first mate

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.

Thanks nxjen, by thr looks of it not the deviation I feared. Hoping blood tests will also be offered.

For aome reason I had thought this centre would continue to offer some hospital services and this would be based on local need. Will people be able to get blood tests etc.. as has been the case? What about physiotherapy and rehab? It sounds as though the function has moved on considerably from what was being stated a few years ago? Can anyone say what services will be on offer here?

dresswaves Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimbo1964 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > dresswaves Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Does anyone know why they are using the Park > & > > not > > > the Rye? > > > > That would make more sense. Guessing the extra > > fencing? > > That?s what I thought but having seen the site > today they have put solid fencing round the whole > site even where there?s park fencing. Southwark website says the promoters had other choices but they especially liked the "pretty" backdrop of this venue and wanted the visual impact of the trees and park for their ticket buyers. The common has no trees. They also said that on the common sound would be harder to contain, the trees act as a sound buffer.

Rendel, yes, I got distracted mid post and had to go back to finish. Sweet accord prevails.

Yup, agree when in a dogs on lead area owners should comply. Seems this was not a dogs on lead area. That said, I would not personally let dogs or pups playfight on a path used by cyclists.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It was an unfortunate accident I know, but if a > > dog collided with your bike or your daughters > bike > > in that 'Shared use route' and if it was > injured, > > I would see it as being your responsibility not > > the dog owner. And maybe rather than expressing > > your anger here you could pay or contribute to > any > > vet bill? > > I can't quite believe what I've just read. OK, so > it's a shared use area. That means shared > responsibility. Someone's dog jumped at a six > year old girl and knocked her off her bike, if the > dog's injured mum/dad should pay for the vet's > bill? Just to reiterate, the child didn't run > into to the dog, the dog ran into the child. How > in blue blazes does that make any injury the dog > sustained the parent's responsibility? Where does it say the dog knocked the child off her bike? It simply says the dog "flew" into the child's bike and the OP was sure the dog was injured as a result. By stating as fact that the child was knocked over the whole episode is reframed. The OP says the child was fine. Just think we have to be careful with the facts here.

Think Blah Blah had most sensible approach, it was an accident, more care required by dog owners, glad no people/children hurt, and it sounded like the OP was concerned the dog was injured and did not want the same happening again.

Okay, well the OP said that had it been him the dog had run into "it would probably have been run over and crushed" that doesn't fit with a cyclist going very slowly does it? Perhaps he meant he would have fallen onto the dog and crushed it but he did say "run over".

Yes, but the slower the bike speed the gentler the impact and therefore injury all round less likely. Not ideal for dogs to be chasing around off lead on that bit of the park but I see way too many cyclists pelting at top speed through both DP and PR. Anyhow, in this case, hoping dog is not imjured and glad child was ok.