Earl Aelfheah

The only thing which is clear, is that the whole of the surrounding area is destined to become a CPZ.

I'm pretty sure that Southwark Council don't make any money from parking charges. I believe it's outsourced in order to remove the cost of operation from the council. Private companies then get to charge and make profit in return for removing the burden of maintenance from the council. Unfortunately, private companies often end up being additionally subsidised through clever contract negotiation, are largely unaccountable and generally extract as much profit as possible to the detriment of service provision. This is the modern way of governance. I'm sure there will be jobs for relevant ex-councillors at some future point, acting for the parking provider on a 'consultancy' basis (at least that's how it works with sell off of council homes).

@first mate - I agree. People will sometimes need to use a car and there is nothing wrong with that. Some journeys could be done by bike and by foot, but for most people this only relates to some short journeys. Public transport is the other area where public policy could reduce a lot of medium distance journeys. Southwark's only strategy is to make driving more expensive, slower and less convenient and think that this will magically cut pollution and make people healthier.

Not that I think it helps on any of the corners. Just seems to speed up traffic / encourage people to take corners without stopping.

Anyone know why there are no yellow lines on the corners with Crystal Palace road, but 10 metres (or however long they are) on all the quieter side streets? There seems to be no logic to this.

These things would do more to encourage people locally to get out of their cars more often: 1. Correcting the absence of the London wide cycle hire scheme (missing only from SE London) 2. Correcting the absence of the London wide cycle superhighway scheme (missing only from SE London) 3. Correcting the absence of the London wide underground network (missing only from SE London) 4. Secure Bike Parking at the nearest high frequency train services (Brixton Tube) - as exists at at Finsbury Park 5. Innovative schemes such as 'last mile' options, for example, electric scooter hire 6. Significant pedestrianisation Instead we get: 1. Yellow lines 2. Speed bumps 3. Parking charges 4. Platitudes

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We have to get more people walking and cycling and > not driving. Numerous reasons for this including - > global warming, child obesity, health, economics, > reducing oil dependence...We have a climate change > crisis and should be acting accordingly. Walking and cycling are not always alternatives to driving (you probably wouldn't walk to Brighton for example) and many people would not want to cycle with their kids to into central London. I'm all in favour of getting people to walk and cycle more, but there need to be real alternatives to the car, ideally frequent, fast, reliable public transport. Southwark put a lot of effort into making driving more expensive, slower and less convenient. But this just make peoples lives more difficult, it rarely moves them out of their cars. This cannot be the only lever you pull.

Is it just me that's actually starting to think, "let the house burn"? I'm so fed up with the 'project fear' nonsence, that a small part of me is starting to believe that we should crash out and let Boris et al be exposed as the con artists they undoubtably are. There is no good way out of this and it feels a bit like we'd be better just ripping the plaster off and rebuilding again.

What is it with kids casually carrying knives? Absolute madness

...and TFL are going to have to change their policy of being the public subsidy executor for Galliard Homes.

CityMum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a completely ridiculous idea this is proving > to be. Having been promised, time and time and > time again, a consultation on how to relieve the > congestion and polution in the Denmark > Hill/Camberwell Green area, hey presto the council > have come up with a scheme to force even more > traffic onto Denmark Hill. It?s outrageous that Camberwell was left out of plans for the Bakerloo line extension on the grounds that there was no way to stuff the pockets of developers with tax payers money in the process and then the proposed reopening of a station on the Thameslinknline was also knocked back. If we really are going to tackle pollution and congestion in SE London, someone is going to have to tackle the absence of the tube or similarly regular metro service.

klove Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For the sake of the environment, we need to change > our lifestyles, which might mean some personal > inconvenience and impact on the local shops. > Pollution is a massive issue and anything we can > do to stop people using their cars must be a good > thing. By making it easier for every house to keep a car?

I?ll bet most have driven from a lot nearer than Kent

Why are we compare me a Thai restaurant with a Chinese one?

HelBel65 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Terrible news. > > I was a bit taken aback to hear Andrew Castle on > LBC this morning referring to ED as ?a rough area? > where you ?really have to watch yourself? Maybe > he?s right after this. I heard that too. He referenced it being near Camberwell and said something like ?you have to watch yourself down there? so I get the impression it was a bit of a generic ?south London?s dodgy? type comment rather than anything based on his knowledge / impressions of ED specifically.

Tied the new Liu- the food hasn?t changed. It?s old skool (which some will consider underwhelming), but I?m a fan. Glad they?re back open.

That?s just awful. Thoughts are with his friends and family.

Monkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It will be disruptive for residents but, living > opposite a local school and being witness to the > utterly idiotic and dangerous driving of quite a > lot of parents on a daily basis - even when the > police are around - i?m 100% supportive of this > new scheme. ^this (as someone who also lives opposite a school).

If you buy a house next to a train station, you must expect some commuters to park near it (You yourself will have no need to drive to a station of course, but would still like to store a car there during the day - apparently something which deserves priority). This whole thing feels a bit like chucking your litter over the neighbours fence. You move somewhere it's hard to park, campaign to privatise the road (giving Apcoa the right to milk a public amentity for their profit) and push traffic onto roads further out. How about we just accept that people have an equal right to use public space. The best way to encourage people out of their cars is to improve public transport provision (something which probably is less of an issue if you live next to a train station, but isn't so convenient for everyone).

Perhaps we could build a wall around ED and stop anyone from driving here. We want local roads for local people.

tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe they cannot get a job near their home - > hence the commute? Exactly. The idea that there should be a right for residents to keep a car, but not for anyone to actually use one doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

This is the problem. We're discussing the particulars without actually nailing down the principle first. If we're going to create a hierarchy, in terms of who 'deserves' use of the public highway most, I can see no reason why residents should come at the top of that list? I keep asking, but still have not had anyone explain this to me. It is no more 'legitimate' in my opinion, that I use the street to store a car outside my house, than for a teacher to use it for getting to work? CPZs seem to be predicated on there being an 'entitlement' on the part of residents to exclusive, or at least priority use of the bit of road outside their property. Yet the roads are paid for through general taxation and intended as a public amenity.

You can guarantee that in the event of 'no deal' brexit, the first people kicking off will be those that demanded it in the first place.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the point about whether or not Southwark will > actually listen to the outcome of the > consultation, this may be instructive. It's > another project in East Dulwich that will result > in the loss of a large number of car parking > spaces... > > "You Said > We received 463 responses: 28% were 'satisfied' or > 'very satisfied', 63% were 'dissatisfied' or 'very > dissatisfied'. > ..." > > The scheme is going ahead as planned. That's what > we are dealing with here. > > > https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment > -leisure/eastdulwichtopeckham/ Wow! Really what is the point of consultations? Such a waste of money and they're completely ignored anyway.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenny1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > malumbu Wrote: > > ----------------------------------- > > It would be surprising if > > > COBR was even being used at this moment > seeing > > as > > > we are not yet in crisis. > > > > Yes. But the reference was to potential future > > action. As to the specific role of the armed > > forces. I see the Times Defence Correspondent > > saying the army doesn't have the training to > quell > > domestic unrest at the moment as it's too long > > since they were active on the streets of > Northern > > Ireland. This means army and defence insiders > > she's spoken to in recent weeks are cool about > the > > idea. Thus reinforcing your comment that it > would > > likely be the job of the police to deal with > any > > civil unrest post No-Deal. > > A few of us remember 2011 - there was about 100+ > policemen in a line outside my flat in a row with > riot shields - for some reason my flat was the > point of defence - I couldn't get home, the pubs > closed so I wandered and watched the looting of > East Dulwich Road Tesco's. The riots were pretty scary and demonstrated how thin the veneer of order actually is. Police numbers have significantly reduced since then. If there are delays to supply chains and shortages in the shops, I don't think it would take much / long for people to kick off.