all day, or whatever other options they give, however it will be spun to look as though the majority is in favour of some kind of controlled parking; given there is no option in to say "nil hours, I do not want CPZ". So those not wanting any CPZ will not be represented in that breakdown. That is how you skew results.

The other way to skew things is to open a very local consultation up to lobby and activist groups. Note,  Malumbu and his cycling activist chums will be scuttling down to vote in favour- even though he and his mates often maintain that consultations do not mean anything, yet they are happy to make the journey ( he is not a local) to cast their vote. 
 

On that basis, because we now know how the process is gamed, I am hoping anyone who reads One Dulwich updates, from anywhere in London, also gets involved in this consultation. People can access online information here:

https://southwark.gov.uk/melbourne-grove-south-cpz

[march46]

7 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

The map for Ashbourne Grove is different to all the others with a hatched blue box covering the whole street suggesting there'll be no parking at all on that street?

No, that’s not what the map is suggesting. Parking is retained, suggest you have a more detailed look at the plans. 

[Flash12]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

CPR, glad to have warned you. It is a disgrace the questionnaire is so obviously loaded in this way. When the results of the consultation are shared it will be presented as percentages that want CPZ for 3 hours, or all day, or whatever other options they give, however it will be spun to look as though the majority is in favour of some kind of controlled parking; given there is no option in to say "nil hours, I do not want CPZ". So those not wanting any CPZ will not be represented in that breakdown. That is how you skew results.

The other way to skew things is to open a very local consultation up to lobby and activist groups. Note,  Malumbu and his cycling activist chums will be scuttling down to vote in favour- even though he and his mates often maintain that consultations do not mean anything, yet they are happy to make the journey ( he is not a local) to cast their vote. 
 

On that basis, because we now know how the process is gamed, I am hoping anyone who reads One Dulwich updates, from anywhere in London, also gets involved in this consultation. People can access online information here:

https://southwark.gov.uk/melbourne-grove-south-cpz

That's very sly. 

Having looked at previous posts on other CPZ consultations in ED, it sounds like local businesses were instrumental in making residents aware of the plans and also blocking previous attempts to implement restrictions.  Anyone know if local business groups are aware of this proposal?  Looked at the One Dulwich site - can't see anything on there about the plans.

Edited February 24 by Flash12

[march46]

Lordship Lane is excluded from the proposals. Can’t see the businesses there being against proposals that offer additional customer parking at the end of every road adjoining Lordship Lane. Would be a bit short-sighted if so. 
 

[Spartacus]

23 minutes ago, march46 said:

Lordship Lane is excluded from the proposals. Can’t see the businesses there being against proposals that offer additional customer parking at the end of every road adjoining Lordship Lane. Would be a bit short-sighted if so. 
 

It's not additional parking, but existing parking that's being made pay and display. 

That will push visitors to roads on the opposite side of Lordship Lane whilst also making it harder generally for shoppers and visitors to park. 

I can see lots for businesses to object to. 

[march46]

The proposals free the space up for customer parking. Space which at the moment can be blocked all day. 

[first mate]

I disagree. As Spartacus says, this will displace parking to the other side of Lordship Lane, and they'll be next. The idea that CPZ is going to increase parking for shoppers is just nonsense and you know it. And how slippery of you to seem to support this fabricated positive. Aren't you generally against shoppers using their cars to shop?

How hypocritical to laud them for excluding Lordship Lane itself from the proposed new CPZ zone, when the very next moment you'll be bleating about parked cars blocking the buses.

Suddenly you are interested in 'balancing' the needs of shoppers and visitors who travel to the area by car, but the first lot of CPZ were shoehorned in on the basis that 'evil' visitors who did not live in the area, as well as commuters, were parking their cars and 'pressuring' and 'harassing' locals for spaces. Now you want them all back?

I suppose next we'll hear it is important to 'balance' the needs of those who need to jump in the car and shop for a latte.

Edited February 24 by first mate

[Moovart]

8 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

Thanks for warning me! 

 

I will complete it a second time and include the most unlikely options in answering all the questions. 

I just tried to do that and it said I had already participated so if my first survey attempt is discarded as incomplete then my input will not be counted at all.  Seems unfair if true.

I found this paragraph interesting in the "options to consider" section :

Nearby CPZ schemes operate Monday to Friday, 8.30am to 6.30pm (zone ED) or Monday to Friday, 9am to 11am (zone PW). If similar parking times to neighbouring CPZs are implemented for the proposed zone, this may help prevent vehicles from other CPZs parking in your zone.

 

 

Basically it's encouraging people to vote for 8.30-6.30 restrictions because that's what the parking restriction times are in the adjacent Melbourne Grove North.  Seems like trying to influence the survey result in the instructions!!!

So residents would need visitors' permits all day if anyone comes to visit. What a pain.

So Southwark is concerned about people in adjacent parking zones parking in your new zone if you don't opt for all day restrictions but they're not concerned about displacement to the east side of lordship lane and are not even seeking the views of the rest of us in east East Dulwich even though we will all be affected.  All feels a bit 1984, pick us off one section at a time.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 24 by Moovart
Bad grammar 🤣

[first mate]

First session is tomorrow. People should try to attend. If this CPZ goes ahead it will have major consequences and not in a good way.

[malumbu]

If you do attend try going with an open mind.  I spoke at a public event not so long ago, there were a few angry people, but some who understood that things have to change.

[first mate]

I don't think local residents need tutoring on how to respond. I assume the event you attended, if CPZ related, was in another borough, where you live.

On 19/02/2025 at 17:32, first mate said:

Meetings at Dulwich Grove United Reformed Church:

Thurs 27 Feb 6-8pm

Sat 1 March 10am-4pm

Thurs 6 March 6-8pm

 

[malumbu]

Well hopefully some have not made their mind up and see wider benefits rather than just self interest