first mate

James, Think the devil will only be apparent if and when a number of schools around ED implement this at the same time. The first few will not make much of an impact but will set a precedent for others to follow suit. That is why it needs proper consultation across the community, not the council favoured piecemeal approach. I should add that when a number of schools were in the development phase- Harris ED and Charter the issue of lack of parking and drop off points was raised many times. I seem to recall soothing assurances that parents and pupils would mostly walk or cycle.

The introduction of 'commuter stalkers' as another reason to proselytise for CPZ just seemed odd. Hemingway Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Hemingway Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Oh that sounds likley - stick 'commuter > > stalking' > > > as a reason for CPZ in the consultation > > document. > > > jimLad for someone who doesn't live in the > > area, > > > and if i recall doesn't have a car, you seem > to > > be > > > a very vocal presecence on this thread.... > > > > Sorry, could you point me to the rules on the > > website that bar non 'local' people from > > commenting please? > > > > I am offering factual practical advice on our > > experience to help inform peoples decision > making. > > I am very open about the fact that I actively > > campaigned for a CPZ, and I am very clear on > the > > benefits we have accrued from it. I am offering > a > > different perspective based on the experience > of > > what actually has happened when it was > > implemented. I appreciate not everyone supports > > CPZs, but surely good debate is about offering > > both perspectives, not an echo chamber? > > > > I wasn't aware this was a crime. I also joined > EDF > > many years ago as a good source of local > advice, > > and have posted on a variety of topics. Heaven > > forbid me for trying to participate in a > > discussion forum with views you don't agree > > with... > > > I didn't say you couldn't post, anyone can, just > pointing out that you don't live in the proposed > area, live in an area where CPZ was imposed but > there wasn't a strong and vibrant high street that > will be effected , and you don't have a car. Feels > like you do have an agenda though.......

And yet, sadly, it is quite likely all that parking stress has been created by a combination of road and parking changes put through by Southwark with the sole intention of creating a demand for CPZ.

Presumably these are private roads owned by the estates?

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do council tenants get free parking permits? I would also like to know if this is the case?

There are many schools around East Dulwich, so yes it is valid to ask how simultaneously closing off myriad streets adjacent to those schools every day will impact the area. It seems that the favourite trick of doing it a street at time is once again being employed but it won't be until they are all closed at the same time that the true impact will be felt. Quite a few schools sit on major access routes into and out ED. Why not ask each school to campaign with the parents whose children attend and ask them not to drive in? And there should be a major consultation across the community before such far reaching measures are taken.

Is Herne Hill really like ED though? Lots of large properties with off street parking.

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.