first mate

On their website Parkhill say they are responsible for completetly changing the face of Lordship Lane in ED..

Nigello, I do agree and I actually walk a lot and sometimes cycle too, but currently would find it near impossible to work without a car. My beef is not with the issues driving change but the manner in which change is being forced through at top speed by various impositions. Single factor issues With simplistic solutions are politically attractive and appeal to the idealist in all of us but I think current efforts to clear streets of traffic before we've even properly addressed and fixed a train service, may create more problems than it solves.

Rendel, Clearly, cycling walking and relyng on public transport works for you. Jolly good for you. Not everyone is so fortunate or has only regular daily work journeys of between one and a half and three miles. Equally, for a fair few, there will be a need to ferry tools and equipment to and from jobs- more than will fit into a couple of panniers or a rucksack. There are myriad reasons why your chosen forms of travel will not work for everyone. Add to that the parlous state of local rail services and these measures to force through change at top speed look almost bonkers.

They have more or less said the agenda is to drastically reduce car ownership and thereby cars on the roads. They want us all to cycle and walk. They are clearly prepared to pursue that agenda ruthlessly. It seems local reps, even outside Swark Labour, also support this agenda. Fanaticism trumps pragmatism.

An excellent post by Penguin68 below. Why put further pressure on private transport when our local rail service is so abysmal? Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The road traffic through ED (outwith commercial > vehicles such as skips, delivery vans and lorries > etc. serving the area) is a function of the > availability of useful public transport options > (that is public transport which operates at the > frequency and reliability which users require) - > which includes additionally routes served (from > where/ to where) etc. - together with the > 'attractiveness' of the area, both as a > destination point and an intermediate point > between where people are and where they want to > be. The lack of east:west public transport > services means that the South Circular is a > necessary artery, for instance. > > Any study which does not take account of the full > transport picture, which includes public > transport, will fail, and can be assumed to have > other agendas - such as the opportunities to > charge for road usage. Actions which simply divert > 'optimal' travel through ED to other routes will > tend simply to add cost to users and inconvenience > to others. In general places which have a positive > impact on economies are those to which and through > which people travel easily. Isolating areas from > transport will bring them down economically, > however 'nimby' attractive that might seem to > some. > > Right now, and looking at East Dulwich, the > continuing failures of Southern rail to serve the > community consistently and well are distorting the > transport picture. Look at road traffic when we > have a proper rail service perhaps, but right now > would be stupid.

The Council and certain Councillors have been hellbent on forcing through CPZ for years. They have used every tactic imagineable to place as much pressure on car parking as possble. They are winning and soon we will all have to live with CPZ. The next stated aim is to vastly reduce traffic on ED roads. No doubt there will be some wiley way to achieve this- unusually prolonged roadworks for instance? Meantime, local public transport seems to be going down the plughole.

James, I was not suggesting they turn the bin with the rubbish in it upside down, thereby covering the street in rubbish. Havng emptied it out once my assumption was the OP might do the same again BEFORE turning it upside down or covering it to prevent further use. Dearie me.

Unless you are using it for rubbish yourself perhaps turning it upside down or sealing off the opening with a black plastic bag, might deter others?

Has Southwark Council anything to gain by failing to get the bridge opened? Seems a great way to put pressure on surrounding areas, perhaps with a view to limiting parking etc...? As others have noted, 17k is not so much- 3 bike hangars- perhaps it suits council officers to keep the bridge closed.

gabys1st A number of elderly and disabled people have commented on how far the new car park is from cafe and toilets- not very well thought through. You have my sympathy.

Great news Chazzle and thanks for pursuing this.

James, Sounds like less is being spent on pavements than bike hangars which is crazy. ?33 k is not going to mend many pavements is it?

I thnk many of us do. We need to get basic infrastructure right before we start funding additional items. It is basic common sense. Problem is councillors and politicians feel they have nothing to gain from quietly sorting out the obvious and so things slide.

macutd, I know what you mean. Looks like someone has picked out bits on my road but decided that other areas of very uneven paving ( creating very deep pools of water when it rains) will be left as is. Significantly areas marked for attention are tarmac laid only a few years ago. I guess it'll be dug up and replaced with yet more tarmac. A quickie job, done on the cheap that means boxes can be ticked and we'll be told that x amount of pavements have now been fixed, but guranteed to fail and crack again very soon.

Snowy, I may be wrong and others who know better can correct me but to be told that funding for a vital community asset like footpaths on residential streets can only be taken from a devolved budget sounds like a massive fudge. I believe the footpaths on residential streets are council responsibility. Local footpaths are in an appalling state. If there is not enough money in one ring fenced budget then take it from another and prioritise. Once more, footpaths are used by everyone, they need good money spending on them now to bring them back up to a standard safe for use by all. Spending in this way is not sexy, headline-grabbing or good for political egos, but it needs done and soon.

Edhistory, Yes, let's please sort out the local pavements and make them safe for all but especially the elderly and disabled before shelling out on street storage for cyclists. Everyone uses the pavement so in cash strapped times these should take priority.

How high are the flats proposed for the Dulwich Hamlets development?

Please don't make the pavement wider, that really will bring traffic to a standstill. Why not simply find the money and means to fix the pavement, where there is a will etc.. Please note the pavement on Chesterfield is appalling in places and makes life impossible for elderly and disabled. Sections fill up with water when it rains because it is so uneven. It would not even require too much new paving, simply levelling pavement and re- laying.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/press-releases/2016/october/waging-a-war-on-dogs/

Nunoolio, and 'near children's play areas'- which applies, according to how that phrase is interpreted, to sections of all parks too, since all parks have children's play areas. How close 'near' is has not been properly explained and perhaps it will be discretionary. Under PSPOS, Park authorities/officers will also be able to tell people to put their dog on a lead if they decide the dog is badly behaved anywhere in the park. Again, if 'policing' PSPOS is contracted out, as it is elsewhere, to a private company with the aim to issue as many fines as possible in a day, I'd imagine the dogs on leads element will be stretched to the limit.

nununoolio Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > You did not say whether you think the council > > would have to contract PSPO enforcement out to > a > > private enforcement company? This is what has > > happened elsewhere. > > Not heard that this is in the pipeline or even > being considered. I will begin to feel distinctly > nervous if I do hear anything! And with good reason Nunoolio. Hiring of private companies to enforce PSPOs is happening a lot elsewhere. The reason is that council do not have enough officers on the ground to enforce. Watch the Panorama (called Inside the Litter Police and using secret filming) earlier in the week.

nununoolio Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Probably 9-10 years ago, I vaguely remember a lady > training dogs (and owners?)on that triangle of > grass near Barry Rd. We were all for it and I took > some of her cards to pass to dog walkers I thought > might need her services. No idea why she stopped, > but it certainly wasn't to do with the council. I understand it was the Council.

nununoolio Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And who stopped the dog training? Was it the > Council? News to me if it was. I believe so, yes.

nununoolio Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although I do have to ask First Mate this. In what > way is pointing out the council can't afford to > take on several court cases 'scaremongering'. They > would be criticised for wasting public money. If there is a such a problem in the borough with so many wanting action then I doubt the council would be criticised for taking perpetrators to court and winning. Councils regularly have bulk days at Magistrates Court for non payment of council tax. I believe the costs for the application etc.. for summary charges do not exceed ?100 per individual. Why would this be different? You did not say whether you think the council would have to contract PSPO enforcement out to a private enforcement company? This is what has happened elsewhere.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nunoolio, > > That may be the situation now but find out a > little more about how these new powers are being > used elsewhere. Will do. > I am not sure of costs of summary conviction at a > magistrates court but surely the purpose is to > deter repeat offences not raise money? Under > existing Bylaws offenders can be fined on summary > conviction and they can also be removed from the > park. The DDA section 3 is devoted to dogs > dangerously out of control- and yes that could be > a matter of perception. The point I was making about the byelaws is that it would cost the council thousands to take people to court. Nothing to do with making money but to do with not having the budget or resources for so many legal actions. You only have to take a few people to court and win before word gets round. Yes, there'll be the odd repeat offender but most will desist and we are talking about a magistrates court not full judge and jury. Think you are scaremongering there Nunoolio. > Tell me who will enforce the new PSPOs, if we get > them? I imagine it would be wardens/enforcement officers. Oh really, there are very few park wardens. Do you think the job of enforcement might have to be contracted out to a private company? > Of course, one quite simple solution to some of > this would be for the council to allow some dog > training sessions within the parks, a great way to > educate and remind the public about how their dogs > should behave in the real world, but the council > stopped any use of the park for training long > ago. Not sure that is the case. There is a dog training group in the north of the borough. I don't think the council would be able to fund you to do it but you should apply for a licence and see what happens. As I am sure you know, there used to be someone who did it on Peckham Rye. The council did not have to fund it, those attending paid a nominal fee direct but then, for no apparent reason, it was stopped. Clearly you are very pro PSPOs and determined these should go through. I do not share your apparent faith that they will only be applied for the common good. We will have to agree to disagree. > The council seems not the least bit concerned > about dogs walked offlead on the public streets. This is a criminal matter. "Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 it is a criminal offence for a dog to be on a designated road (ie. a public road) without being held on a lead." Not something the Council has powers to deal with. This may change with the introduction of a PSPO. The council has powers to make an order under section 27 of that Act- has Southwark ever done so? An awful lot of people have complained about dogs off lead on streets but you seem to be saying that only now, using PSPOs, would the council suddenly take an interest? > > See [manifestoclub.info]