first mate

Surprise, surprise. Cllr McAsh knew exactly what he was doing there: use a failing and unreliable service to deliver within a very tight deadline, expecting the system will fail but secure in the knowledge the Council will not be held accountable for that failure. Meantime, as few residents as possible are alerted to an extension for the consultation. I really hope that the residents who got the last extension now ask for another, despite the Council's announcement that the consultation is over.

Yes, I would think anther extension would be required. I wonder how much it costs to do one door to door mail drop to 8000 residences (although we know only some of that was actually done) and then a mail out of 8000? No doubt the Council/ Cllr McAsh will pull the 'it's not our fault if the mail is not working' stunt.

Well, today is the deadline. Did anyone receive a leaflet on CPZ consultation from the Council?

In the latest council meeting, Cllr McAsh said that letters were to be mailed out to residents in DV about the consultation. I am interested to know if anyone has received a letter? The latest mailing was necessary (possibly to meet legal obligations) because somehow the original hand mailing, street by street, seems to have missed whole streets and houses on streets. Given the consultation period, albeit extended, ends on 28 January, it is cutting it a bit fine. If residents have had their letters that is great, but interesting to know, given the parlous state of the post.

Eh, what Malumbu? First you complain about the former post being in the wrong thread, then when it is posted in the right thread, you try to take the subject off thread. This thread is about CPZ consultation. To get back on thread, as Rockets stated earlier, Cllr McAsh states that the consultation on CPZ in Dulwich Village has been extended. Do watch the resident deputation approx 18 minutes in. It is rather revealing and indicates that Southwark may have been using flawed (completely invented) data to support its rationale that DV needs CPZ.

Rockets Posted 15 hours ago (edited) Ha ha…Cllr McAsh seemed to be squirming a bit….here is the link…20 mins in - interesting that the meeting on the 10th at the library about 100 people turned up but were told it was 1:1 format and people had to register. Certainly when I saw the invite to the event there was no mention of 1:1 format or the need to register a second time. Cllr McAsh’s explanation is bumbling to say the least and he doesn’t sound too convinced of what he is relaying to the deputation group. It seemed to me it was a community meeting not this “drop-in 1:1” format that the council now seems to prefer….are they trying to divide and conquer, they really seem to hate having to address an audience of constituents….? - also interesting to hear that an FOI showed there had been no requests for CPZs on some of the roads that, on the council materials, had shown requests had been made. Another oversight per chance…..? - Cllr McAsh admitted there were problems with deliveries of the consultation leaflets and that there could have been issues with the company they use with the addresses…..this is rather odd because if you say hand-deliver to every house on Eynella Road how difficult is it….? The fact they are going to re-issue the documents is very interesting but they will have to get a crack on….and he seemed to indicate they will be posted rather than hand-delivered so expect to receive them one week after the consultation closes at yet more expense to the tax-payer! 😉 - his mention during the drop-in discussion about the active community in Dulwich Village makes me suggest they have a fight on their hands and maybe this isn’t going to be plain sailing for them….but also the fact that the council has, again, messed up communication. His closing comments on that part are incredible….that somehow because the local community had to rely on word of mouth to communicate about the meetings and more people turned up than the council was expecting, because people hadn’t received the council’s documentation, is a poor reflection on the council’s communication skills. His reminder that it is a consultation not a vote is a clear indication that the council is likely to ignore the views of residents and push forward with the CPZ regardless of the outcome. Oh my, we have seen so much of this type of behaviour before from the council - how many more times can they pull these tricks….? Edited 15 hours ago by Rockets

Just watched the meeting. To paraphrase Cllr McCash : We at Southwark are delighted to have consulted with you the residents ( not least because to be able to push through CPZ we have to tick that legal box) but, any shortcomings in the consultation process to date are absolutely not Southwark Council's fault. In fact, you the residents are at fault for spreading the word and turning up to the meeting in far greater numbers than we had hoped. Nonetheless, we will extend the consultation period because, at the end of the day, it is only a consultation not a vote. Rest assured, we are listening to you we really are and well done to you all for telling us what you think, but if we decide you should have CPZ anyway then you'll just have to suck it up!

Would also be interested to hear more from Glemham about the meeting.

Thanks for the heads up.

Jazzer, good points and it is concerning that a distant, private USA company is being allowed such a full opportunity to profit off access to public space, with the absolute minimum accountability, while we the residents will be forced to pay for that same use. In similar vein the council are very relaxed about handing over our precious park space for use by the private sector.

Yes, a long article but largely sceptical and negative about Lime and rental bikes and scooters. I was very drawn to reference of Lime as distant and unaccountable, as well as the confusing system of regulation from borough to borough. Seems in Southwark, Lime and their renters can pretty much do as they please and block up pedestrian areas without much in way of penalties. Instead of street space being used for free by residents it will now be handed over to distant, private tech companies as a means to make money at resident expense.

Of course, that little utopian picture is totally misleading. The ugly multi-coloured wooden furniture is missing, there are not as many trees or plantings and where are all the dumped Lime bikes, that will soon be cluttering up the pedestrian areas (given this is a warm weather depiction)?

The deadline is tomorrow!!!!! Please, anyone who feels they might object do it now before it is too late. Remember, this is not an objection to the festival for 3 days but an objection to extending it. Plus, if it gets extended once, they will become emboldened to add even more days next year.

I am halfway through listening to the meeting at the Clockhouse which is available in the link supplied by fishboy above. I would urge anyone who cares about our park to please listen and reply to the consultation before it is too late. It is long but well worth the listen. How typical of the Council to consult in the extra busy run up to Christmas and in the New Year. This issue is far too important. It is yet another Catherine Rose special and I think it is pretty disgraceful-not to mention cowardly- that she or another relevant councillor did not attend.

P68, yes I am sure they do use buses, also a form of traffic. I wonder if these 'traffic purists', who wish to foist LTNs onto others, ever use delivery services, taxis, tradesman/ builders that use vans? My point is extreme and even facetious but I suspect some of these people indulge in traffic when they 'need to', and so far as they are concerned their need is totally justified. However, the needs of others are generally dismissed as mere laziness. As I have also said before, how many pollute the environment in other ways (flights abroad, use woodburners etc)?

I wonder how many of those in favour of LTNs locally or currently living in one are non car owners and only ever use bicycles or walk?

Surely the wardens should be in the forefront of serving council greenwashing orthodoxy and all be on foot, or at the very least bicycles? Wonder what the cost of the mopeds is?

Ahh. Nice bit of deflection Malumbu. Perhaps you also find it absurd that you can cause obstructions to those less able bodied by dumping hire bikes all over the place, without a care, while a blue badge holder may be pursued and fined for parking on the street. Merry Christmas to you too.

Do we know for sure if Southwark gave refused to respond? This from the council that happily foist consultation after consultation on residents.

It would be interesting to know where the blue badge holders were parked and whether it was especially inappropriate, dangerous, or likely to cause some other sort of issue? I find it odd that, for instance, one can leave Lime Bikes pretty much anywhere, including on their sides smack in the middle of a pavement, and causing an obstruction, with no comeback whatsoever, but a blue badge holder will be ticketed for parking on the street?

What was the rationale for ticketing blue badge holders? Was this in Dulwich. Village?

Well, Mal can afford to laugh since these are not their councillors or the area in which they live.

Not only this, if the council were genuinely interested in improving the environment they would not be interested in farming out our green parks for large scale commercial events that do wreck the environment, chopping down mature trees to make it easier for contractors. I am not trying to change or sabotage this thread but just trying to show why the justification for CPZ is greenwashing, because the council are not being consistent in their approach to 'saving' the environment.

Is there any way to find out what deal is? Or , will the council hide behind protection of commercial agreements, as they are doing with Gala and Peckham Rye (making local green parkland an events space for hire)?