first mate

As I said, I'm interested to hear from councillors across the various parties. I guess those that frequent the forum most, and who have already commented on the above, might be expected to do so again.

My point is not one of grand conspiracy, but I do feel it suits various agendas to somehow fail to grasp the bigger picture. I would be interested to hear what councillors have to say about the likely sum impact of the various schemes? James Barber has been on the forum this morning but is not commenting. For instance, He certainly gave the impression that the Picturehouse would not impact parking.

I wanted to ask again, why, when only quite recently we were assured that The Picturehouse, the new proposed M&S and tbe new Harris School Development, would have no impact on parking because, and the following rationale appears in every planning application, the public will cycle , walk or use public transport. Why then is it that "coincidentally" there are a welter of new parking restrictions suddenly touted for the surrounding area? Could councillors please make the effort and explain? Proposals to introduce restricted parking on and around Lordship Lane where there has been none? Proposals to put large swathes of yellow lines either side of dropped kerbs? The introduction of yellow lines on Northcross Road when the market only runs for two days? Proposals,at great expense, to prettify the junction of NX Rd and make it a "safer" junction by building the path out thus reducing traffic flow. Thus piecemeal approach is CPZ by stealth and councillors are not being honest with the public. The same applies to emerging issues to do with 20 mph speed limits and the Townley Rd junction fiasco. We need proper consultation, transparency and accountability.

James Barber was adamant that this development would not affect parking. I'd be interested to hear from councillors from all parties why we are being bombarded with all these new parking restrictions. The same for the yellow lines down much of North Cross Rd, allegedly there for the market stall holders, yet the market operates for only two days a week.

This would be a shame. Especially when the huge, blue building that is designated commercial space ( next to Dulwich leisure centre) is allegedly to be torn down and made into high density flats. What a farce. This latest application will no doubt have been made by a developer who has no interest in the fabric, character or structure of East Dulwich, other than how it can best be ripped up and turned into a meaty profit for himself and his investors. Baaaagh. There has to be some overview of development or ED will be homogenised and characterless before we know it.

Monica, precisely.

Well Morrisons are struggling so perhaps M&S would work better there. That said I feel very sorry for the people who live on Railway Rise if they are to have a four storey monstrosity towering over them.

I do rather agree, there are many who do not drive in a reasonable manner. Even at 30mph or 40mph there is always some idiot who thinks that is too slow too. I just wonder if a number of roaming,static checks with stiff, on-the-spot fines would make a difference? I resent my safety, and that of others, being compromised by someone who feels they are such a marvellously safe driver/their time is so precious that the law does not apply in their case and they are entitled to bully the rest of us off the road.

SteveUK1978, It does sound though as you do actually manage to park? On my street some days I can park close to my home, other days I might have to park a street or two away. Yes, it is a pain but I do always manage to park, even if that invovles a wait, sometimes up to half an hour. I'd far rather this than restrictions which really will be the thin end of the wedge.

The tipping is beginning. If the council can just create a few more pressures on local parking their work will be done. Just a few more dropped kerbs, a few more double yellows,a bit more restricted parking imposed for no apparent reason, a bit more development/housing creating pressure for more parking and bingo...CPZ, and the council can get to work pulling in the dosh.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kford Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's not a limit, it's an ambition and a > reminder > > to slow down. > > Well, legally, it is actually the limit - but I > get your point no one is going to get charged for > doing 23 on quiet road, however if you are going > over the limit and you knock someone down then you > will be at fault. So are you saying that from now on we can just ignore 20mph and instead drive at 30mph because 20 will never be enforced, either by camera or plod? I must say that does seem to be the attitude of the many drivers who have aggressively tailgated me up Sydenham Hill over the last few months. I feel positively wrong-headed, even foolish, for actually trying to adhere to the speed limit (doesn't mean I agree with it).

It sounds rather underhand.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hi first mate, > H don't get the connection you've made between > this secondary school proposed admissions policy > change and a 2nd Harris primary school for the > area? > > Regards james. Hi James, Harris' rationale for a second ED Harris Primary is based on local need, if another local Harris school can so easily change its admissions policy so it no longer serves local children (Harris Girls and possibly Harris Boys ED) it is entirely possible other Harris schools will follow suit. Or to put it another way, what guarantees could you offer that this won't happen within a few years?

I do hope that the EFA are in the loop on Harris' proposed changes to their admissions policy. After all, a shortfall in primary places for local children is the underpinning rationale for the 2nd ED Harris Primary application.

simonethebeaver, Thanks for that, it does all sound very reassuring but quite vague too, though I've only scan read it. The thing that jumped out at me was that it looks like the absolutely appalling MGMP might be one of a couple of GP Practices to be included as part of the service. If this is true any faith in these plans would be immediately and utterly undermined. MGMP is a shining example of an utterly failed model for a new kind of GP Practice. Its reputation is dire.

And the last five years James...what about that? Let's not pretend this is clear failure on the part of one party, as we've said before it's a prime example of the mess you get when govts of any hue play politics with public resources. One reason why I am uneasy about unseemly haste to give Harris first dibs, especially now they seem to be on road to changing admissions policy so they are not serving local community.

My understanding is that the hospital has to continue offering current services whilst the new facility is built on the cleared land. It might be considered foolish to rush into a sale of surplus land while the the new facility is erected and finessed and services in the current building are required. In terms of this land the health bit has to come first and we need to know that level of provision is going to be good for many years to come. I understand the pressure to get on and sell land for a school but think that pressure on the gas also makes for great politics. Your govt has had 5 years to sort this out. It's obvious nothing will be done this side of the election, it's a lot of sound and fury.

Let's not forget that NHS Property remit is set by the same lot that control the EFA - the current coalition govt. This govt has shareholder status in NHS Property. Don't think the blame game is as simple as James Barber is trying to paint it.

I think it is CPZ by stealth. The Council appear to be very slowly eroding parking space to get to a tipping point where pressure on residents is so loaded that they begin to ask for CPZ in the mistaken belief that it will solve their parking problem. As P68 says, it won't. This is about revenue gathering, nothing more.

What recourse to those that really cannot make the meeting? Can we add our names to a list that can be presented. beginning to feel that in interests of balance and fairness these meetings should be at weekend to ensure maximum attendence.

I would say that another Harris Primary on the extremely desirable ED Hospital site must be blocked once and for all. If the Harris schools are not there to serve local children, and they can so quickly and easily change admissions policy, then their focused attempts to acquire this site begins to look like land grabbing. Any arguments based on local need and used to support the Harris drive on the ED Hospital and Police sites lose any credibility whatsoever.

I've also been tooted and aggressively tailgated on Sydenham Hill for observing 20mph, which makes it not just stressful but dangerous. I have to agree that without consequences this is not going to work. On the other hand would not want speed cameras everywhere.

Or safety and cyclists are being used as a front for changes wanted by the council for some other reason. It is not so long ago that safety was offered as a spurious and unsubstantiated reason for changes around Northcross rd.

Fight this as hard as you can. It has to be first steps towards CPZ. As you all say parking in all these areas is NOT a problem it is already free. What planet is the council on?

James, yes but if the comparison is with what the hospital does now and space actively utilised now it is meaningless since the services that used to be offered ( like x-Ray, halfway housing for elderly rehabilitation) are no longer. So I'm not at all convinced by your future-proofing take. I don't know how long NHS property has had a role, not long I suspect as the organisation was set up under the coalition, was it not? What is more the sec of state has shareholder status in the company that is NHS Property - the architect of this company and its remit ( to make as much money as possible from NHS land) was this/your govt. The 22 year farce you refer to is arguably more a reflection on constant reorganisation of the structure of the NHS from govt to govt and the tendency of all administrations to play politics with public services and resources.