first mate

Perhaps they underestimated the noise impact. Next time they could perhaps send letters out to a wider area.

Some prior warning would have been helpful and relatively easy to do. The fact that other types of noise cause disruption or discomfort is surely not a justification for more? Perhaps someone could explain the attraction of really loud noise of this type? No problem with the visual aspect. As I mentioned before, I had thought low noise fireworks were now an option? Surely Alleyns could have gone down that route? If the noise does not affect you in a any great way, as with most things it is easy to view any negative response as OTT and "whingeing". However, I can guarantee that some animals will really have suffered from last night's event, because it was totally without warning and owners were not able to prepare.

Really pleased for you that your pets are not affected by super loud noises but many are and the fallout from something like this can be considerable.

Agree, the visual aspect did look fab but it was incredibly loud and that is the bit I just cannot understand. It would have been so easy to do something to get the word out to allow parents and pet owners to prepare. Not very community minded of them, in my view.

It's the lack of warning. When something is that loud I think people need to know in advance. Why does it have to be that loud? The long term damage this sort of event can cause to pets is immense.

I had thought or at least hoped there was some kind of control over noise at that level? I had also thought you could get low noise fireworks these days? If the school, would they need council permission for something like this? It just feels incredibly ill judged.

Is it really Alleyne's?

Yes, indeed. I would really like to find out who is responsible.

Does anyone know which charming people decided to have a massive and extra loud firework display tonight and for what reason?

Great idea.

For anyone to have most of their teeth kicked out in a random attack by a complete stranger is truly horrendous. Whatever the underlying motivation/reasons for the act, the perpetrator is a danger to the public and should be detained as soon as possible. I hope you are getting all the support you need.

Unless your dog has a dairy sensitivity, have you tried adding a little milk to the water?

It will also set precedent for development of MOL in other areas...do we really want that?

Deliveries and lots of loud noises from M&S at 23:21 tonight. What is the delivery cutoff time?

Can you elaborate please GrumpyGranny?

The biggest scandal is how much weight the Council placed on "only" taking views on a street by street basis not by "area"- see earlier posts from Cllr McAsh as an example. Yet when it suits the Council, Melbourne Grove is dealt with as though it is two separate roads even though the majority was against CPZ, and roads closest to the station, school and health centre, are viewed as an "area". Of course, the "area" of East Dulwich was clearly against CPZ.

486 signatures so far. Please sign. This is important!!

Ditto.

How does this fit with Southwark's alleged commitment to greener, healthier streets, lowering pollution etc...etc...? You really cannot trust them.

eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a fair comment although it still fails to > explain the logic in applying the CPZ boundaries. I stand to be corrected but I suspect part of the issue is with Melbourne Grove. It is a long road and I think only around a third of it, closest to the station, was in favour of CPZ. The rest against. However, if it was viewed as one long road it would be a majority against. I think this might account for the North South approach that was introduced by the Council.

Thanks Charles for that clarification.

Perhaps I can quite an earlier poster who responded to Cllr McAsh as follows: "In response to question 1, I think the map in Figure 2 would be much more informative if Melbourne Grove was split into two. The responses showed that the section north of EDG is clearly in favour of a CPZ (hence it should be coloured green) and the section south of EDG is clearly against a CPZ (hence it should be coloured red). This would make it easier to see that the proposed zone is too big. Your suggestion of removing Melbourne Grove (south), Blackwater Street, Bassano Street, Chesterfield Grove and Ashbourne Grove from the proposed CPZ is a good one. None of these roads showed a clear majority in favour of a CPZ, with some clearly against a CPZ, so it seems unfair to impose one on them". A number of streets were undecided and Ashbourne against, that means that for that area the majority is agianst CPZ. We were told that around the station 54% are in favour, therefore CPZ will be implemented. The same logic must be applied throughout.

I had thought it was a fairly clear no from streets on the south side of Melbourne Grove. James Mc Cash said he had been pushing hard for these roads not to be included as that was what residents wanted, just as the majority of residents close to the station said they did want CPZ. How curious then if just one man, Cllr Livingstone, can go with a majority 'vote' in one area but ignore it in another? The proposal was that Chesterfield, Ashbourne, Bassano were not in the CPZ. I hope that has been upheld.

Are Ashbourne, Chesterfield and Bassano street inside the CPZ?

The Council want mass CPZ so either Cllr Livinstone will ignore current recommendations and extend it anyhow or inevitable parking displacement will result in further CPZ sooner or later. The Council want to give the impression of being reasonable etc.. but in reality the utterly cynical extension of double yellow lines indicates the real agenda.