first mate

I had a quick look and no revelations, just the same old lines.

Well they still have to plant up the rain drains, so perhaps the notice will be done at the same time. I just hope the garden drains do not become large 'bins'. The seating nearby was strewn with and surrounded by various discarded food takeout packaging, when I passed the other day.

Went to check it again today and it had disappeared...which suggests it was put up mistakenly, thank goodness.

Has anyone else noticed a small notice, midway on the green, metal barricade, that is flagging another event in September? It seems to be another event organiser has been granted a licence to operate in the same area of the park? Does anyone know more? If Cllr Hamvas is around, perhaps she could shed some light on this and any other plans for further commercial exploitation of our precious park, by this council.

I suppose car clubs operate outside of London but it sounds like it requires quite a lot of forward planning. Not sure how helpful if you need to make a last minute journey out of London and are unclear when you will travel back.

Not sure. Perhaps it is part of a new trend towards making the delineation between pedestrian and space for other usage much more ambiguous. Outside M&S, is is footpath, cycle scooter storage or a drop off/loading zone...perhaps all three, on a kinda first come first served basis. Over at Dulwich Sq, is it for pedestrians, for cyclists, or to increase covers for the local cafes?

Well if you add in the bit that says, 'taking over the new, multimillion pound expanded space considered vital for pedestrians to be able to move around safely:) A lovely free gift for the cafe owners though and, I guess, pedestrians can just walk on the cycleway. I wonder if something similar will happen in Melbourne Grove? Will we see recently expanded pavements, deemed essential to ensure the safety of hordes of ambulating commuters, suddenly re-purposed by the local wine bars and cafes.

Earl said re Dulwich Sq "At some point Rocks, you are going to have to accept that Dulwich now has a nice pedestrian area where the used to be a line of traffic. It's literally been years since the layout was changed. It's actually a nice space, you should go and have a sit there and enjoy the sun." Actually, having walked through Duwlich Sq just now, people are sitting at tables provided by the cafes, eating and drinking wine. However, the 'pedestrian' area from the route past Gilkes Crescent is all but blocked by those sitting out eating and drinking- the cycleway is of course free. I wonder if Southwark have given over pedestrian space to be used in this way to bring the local business' onside?

Yes, councillors have said this. Whatever you think, it is clear councillors have been blatantly dishonest about imposition of CPZ, especially when the only available mechanism to guage local support evidences a majority against CPZ, not once, not twice but over and over. P68, not just McAsh but DV councillors also.

But, local councillors promised there would be no CPZ locally without local majority support. I am still curious what the evidence for that support is?

I hope the organisers make a big deal about the cancellation of the Park Run. What is the council thinking? This is a private event that is now negatively impacting the wellbeing of residents in multiple ways. The council allege they are heavily invested in improving health and greening the environment.

I think in law imposition of a CPZ requires a lot more than 'tacit support' and 'broad brush promises'.

You've avoided the question. When councillors promised there would be no CPZ without majority local support, what were they referring to?

Earl, explain why councillors promised CPZ' would not be put in without local majority support? Explain what system or mechanism they could possibly be referring to evidence that local majority support? Or, were they all just lying through their back teeth? Penguin 68 said: Tuesday at 17:12 (edited) "If you are simply looking for whether the impacted population supports a particular proposal or not then the method is far simpler (and isn't in fact 'research' as such). Deliver a survey (with an SAE) to each household you believe is impacted with a description of what is proposed and a 'yes', 'no'' box to tick, together with a date for return. Keep a record of all those households addressed (in case there is an argument that the wrong people were asked, or the right not asked) and get an independent scrutineer to tally the answers. On the basis that those who feel strongly, at least, will send a response back you have your answer. It is, of course, a referendum (which the council hates) but it would be an absolute measure of whether, from those who care enough to participate, they have a majority or not. Any other method will not, in fact, demonstrate 'majority' support. You would need to ensure that the council does not supply multiple forms for its staff to complete, so ideally you should use an independent polling body to administer these throughout. But, since it will be every household in a limited area these could be readily hand delivered to minimise costs. I would suggest for both LTN and CPZ delivery to the streets directly impacted and to 'the next two' streets to those. A map could be provided for people to ascertain whether the net has been spread sufficiently widely, but not too wide. This would be very limited cost wise to administer, compared with the research issues I have previously adumbrated on."

Personally, I would rather councils did not go full steam ahead on effecting major changes to residential streets without any evidence of a majority or mandate to make those changes. Especially when they have promised residents that changes would not occur without majority support. I also think P68 explained how local views could be sought and given, accurately and without major expense.

LOL, no Sue, definitely Musk Turtles.

They will have some rationale for this, but it feels like a deliberate testing of the waters, to see how much of the park they can take, with the trackway right across the length of the whole playing fields and the new and exceedingly ugly, extended footprint. My guess is soon we will see further encroachments and extensions and even more events, from other organisations. Peckham Rye is on course to be a giant, summer-long event space, just like Brockwell Park. I have just checked Southwark Council licensing and it seems the intention is to use the Gala infrastructure to mount events, this may only the extra 'family' day but 6 days are mentioned. The Licensing Sub-Committee heard from the representative for the Applicant who advised that the purpose of the application was to present a family festival day and two live concert days to take place in Peckham Rye Park in May/June within the existing site operated by We are the Fair/Assembled Gala. The Applicant would work in collaboration with the Peckham Festival on the events falling on the weekend after GALA. GALA normally is held on the late May Bank Holiday Weekend.

I have read conflicting accounts, some say the Peckham Rye pond chelonians are fresh water turtles others that they are red-eared terrapins. As well as terrapins, there are reports of Musk Turtles, a non native, fresh water turtle species also being released into the wild. They are also better equipped to survive our winters and do not seem to need to bask as much as terrapins. Perhaps we have both. I have not been able to see them close enough to observe markings.

If you look in the Gala thread someone posted a map of the event site, which has larger footprint than before. The build has already started and will now continue until the event. Dismantling is due to end 1st June, I think.

But we must also consider that Dulwich Councillors, one being the Cabinet Member for Streets etc have stated that without local majority support- meaning residents- CPZ' would not be actioned. So, what is the evidence that local CPZ' have local majority support?

Alice, I was kind of aware of the terrapins but now wondering if they are actually turtles? I'm surprised if terrapins that they would survive the winter?

Thanks Sue, I can see the Egyptian goslings and the Coots and Moorhens, but have not seen Canada young. Did their goslings survive? One of the Egyptian goslings looks almost adult now, the other from a later clutch is still at the fluffy stage. I have also noticed what look like very large terrapins... which is not great.

I know one of the Peckham Rye Egyptian geese sadly lost its mate a few years ago. There now seems to be a pair with goslings from two different hatchings. But, there is a solitary Greylag goose, did this ever have a mate? Also, do the Canada geese ever have offspring? I have not seen any this year?

Walking in the park today I was struck by how much bigger the footprint of the event looks and how that will impact the park. I guess it is only when you see it all being cordoned off that you realise. It feels like all the playing fields will be impacted to some extent. There is another area being cordoned off at the other end of the park, close to Harris Girls. Does anyone know if this is temporary and to do with the event delivery juggernauts (so green, so environmentally friendly) or something unrelated?

Thanks Penguin. And I guess I have to agree with Earl that the current consultation system is not fit for purpose, in that the questions as designed by the council are clearly weighted and therefore the whole thing is flawed. From what you say though, not sure what other options there are, except perhaps mandating council consultations are independently designed. Quite apart from that, I go back to an original point that at least three of our councillors, one being the cabinet member for streets, are on the record stating CPZs would not be imposed without majority local support. To date, given the consultation majorities against CPZs, what is the council evidence to show they have that majority support? Also, since the process is weighted for results favourable to the council, doesn't that further highlight and underline the strength of opposition.