first mate

The perception of many is that the current approach in terms of proposals for ED is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Safety is a fig leaf. Revenue is the real motivation.

Still no response from James?

And local jobs for local people. Unless you are able to work and function locally without using a car then really you should up sticks and live elsewhere. After all, the choice is all yours!

Think Charles makes a reasonable point though.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sidll1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This is an extraordinary first world thread. > There > > are,you will be surprised to know, many non car > > owning people living in the proposed zone. Many > of > > these are elderly, many do not own their > > properties, many are not very well off and some > > are not very internet savvy. They rely on > visits > > from children, grandchildren and friends. A CPZ > is > > not going to help them one bit and the cost of > > visitor permits may be prohibitive. > > Get over your ?I deserve to park outside my > castle > > attitude? think about your less well off > > neighbours and see if you can help them fill in > > their forms to oppose this scheme. > > Well put This!

Not all careworkers though, only some. The system as outlined in the link seems to support businesses and agencies involved with care not those individuals who might have the additional stress of caring for a loved one as well as working, or even caring for a loved one full time.

But how can a consultation be valid if a majority decide against? Surely this would be completely undemocratic? Would Southwark Labour really force through CPZ without majority support for such a major change? bonaome Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I was positively encouraged by both the huge > > numbers of people who have signed the various > > petitions in the shops of Lordship Lane at the > > weekend and the passion with which the > shopkeepers > > are trying to fight the CPZ. > > I think, unfortunately, if even a very small > minority of people on a very small number of > streets support it, the council will roll it out > in the whole proposed zone. I lived on the > Shaftesbury estate in Battersea in 2001/2 and was > astonished to find a CPZ was being introduced. > When we lived there it was very unusual not to be > able to park right outside your house. Council > still put a CPZ in though. When I asked them why, > they said a tiny number of people had responded in > favour (e.g. like 23) to a consultation I did not > even recall receiving. That was Wandsworth, but > I'd expect Southwark to be the same.

Renata, thank you for your reply though you do seem to be restating what is already known. Of greater interest would be whether you support the 'closed' process as described above, where use of much valued public land is essentially determined without public consent. Is hiring out the park for private profit now part of Labour's vision for the borough? Just to add, this event should be on the Commn, not in one of the prettiest parts of the park, where we have already seen damage not yet righted. Control of noise is then a problem for the organisers and S'wark Events to solve. As others have said, these large scale events are almost always mounted on the Common and this event shoild also be mounted there.

I am sure I am not the only one who would like to hear Renata's response to TheTruthisOut's comments above.

I agree with you Jimbo1964, much better to use the Common which seems an ideal event space and leave the more scenic, planted parts of the park open for use by public. The reason given for not using the Common was I believe noise, in that the trees in other parts of the park provide a baffle. However, no doubt the organisers can find other ways to reduce noise, I find it hard to believe this cannot be done.

Fair enough but already have Lloyds on Nx and Co-op next door.

Rumoured to be a Superdrug?!

Something very similar happened to a number of people at Barclays cashpoints Lordship Lane ED. Seems a spate of seasonal tampering going down.

I think people cope poorly with being asked the same question over and over and possibly feel that their response may well be ignored anyhow in favour of the prevailing agenda. I really don't think the lack of response means all those non-responders are in favour of CPZ, it more likely means CPZ is going to be pushed through come what may and so people have lost faith in the consultation process full stop. rollflick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely it's the people not responding to > consultations who are lazy? And many people who > want a CPZ - so space can be given over to wider > pavements, safer junctions, cycling, greenery etc. > - don't have any cars at all. > > Anyway a journalist who lives locally has just > made a film about parking. It's only six minutes > long, really worth watching and very timely! > https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2018/oct/3 > 0/why-we-should-be-paying-more-for-parking-video-e > xplainer

In the earlier thread it is alleged that a policeman reviewed some footage of the incident in situ and concluded no laws had been broken and the local gentleman allegedly chasing Steve32 did not pose a threat. The bit I cannot understand is what compelled Steve32 to allegedly try to film the female spaniel owner in the first place? What exactly was he trying to capture or prove? On the face of it it seems odd and offensive behaviour.

That's really odd because a number of us were under the impression there was a restriction at some point. Mind you, there were so many successive applications, where things were changed wach time, that it was hard to keep track.Again, thanks for clarifying.

James, thanks for clarification. When was the restriction on the route lifted, because as you say there was one in place?

A key issue around this application was the size of the delivery entrance at the rear which residents said over and over and over was not fit for purpose and which means delivery vehicles can only approach from certain angles. It was pointed out that vehicles waiting for the car wash regularly block the street and access to the entrance (S'wark parking wardens seem to give the car wash special treatment)causing jams in the street. The M&S developers used computer drawn graphics to show how easily their vehicles could get in and out of the tiny service entrance and how problem free it would all be and S'wark planning swallowed it. What is the point of planning, the process and stipulations if giants like M&S simply ignore them knowing full well they can get them reversed down the line? What a farce.

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark do have consultations but as usual it is > too little too late as people that are against a > CPZ do not respond for whatever reason or another. > By then it is too late and Southwark have to go > with the small percentage who do want a CPZ in > place. > > I couldn't wait to have a CPZ in force in my area > over 2 years ago and it's the best thing that's > happened but there will be those that disagree as > parking was effectively 'free' for many years > before this. On another thread Cllr James Cash said: Jamesmcash wrote. "The consultation will identify what appetite there is for controlled parking in different areas. The consultation area is quite big but the results will not be all-or-nothing. In other words, if controlled parking is popular in some areas but not in others then the former can have controlled parking and the latter not." If you believe this you may be in for a surprise. Look at the DKH CPZ some roads opted out but were told as the others are in the plan they had to be also. It is what Southwark wants not you. So they had to be in also. The sense that the people are being given what they want is disingenuous. S'wark know full well that displacement parking from streets that want CPZ will then tip other streets into needing it, until every street is CPZ. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was september 03, 12:07pm by spider69.

I am not sure the poster was making an issue of the time but was simply giving a time as part of what they witnessd. The salient point is that a planning condition is being flouted. That condition was made with good reason and after much consideration.

The key point is that it was if I remember a condition of planning consent re M&S that delivery lorries would only access the delivery area via the route from Lordship Lane and never from the Melbourne Grove end. It would appear this condition is now being flouted.

I am not for one moment suggesting that foxes have posed the corpses of cats on owner doorsteps. I for one will keep an open mind. It could be that some of the killings have been at the hands of a human/s and others have a different explanation. In these cash strapped times I can also imagine that the police might want to close down further investigation.

I have known of cats being attacked by foxes. Granted the cats were elderly but one was badly injured as a result. Foxes are opportunists and I would think a kitten or elderly cat might well be vulnerable at certain times of the year. That said it probably doesn't happen a lot because we would hear aboout it. RendelharrisWrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Angelina Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Foxes very rarely attack cats - they don't see > > them as something to eat or a threat. Foxes and > > cats keep to themselves. > > > > So, as long as it's rubber stamped it's gospel? > I > > am surprised how gullible people are. > > Foxes virtually never attack cats - I've seen my > cats in the past facing them up and owning them. > What foxes do is scavenge on cats that have sadly > been hit by cars - and they tend to go for heads > and tails, these being the easiest parts to eat.

roxie99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes as SNARL say > > 1.How come no cats killed this way by foxes in > other areas of England > 2. They do clarify why they still think human > involvement > 3. How come vet pathologist missed puncture marks > 4. Police statement wrong but they need to move > on? I wondered about this but think that with such an intelligent and highly adaptive species we have to allow for the possibility of learned behaviour that is passed down through generations of foxes in a particular area. London is unusually dense with very high populations of cats in close proximity, we also have huge amounts of traffic and roadkill makes for an easy meal.I haven't had a close look at other examples of this but would guess that similar episodes have always been in cities? Why the phenomenon should then die down again somewhat explodes my theory though. > > Rxie

jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear all > > kiera - there is a consultation being launched > soon on two potential controlled parking zones. > One is in East Dulwich, and the other is 'Peckham > West'. Every street in Goose Green falls into one > or the other. > > The consultation will identify what appetite there > is for controlled parking in different areas. The > consultation area is quite big but the results > will not be all-or-nothing. In other words, if > controlled parking is popular in some areas but > not in others then the former can have controlled > parking and the latter not. > > For my part, I want to be guided by the outcome of > this consultation. I have had this issue raised > with me countless times and people have strong > opinions on both sides. > > redjam - I agree that the closing of the sorting > office is a disaster. The Royal Mail should never > have been privatised. > > Helen Hayes MP has done a lot of work on this. I > do not want to reinvent the wheel so I have > contacted her to see if she has already > investigated it. If I can add any weight to this > then I will happily do so. > > Best wishes > James I'm sorry but I find this approach to CPZ so utterly disingenuous. S'wark Labour are forcing reduction of car ownership so why not just be upfront and say that the intention is to support CPZ on streets currently suffering from heavier traffic/reduced parking knowing this will displace the problem again and again until the whole of S'wark is CPZ. The fig leaf of democracy and a 'listening' council is simply not true in this instance- there is a long game around street by street CPZ consultation, hastened by unwarranted mass double lines everywhere.