first mate

Problem is, you and others keep arguing Labour was mandated to make these changes. Yet, in the manifesto, under one of the leading sections called "Our guarantee to you", they state: " Labour will put residents at the heart of everything we do. We will empower communities to shape the places they live in and make decisions about issues which affect their lives. We will work with you to design the services we provide..." Given this was a manifesto pledge, a guarantee, I think to argue that 'technically' they can do as they have, so that's okay then. They have not followed through on a manifesto pledge, but instead used process to achieve an agenda they kept under wraps, until they knew they could get away with it.

I had thought school traffic, as in cars, were contributors to traffic congestion and parking issues?

I hate to think that some on here may view the electorate as toddlers but suspect it may be true.

I checked the last Southwark Labour manifesto. No mention of borough-wide CPZ or new LTNs, nothing at all. But they bang on and on about how they will work with communities, placing residents at 'the heart' of decisions that affect their lives, working with them to effect and design any changes to their local area. It sounds great and so credible, except they have not done any of it. Instead, they have repeatedly ignored resident opinion on major changes that will impact them. Had they run on headlines about imposing more LTNs and plans for a borough-wide CPZ, that would be different, but they did not flag these major changes and hugely expensive plans at all, instead they made consultative and participatory governance a central plank of their manifesto. They were not transparent and they have not been honest.

@ Earl, who said "By the way, I think you massively overestimate how many people want to see the square ripped out and returned to a queue of idling cars. I suspect the majority of locals would be extremely upset were it ever to happen. Just because there are a number of very loud objectors does not mean they are the majority" But, whatever you 'suspect' people may think is just your view, it is not evidenced in any way whatsoever. The consultation indicates a great deal of local dissatisfaction with events leading up to, if not the end result. You reject the results one way or another, but they are real voices, unlike the other voices you 'suspect' are all in favour ( which, according to the consultation, are in the minority).

I really do not believe there is evidence to support the notion that everyone that voted Southwark Labour were doing so because they supported a local LTN and CPZ, to suggest that is misleading, especially when the subject of LTN' and CPZ' were avoided in the manifesto headlines and key messages. In the same way, any of us voting Southwark Labour in were not greenlighting what they are doing with GALA and Peckham Rye.

So, the majority of those consulted on the various local CPZ' and LTN' are all actually One Dulwich 'assets'? Why can't the pro lobby just accept that many locals are simply fed up with the endless meddling and profligacy with no mandate. Council actions are also contradictory. No point trumpeting your green credentials by closing off and digging up roads to plant trees, if at the same time you are selling off and destroying the local parks, moving in massive HGV,s heavy duty equipment, impacting the health and wellbeing of local residents for weeks and even months on end.

This is the point, this is an increasingly large scale event in the wrong location.

I loved those Horniman events. But the musicians turned up, people listened, they had a good time and then went home, it was a short-lived event. The difference with Gala is the level of disruption for weeks beforehand and after; it is not about the music but everything else. I hate seeing a huge section of park barricaded off, turned into a giant building site, with large vehicles and fencing everywhere, and security standing or sitting at all the entrances- it feels weird and it affects the vibe of the park.

Thanks Taper, we can assume this was a mistake, thank goodness.

I had a quick look and no revelations, just the same old lines.

Well they still have to plant up the rain drains, so perhaps the notice will be done at the same time. I just hope the garden drains do not become large 'bins'. The seating nearby was strewn with and surrounded by various discarded food takeout packaging, when I passed the other day.

Went to check it again today and it had disappeared...which suggests it was put up mistakenly, thank goodness.

Has anyone else noticed a small notice, midway on the green, metal barricade, that is flagging another event in September? It seems to be another event organiser has been granted a licence to operate in the same area of the park? Does anyone know more? If Cllr Hamvas is around, perhaps she could shed some light on this and any other plans for further commercial exploitation of our precious park, by this council.

I suppose car clubs operate outside of London but it sounds like it requires quite a lot of forward planning. Not sure how helpful if you need to make a last minute journey out of London and are unclear when you will travel back.

Not sure. Perhaps it is part of a new trend towards making the delineation between pedestrian and space for other usage much more ambiguous. Outside M&S, is is footpath, cycle scooter storage or a drop off/loading zone...perhaps all three, on a kinda first come first served basis. Over at Dulwich Sq, is it for pedestrians, for cyclists, or to increase covers for the local cafes?

Well if you add in the bit that says, 'taking over the new, multimillion pound expanded space considered vital for pedestrians to be able to move around safely:) A lovely free gift for the cafe owners though and, I guess, pedestrians can just walk on the cycleway. I wonder if something similar will happen in Melbourne Grove? Will we see recently expanded pavements, deemed essential to ensure the safety of hordes of ambulating commuters, suddenly re-purposed by the local wine bars and cafes.

Earl said re Dulwich Sq "At some point Rocks, you are going to have to accept that Dulwich now has a nice pedestrian area where the used to be a line of traffic. It's literally been years since the layout was changed. It's actually a nice space, you should go and have a sit there and enjoy the sun." Actually, having walked through Duwlich Sq just now, people are sitting at tables provided by the cafes, eating and drinking wine. However, the 'pedestrian' area from the route past Gilkes Crescent is all but blocked by those sitting out eating and drinking- the cycleway is of course free. I wonder if Southwark have given over pedestrian space to be used in this way to bring the local business' onside?

Yes, councillors have said this. Whatever you think, it is clear councillors have been blatantly dishonest about imposition of CPZ, especially when the only available mechanism to guage local support evidences a majority against CPZ, not once, not twice but over and over. P68, not just McAsh but DV councillors also.

But, local councillors promised there would be no CPZ locally without local majority support. I am still curious what the evidence for that support is?

I hope the organisers make a big deal about the cancellation of the Park Run. What is the council thinking? This is a private event that is now negatively impacting the wellbeing of residents in multiple ways. The council allege they are heavily invested in improving health and greening the environment.

I think in law imposition of a CPZ requires a lot more than 'tacit support' and 'broad brush promises'.

You've avoided the question. When councillors promised there would be no CPZ without majority local support, what were they referring to?

Earl, explain why councillors promised CPZ' would not be put in without local majority support? Explain what system or mechanism they could possibly be referring to evidence that local majority support? Or, were they all just lying through their back teeth? Penguin 68 said: Tuesday at 17:12 (edited) "If you are simply looking for whether the impacted population supports a particular proposal or not then the method is far simpler (and isn't in fact 'research' as such). Deliver a survey (with an SAE) to each household you believe is impacted with a description of what is proposed and a 'yes', 'no'' box to tick, together with a date for return. Keep a record of all those households addressed (in case there is an argument that the wrong people were asked, or the right not asked) and get an independent scrutineer to tally the answers. On the basis that those who feel strongly, at least, will send a response back you have your answer. It is, of course, a referendum (which the council hates) but it would be an absolute measure of whether, from those who care enough to participate, they have a majority or not. Any other method will not, in fact, demonstrate 'majority' support. You would need to ensure that the council does not supply multiple forms for its staff to complete, so ideally you should use an independent polling body to administer these throughout. But, since it will be every household in a limited area these could be readily hand delivered to minimise costs. I would suggest for both LTN and CPZ delivery to the streets directly impacted and to 'the next two' streets to those. A map could be provided for people to ascertain whether the net has been spread sufficiently widely, but not too wide. This would be very limited cost wise to administer, compared with the research issues I have previously adumbrated on."

Personally, I would rather councils did not go full steam ahead on effecting major changes to residential streets without any evidence of a majority or mandate to make those changes. Especially when they have promised residents that changes would not occur without majority support. I also think P68 explained how local views could be sought and given, accurately and without major expense.