Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[Earl Aelfheah]

People who are fine with the changes aren't going to bother going. Those vehemently opposed will. Ends up being an opportunity for an angry minority to shout at councillors. Feels fairly pointless.

[first mate]

6 hours ago, first mate said:

  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

 

[CPR Dave]

What are the wider benefits ?

[first mate]

Apparently, one of the wider 'benefits' now is to balance the needs of local residents with cars against visitors using cars. This is based on a new proposition that visitors cannot park because residents are blocking the side roads. This is patent nonsense, plenty of shoppers already visit and park their cars on side roads to shop.

However, this new narrative gives the council a reason to put in lots of pay per hour parking slots on side roads, simultaneously reducing resident parking even further (along with displaced parking from the first ED CPZ, more extended double yellow lines and more bays for Lime bikes) so then residents will ask for CPZs. Then the other side of Lordship Lane will feel the heat and will be next.

Meantime, the council will claim they are supporting businesses by leaving parking on Lordship Lane, but think how many on here have complained about parking on LL and thereby blocking buses (the same people arguing for wall to wall CPZ). I imagine they hope that long-term this manufactured problem will further increase anger against car use. Cllr McAsh said he would like to see no cars on our streets.

 

[fredricketts]

On 19/02/2025 at 16:01, first mate said:

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.

 

 

Could not agree more. the Council allowed the car park behind the coop to be built on, and as a result, more traffic on the side roads. now they want to bring in CPZ, I have lived in Ashbourne Grove for over 60 years, and the Council have tried several times to put CPZ in the road and have failed, because the road has so many crossovers, and now they want to charge us for any visitors that come to visit us. they have shut off Melbourne Grove with a LTN and it has caused more Chaos with artic lorries having to back out onto the main road in Lordship lane, forced a least a thousands cars and vehicles on to the main roads, causing more pollution and chaos in redirecting traffic when there is road works, and that's nearly every day. Ambulances and the police response times have also been affected, at one time an ambulance had to turn and go back because of the traffic congestion caused by these LTNs. and yes the Consultation form has been rigged in favour of the Council getting its own way, and does not tell you where to send the form. questions 8 and 10 gives them the permission to go ahead and count as a yes we want CPZ, Just another stealth tax as we all ready pay exorbitant Rates to pay for street maintenance.

On 21/02/2025 at 14:47, Sue said:

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 .... 

I think they want you to drop it in at the meetings. in which case it will be a waste of time as they will do what they want not what the people want, another stealth tax for the Council to waste, as we already pay for the street maintenance in our exorbitant Rates. say no to CPZ and LTNs

[first mate]

I suspect the meetings will have a fair share of LCC borough-wide CPZ supporters in attendance and they may give the impression of local support.

[fredricketts]

6 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

People who are fine with the changes aren't going to bother going. Those vehemently opposed will. Ends up being an opportunity for an angry minority to shout at councillors. Feels fairly pointless.

Just been to the Meeting at the back of the church and you can hand the consultation forms in there and talk one to one of the Councils representatives. if the majority say NO to the CPZ they assured me that it will not be put in

[malumbu]

6 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

What are the wider benefits ?

OK, from my undestanding

1.  Storing your car for the best part of 365 days a year on the public highway at no charge could be seen as unfair, particularly to those that don't own cars

2.  Paying a relatively small charge compared to the cost of overall ownership will encourage some to decide that they do not need a car and switch to more sustainable means of transport, including walking and cycling which is more healthy and lead to a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases and pollutants

3.  There is poor utility of most cars in London as they are unused for 95% of the time.  Switching to Uber, other taxis, car clubs and shared ownership results in much greater utility of vehicles ie a more sustainable return on the energy and materials used to construct and distribute the vehicle.

4,  A differential where you pay more for vehicles that are more polluting and/or have a higher carbon footprint will encourage drivers to switch to cleaner more environmentally friendly vehicles, probably involving less energy and materials in their construction.

5.  Where there are parking pressures eg from shoppers and commuters CPZs mean that parking on  local roads is prioritised for local residents

6.  CPZs that charge a higher amount for second and more cars encourage drivers to reduce the number of vehicles.  I expect we all know families with two or more cars that take up more that the width of their property.

7.  CPZs often come with incentives such as bicycle storage, and charge points

8.  Less parked cars could lead to better use of the road such as widening pavements and adding bike lanes.  Ultimately there will probably need to be scooter lanes, but this is rather a toxic subject.

I'm not sure of the complete details of this scheme, it doesn't particularly affect me, I'm not at the consultation meetings but I would not necessarily oppose a CPZ on my street.

Against the above driving is a hard habit to break, there is a sense of entitlement amongst some drivers, for some owning a car is seen as a status symbol (certainly when I was growing up it was seen as something to aspire to).

And most focus on their own self interest, ie this will cost me some money (ignoring whole life costs , rather than what benefits CPZs can bring.

Interesting article on whole life costs (around £3,500 a year, excluding depreciation) https://www.cuvva.com/how-insurance-works/london-car-ownership-costs-car-sharing

Nice infographic from TfL.  You can add one or two grand a year for depreciation/leasing.

Edited February 27 by malumbu

[first mate]

2 hours ago, fredricketts said:

Just been to the Meeting at the back of the church and you can hand the consultation forms in there and talk one to one of the Councils representatives. if the majority say NO to the CPZ they assured me that it will not be put in

Thanks Fred. Are you able to name who from the Council stated this? Also, are they doing it as overall majority or as a street by street exercise? Are responses from anyone, whether they live in the area or not, included?

[KalamityKel]

9 hours ago, first mate said:

Thanks Fred. Are you able to name who from the Council stated this? Also, are they doing it as overall majority or as a street by street exercise? Are responses from anyone, whether they live in the area or not, included?

I'd also be interested to know how they validate responses. The form, whether online or paper, doesn't have any reference to residential address so any one could fill it in.  Even someone from a totally different part of the world!

@fredricketts with your experience over time with the council, is this something that can be pursued with some vigour?

[Penguin68]

Whilst the council can pack 'consultations' with responses from non (just) local interest groups and very possibly council employees not local why would they bother? The way surveys are written and validated tells you a lot about the survey authors' intentions. And that, Mal is something that, as a former MRS member and research commissioner I do know a lot about. The council's surveys are not even handed searches for truth. They are a political tool engineered to reach a specific end but presented so that they can be repudiated if necessary, that is if opponents still prevail. Maybe what they are looking for is for opponents just to give up in disgust. 

[Spartacus]

23 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

People who are fine with the changes aren't going to bother going. Those vehemently opposed will. Ends up being an opportunity for an angry minority to shout at councillors. Feels fairly pointless.

Again with the use of "minority" to try and play down people's concerns, it's almost as if you work for Southwark 

Edited Friday at 11:52 by Spartacus

[Earl Aelfheah]

I mean it is objectively a minority who respond to consultations 🤷‍♂️ 

…and it will definitely be a minority who turn up to this event

If a majority of local residents do turn up to the meeting, then I'll happily stand corrected. 

[malumbu]

I was asked what the benefits of CPZs are and gave quite a few.  Several of you are quite concerned about CPZs but none of you have offered any views on what I had to say.  Disappointing as this is a discussion forum rather than a call to arms.

[first mate]

8 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Maybe what they are looking for is for opponents just to give up in disgust. 

Yes, that is certainly another possibility. I am sure a number of residents probably feel ground down by consultation after consultation, especially when you know that even when a majority response is against, the parking controls are put in anyway.

[Earl Aelfheah]

These consultations are an expensive and divisive waste of time imo (and by the sounds of it, in most others too).

The council have stated their intended direction for roads and transport and stood for election on it.

When it comes to the details of specific schemes, they should undertake targeted consultation- speaking to experts, looking at data etc. They should bring together groups of people that consist of a representative sample of the local population, as well as using professional polling to understand local views. They have experimented with the use of 'citizens juries' in relation to climate change and it seems to be a much more constructive and useful way to form policy informed by input from the public.

These types of events just entrench opposition amongst those that turn up. They are unlikely to change the councils position, because it is such a small, self-selecting sample, of those typically opposed to whatever change is being proposed.

Ultimately, I think they'd be better off doing more targeted consultation, and then taking action and standing on their record when elections come back round.

Edited Friday at 16:59 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

10 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The council have stated their intended direction for roads and transport and stood for election on it.

No, they didn't. This never formed part of their manifesto. The best you might get is that of 8 years ago when they said they wanted to drive privately owned vehicles out of the borough, but they have never said their policy was to monetise car ownership throughout the borough, actually contrary to the current legislation as regards e.g. CPZs. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

they have never said their policy was to monetise car ownership throughout the borough

No they haven’t stated that. But then I’m sure they would dispute that it is their policy to ‘monetise car ownership’.

They have stated however, that their strategy is to move away from favouring cars and instead, free up space for walking, public transport and cycling. 

Obviously the details of each individual scheme and whether / how it contributes to their ‘streets for people’ strategy need to be consulted on. But whether these open meetings, made up as they are of a small, self selecting and unrepresentative sample of people, mainly opposing change, actually achieve much is highly questionable.

Edited Friday at 18:55 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Not mandated. That is the point. They were not voted in to develop more and more CPZs because this was not addressed n their manifesto.

Do we think the words of the Council spokesperson at the first meeting can be trusted? That is, if the majority of consultees is against CPZ it will not happen? The problem with even that, is, as Kalamity Kel identified, the consultation process seems wide open to abuse, if anyone, anywhere can 'vote'.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Do you think the meeting will achieve anything?

30 minutes ago, first mate said:

The problem with even that, is, as Kalamity Kel identified, the consultation process seems wide open to abuse, if anyone, anywhere can 'vote'.

Exactly. We agree

[first mate]

The consultation should really be limited to the streets it affects. If the initial rationale is we need to consult because we have had 16 people from that area complain, then surely it should only be the streets within the area, together with adjacent/ contiguous streets that are consulted. 

As Penguin said, these consultations are political tools, designed to maximise the result the council wants but with deniability if it goes the other way. Finally, they are required to do them as a preliminary to 'proving' parking controls are needed.

I would not worry about costs- in this case a red herring. Don't they have those millions upon millions in parking funds to dip into?

[malumbu]

On line consultation you need to put down your street.  Yes, you can lie.  But fairly straight forward to find out if you do live there or not through council tax, electoral register and no doubt loads of other ways.

Manifesto is here: https://www.southwarklabour.com/manifesto2022/

The section on clean air and healthy streets includes a commitment to charge more polluting cars and  larger cars more for parking,  And incentives for moving away from cars.

The 2023 Air Quality Plan goes into far more detail, including the increase in CPZs .  Whatever your views worth a read and I find it difficult to knock the overall direction of this: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=air+quality+plan+southwark

Generally there seems to be a dichotomy.  Generally a centre left electorate but then turn angry when measures affect them.  There are sadly bigger things going on today over the pond.  CPZs seem trivial in comparison.

 

Edited Friday at 20:16 by malumbu

[first mate]

No mention in the manifesto on developing lots of CPZ', no mandate for them, however you try to spin it.

Whatever said in 2023 not in manifesto, not mandated.

Anyway, there is currently no pressing need for CPZ in the area the council so desperately want it in ED. The fact that they are so concerned about the 'rights' of visiting shoppers in cars is hilarious and a complete u-turn from their earlier position, but illustrates well how they leap from one narrative to another to 'make' CPZ happen.

As Fred Ricketts said,  when the Council allowed M&S to build over the Iceland car park, it was maintained by them that this parking was not necessary for shoppers, not only was there plenty of parking for everyone, but they anticipated most shopper would walk or use public transport. Funny that.

On 27/02/2025 at 13:40, first mate said:

Reformed

 

On 27/02/2025 at 13:40, 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

 

[fredricketts]

On 27/02/2025 at 21:44, first mate said:

Thanks Fred. Are you able to name who from the Council stated this? Also, are they doing it as overall majority or as a street by street exercise? Are responses from anyone, whether they live in the area or not, included?

Her name was Natalie, I think visitors can fill it in. over the years that I have been in East Dulwich the Council has slowly tried to bring in CPZ, first they Converted The Coop upper part in to flats, the liberal Party James Barber told the residents of Ashbourne grove that they were for letting but turned out to be for person released from prison, but it still had no place for parking places and no where to put the bins, they still went ahead. they turned the coop rear car park into part of the shop the same happened to M&S. and what with the outsiders all coming to the market, it made parking in the area worse so they could go ahead with the CPZ, they then closed of Melbourne Grove with an LTN, which has forced thousands of cars onto the main roads, and that made parking worse and trebled the pollution and traffic on all main roads. so much for safer less polluted streets. pulled a Pollicisation on the main road down and turned it into a school.

Its one big Con caused by the non existent CLIMATE CHANGE. and a legalised Robbery scam for MONEY

Just now, fredricketts said:

Her name was Natalie, I think visitors can fill it in. over the years that I have been in East Dulwich the Council has slowly tried to bring in CPZ, first they Converted The Coop upper part in to flats, the liberal Party James Barber told the residents of Ashbourne grove that they were for letting but turned out to be for person released from prison, but it still had no place for parking places and no where to put the bins, they still went ahead. they turned the coop rear car park into part of the shop the same happened to M&S. and what with the outsiders all coming to the market, it made parking in the area worse so they could go ahead with the CPZ, they then closed of Melbourne Grove with an LTN, which has forced thousands of cars onto the main roads, and that made parking worse and trebled the pollution and traffic on all main roads. so much for safer less polluted streets. pulled a Pollicisation on the main road down and turned it into a school.

Its one big Con caused by the non existent CLIMATE CHANGE. and a legalised Robbery scam for MONEY

One of several lorries backing down Ashbourne Grove out into the main Road Lordship lane

[malumbu]

Melbourne Road was a rat run.  I've used it in the past.  It would not have taken that many vehicles, which would all have to have returned to the main road.  I'm pleased that many rat runs have been closed.  Many were closed or restrictions were bought on long before LTNs.  London roads have always suffered from congestion.  Certainly in the last 50 years or so.