DJKillaQueen

I second that Mike. The redevelopment of the estates of North Peckham over the past two decades has been a success. And personally I'd hate to live in an area that mirrors ED for miles around. One of the great things about this area of South London is it's diversity and there are just as many decent people living in Peckham as there are in ED....and in many cases far more interesting perhaps. To judge an area as being superior simply because it commands better house prices is also ridiculous and says more about the person making such a judgement than the area itself.

Give it time Jessie....you'll find as much pretentiousness and nonsense here as anywhere...people are people wherever you go I'm afraid. Btw....your surname is not Wallace is it? A move form Walford to ED I could definitely understand :))

This area has always had plenty of media types......there are many producers, writers, directors and actors etc that have lived in the area for decades. Is it comparable to Notting Hill? Not on any level imo.

LOL nette..... As the upstairs flat is rented and the hallway is communal it WOULD come under fire safety legislation as designated under the Housing Act 2004 and the Regulatory Reform (Safety Order) 2005. Landlords are required to satisfy a whole range of requirements which includes any passageway that may constitute a means of escape. Here is a link to the document the fire service uses. It clearly states that stairways and hallways that are means of escape should be kept clear of obstruction. LACORS fire safety Paragraph 32.4 couldn't be clearer I think and it a legal requirement of your landlord to ensure this is the case. Give a copy to your neighbour and get your own fire safety inspection done if he won't move the bicycles. Hope that helps.

My underdtanding of fire regulations is that fire exits should be clear of all obstruction so I think the fire service would probably support your view that they obstruct the only clear exit from your home.

Nope, it's going to rival the 'waitrose' thread....and run and run and run :)

Is that match at home EM74...or away?

H's suggestion is a good one and maybe the Police can be pursuaded to pursue that at least.

Tony Blair was a man of conviction too when he sent british troops into Iraq in pursuit of non existent WMDs. Didn't mean he was right! People are not pathetic because they say no to something.

Yes and no. No referendum on capital punishment has ever been held and I can't see that being a vote winner over other things, just as in some ways you are correct in arguing that a conflict over a CPZ zone would impact over other more important issues. And yes, people can get carried away with the tone they take and language they use in an online forum - not something you and I could ever be accused of though eh ;) - that's just the nature of forums. I agree that taking an unpopular view is not reason enough for demanding a councillors resignation and I have defended James right to not be subjected to abuse in an earlier post. The right place to show an opinion on him or any councillor for that matter is at election time.

Tbf you weren't at the meeting H. There seems to have been reported a clear distortion of the facts by JB and co to an extent that I just find mystifying (if true) tbh given the knowledgeable and eloquent manner in which many have contributed to the debate on here (and further did so at the meeting). I suspect JB was trying to be all things to all views but he had plenty of opportunity to state his stance beforehand and make a sensible arguement for it. In the end I think his unwillingness or inability to do that (not sure which) is what has riled people most....and they will have the chance at the next local elections to show that (if they feel inclined to do so). From a political viewpoint....no-one ever got elected by ignoring the majority view. I think the decision is the right one. Adressing one set of problems on one or two streets only to create new problems elsewhere was never going to be the right answer. What is needed now is a look at other solutions (better solutions) for the problems residents of Derwent feel they have.

I'm exasperated by milk's inability to accept that a yes vote has been definitively expressed by no more than 26% of residents when milk has claimed on both threads that most people are in favour on derwent lol. The only thing milk has said that makes sense to me is that there is no way of knowing how the absent 60% would have swung. I accept that which is why majority support is neither proven or disproven, so to claim it is, is denying the evidence of the facts.

I think it proves my point. You can either factor in those that didn't respond to the consultation or you can ignore them. But to pretend that basing a decision on something so low in turnout is some kind of overwhelming support is nonsense. We have the same nonsense in elections too where a landlside of seats can equate to only a third of the votes cast. We have a strange understanding of democratic mandate in this country! Whereas I believe politicians and authorities should be forced to work harder to win the kind of support that justifies the extent of their power and the decisions they make. Back on the topic of the CPZ consultation though....what this debate shows, from all the questions and confusion on the form of the consultation, and the various interpretations and spin on the results, is that none of it can really be said to prove anything but a resounding no from many and a distinct lack of interest from many more. Milk we will have to agree to disagree. I prefer to think that those that did not participate should be taken into account (and efforts be made to find out why they did not take part on those roads that have voted yes) whereas you believe they don't count. Either way, before any street is considered for a CPZ in isolation, it would be wise to have a second, more clear cut consultation for those streets and those neighbouring streets that would be affected, with work done to up the response rate before any final decision is made imo.

That is neither insulting nor patronising but fact. Claiming that two thirds are in favour is NOT the same as saying two thirds of those WHO RESPONDED are in favour. Both ways of interpreting the results paint a very different picture which is my point. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that because it doesn't serve your view to do so. James it could be argued is doing the same. James however does not result to patronising or insulting those who suggest flaws in his reasoning of the figures.

LOL.....

My councillors use other methods such as twitter and facebook to be at ease of access to their ward constituents. They work hard and all three of them are excellent.

There's no need to be patronising milk. If you want people to respect your view then it helps to respect theirs. You know nothing about my level of knowledge of local government after all. You clearly want a CPZ but don't have anything like the support of the majority of residents on your street. An equally valid question to ask would be why did 60% of residents NOT take part in the consultation? Gm99 - wholeheartedly agree! Consultation is required by law but it could be argued that the low required response rate plays into an authorities hands by giving them scope to make of the results as they please whilst not really being rerquired to make the kind of effort that would encourage a higher and therefore more definitive response. Compare that to the efforts made to get people to complete the census forms when government funding depends on the number of heads recorded in the borough for example.

Milk you are as bad as james for confusing the figures :) Of the total number of residents living on Derwent only 26% have expressed a view in favour. 60% didn't take part and it is impossible to know the reasons why. It has always been my view that a major flaw in consultation process is that there is no minimum target for participation that would be required for validation of a result. Requiring a 51% response rate might be considered a fair and democratic process for example. Basing decisions and policy on minority response rates rarely leads to a fair outcome imo.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DJKillaQueen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But that still means that only 26.6 % of people > on > > Derwent expressed a positive response....that's > > hardly the majority of people living there is > it? > > > > 2 to 1 voted in favour. > So of those who voted > 66.6* % vote in favour. But that does not mean that two thirds of all residents on Derwent are in favour as milk76 keeps trying to say. (He truth is that only 26% of residents living on that road have shown support. One could argue that the 60% who did not take part in the consultation abstained by doing so.

My ward councillors have posted from time to time on issues they are directly involved with (such as the one o'clock club) but admin will I think only allow dedicated threads from east dulwich ward councillors (which seenms reasonable I think).

But that still means that only 26.6 % of people on Derwent expressed a positive response....that's hardly the majority of people living there is it?

ok found it....... Personally I think it's vague. The document refers to a ZONE but says the following 'This is your opportunity to decide if you would now like your street to become a CPZ. The inclusion of your road will be based on several factors including support from local residents and businesses, parking survey results and the need to create a clear and logical CPZ boundary.' This paragraph contradicts itself because on the one hand it seems to say a street can become a CPZ in itself but on the other hand suggests that road would be seeking to be included in a greater scheme or zone. Then it goes on to say 'We will analyse all the responses on a street by street basis and report the draft findings and recommendations to the community council, which you are welcome to attend.' This simply means that the findings would be presented in that form of detail. For my money the consultation does not make it clear James and I would say that depending on how the council uses the results to make their decision, there may be grounds to claim the consultation was flawed if certain arguments are presented for going against the findings of it.

I haven't seen the consultation documents so will have to go by the comments of those who have. the consultation made it clear that it was a consultation of an area, not 22 individual consultations If the above as posted by peckhamboy is true, then how can you claim otherwise James? It seems clear to me whichever way the consultation is looked at, that if 20 out of 22 streets said no, then that is a resounding no. It matters because if the consultation was on an area rather than street by street, then you can't go ahead with a CPZ for two streets only, without a further consultation on the impact of that for local residents. It's not ok for the council to move the goalposts if they don't like the result. So you need to establish that it was on a street by street basis James if that view is to be taken as correct. I would very much like to see the original consultation document if anyone has a link.

I have to say...either the results of a consultation count for something or they don't. The message from the consultation seems loud and clear to me so I don't personally think claiming there is more support than there actually is, is helpful. I have to say that at the moment it seems as though you are not willing to accept the findings of the consultation James.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OMG Huggie's got form! > > I'm truly shocked, but secretly impressed! Kind of my thoughts too :))