first mate

If the poster does not use the word 'vote' isn't it 'fake news' to suggest it does and to keep repeating this?

Agreed!

There is plenty of existing legislation (criminal and civil) to enable human victims and police to take action in circumstances described- though police are often ignorant of the legislation. Taking action in regard to serious attacks on other dogs is more difficult. I agree that advocating an on lead policy for all dogs other than in tiny areas is not the way to go. The issue here is antisocial owners.

Thanks for that feedback Eileen and Pugwash. Does anyone know the track record of Cllr Livingstone following through on ward councillor recommendations for parking and CPZ related issues?

I'm sorry to say that I doubt you will have grounds for appeal, though others may know and advise you more positively. There has been a recent significant increase in parking warden activity in my area at least, presumably in preparation for the likely imposition of CPZ by the council. I am under the impression that parking across dropped kerbs is a no-no. If I am correct I would not expect any leeway from the council. They want your money after all!

Thanks James for your responses, You suggest that parking displacement caused by a CPZ for roads closest to the station could be mitigated by people choosing instead to stop using their cars in favour of public and other forms of transport. However, this seems unlikely if those closest to the station (including major bus route into town) have asked for CPZ so they can keep using their cars? It has already been noted that perhaps those choosing to live close to a station might expect a little more pressure on parking- we all know people commute. Nonetheless, it would seem that these residents have found a way to park, albeit wih difficulty, or they would not be current car owners and asking for CPZ? Many of us have long accepted that it will not always be possible to park in our own street, let alone outside our house. Finally, the general perception is that the council is placing as much pressure on parking as it lawfully can. One example is the contentious mass double yellow lines. Why not simply admit that one way or another, however long it takes, the current administration is set on mass CPZ?

I find the stated aim to treat all residents wishes 'equally' so disingenuous. It is quite clear that even a small number of streets with all day CPZ will cause parking displacement at some point, leading to more CPZ at some point. The Council and Councillors know this... it is simply a matter of how long achieving full CPZ takes them.

I wonder how much this consultation exercise has cost? There was a comment along the lines of costs of consultation to be absorbed by CPZ when up and running. So, yet another, albeit lesser, reason for council to ignore the majority and pursue CPZ, no matter what.

Take a look at Cllr James Cash' comments on his thread. He is making some sensible suggestions, in that it seems there may be room for tweaks. He notes that 4 of the streets in the Melbourne Grove CPZ proposal were overall anti CPZ and that perhaps these should be excluded and CPZ line drawn closer to the station. He argues the 4 currently inlcuded roads are not really used for station parking but more by shoppers. Excluding these would help shops and traders who fear impact of CPZ. I'd support this.

Louise wrote: According to the planning application, the new Superdrug store will also contain a ?The Perfume Shop? counter, which is absolutely brilliant news. Lots of quality fragrances, at knock down prices. If true, I hope this does not affect Rouiller White's perfume parlour. An independent will never compete with a chain on prices. That said, the hope is there is room for both.

Could this mean that objections must be qualified instead of being a straight 'no'? I'd be interested to know why Cllr Livingstone prefers the word 'outweigh' to 'majority'

Thank you for that post which describes the likely reality of CPZ. Have you noticed an increase in cycling by the way?

Do we actually know what proportion of parents within the ED area that drive their kids to school on a regular basis, or is the evidence largely anecdotal?

Very well put Penguin. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you believe that there should be absolutely no > measures to control car use in residential areas? > - I didn't say that at all. The 20mph restriction, > ULEZ, pressures to move towards electric, hybrid > and hydrogen powered vehicles all contribute to > either safety or air quality. However removing > parking spaces and hence potentially increasing > (albeit illegal) speeds may actually add to > dangers. Just as an example. > > Road closures such as this simply displace traffic > to other roads, often thereby actually increasing > traffic of those roads and increasing pollution > and possibly decreasing road safety on those > roads. Fine for those living in the newly > 'protected' roads, not so for others. > > So my plea for all roads which are actually > passable to be used is all about spreading > discomfort which may actually decrease 'per > household' dangers and pollution. Of course you > can plot to make your household particularly safe > and pollution free, but only at the expense of > others. I'm more in favour of 'equal pain' than > 'my gain'.

I agree with the way you qualify your examples of non-essential journeys with a 'might' because some of those very same journeys might also be essential for a proportion of the population.

I find the 'environment-saving' car park charges slightly at odds with Council moves to hire the park out for private events, which arguably damage sections of the park and wildlife. I also wonder about pollution measurements at those events? All those large vehicles. One also senses that those with needs that don't fit into the council and its supporters agenda are viewed as necessary collateral damage.

While some local parks are being hired out for private use Https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/aug/31/londons-parks-accused-of-creeping-privatisation-of-public-spaces I wonder how the parks parking will be 'policed'? By phone ticket machines...? Will there be private wardens on patrol? The parks now have PSPOs in place. These could easily be extended to cover other areas that could also become revenue raising opportunities.

Given how difficult it is to get a Blue Badge I imagine this will leave numbers of people with mobility issues now having to pay for the privilege of using the park. People should not be hoodwinked into thinking that because Blue Badge holders are exempt that the needs of the infirm and disabled are covered.

Anyway, to get the thread back on track, residents have until September 30th to comment either in favour or against. For now, it does seem the case that this experiment is having a negative effect on traffic levels in East Dulwich, at least that is what some residents are reporting.

?

That's a lot of cyclists who feel it necessary to drive a car at some point and one would imagine a fair proportion are also car owners- I haven't looked at the figures, so don't know sample size etc...

Interesting that 85% of those who cycle feel the need to own a car.

And then people will want CPZ in your street and so it goes on. S'wark knew the only way they could shoehorn in this revenue raising measure was by going street by street and creating a domino effect and then piling on as many additional pressures as they could devise (unnecessary mass double yellow lines, closing off streets etc..).

Hi James, Just to be clear, by area do you mean the area in total respresented by you as a councillor or do you mean a majority positive response street by street, so that some streets are CPZ and others not? If the latter, are 'positive responses' counted per property or per person? jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear all > > I am back from my holiday! > > 1) All responses to the consultation are > considered. However, I have made a commitment - > backed by the Leader of the Council - that the > scheme will only be implemented in an area if the > majority of residents living there respond to the > consultation positively. > > 2) I do not know what the cost will be to > implement the scheme. It will clearly depend on > the size of the area of coverage, along with a > number of other variables which are subject to the > consultation. The revenue from parking permits is > intended to cover the costs though. > > 3) The CPZ consultation will have cost nowhere > near ?2.5m. I do not know the exact figure for > this consultation but in the past they have been > around ?20,000 - so less than 1% of the figure you > heard! > > 4) I doubt that the Council put any money into > Dulwich Hamlet FC but I can check to make sure. > > 5) Still looking into the Quietway, which predates > me. ArtfulDogger, can you email me directly with a > specific set of queries you want me to answer? > > Best wishes > James

Penguin68 I do sympathise with eveything you say and to those that harp on about pollution and health as the raison d'etre for all this (with good reason I might add) they need to be absolutely crystal clear S'warks current clutch of measures will have a significant positive impact in this respect, because the rate of change is also going to cause a lot of stress to many, and stress is also a killer. I also hope we are not handed out advice along the lines that unless we can live and operate purely locally we should all move and live elsewhere.