first mate

You frame the discussions as tedious, yet keep participating? You cannot just make a problem disappear because people disagree and you'd prefer they did not. People will keep on questioning when what they see happening contradicts the preferred narrative. I'd prefer 'smarter' spending by our Labour council. I am sure we can all think of much better ways of spending the £5 million they are currently chucking at their vanity project, Dulwich Sq. No doubt the developers of the brand new private luxury housing, adjacent to the square, were over the moon to be gifted their very own special car free zone to complement their gated community. I bet that sent valuations soaring.

For those with care responsibilities it may well be a "tipping point" but not in the way you suggest. Where care responsibilities come into play I do think there can be other priorities. 'Smarter' choices does sound patronising and smug, given the context. In terms of other posts on CPZ etc..; it is really not for you to try to censor or shut down opinions. If you don't like it then desist and don't comment.

Oh my, an informal carer's permit is £155. Let's penalise family and friends visiting to care for their relatives and mates. Also unbelievable that Southwark Labour will penalise ordinary residents to have people care for them while they merrily shell out £5 million for a totally unnecessary created social space, in one of the wealthiest parts of the borough.

So Dulwich Park and its cafe, Belair Park and its restaurant, the large cafe and restaurant in the extensive Dulwich Picture Gallery grounds, plus the Greyhound pub and its very large gardens, the many cafes with extensive outdoor seating, are not enough for people to safely connect, socialise and play?

It occurs that the very large development on the old garage site will possibly have gained considerably by having a once busy junction transformed into a car free zone. There may be no connection at all, but...

But don't see how any of that justifies or explains spending £5million on the creation of Dulwich Sq? The council's justification for all this was to reclaim land and create a safe space for people to connect, socialise and play? Even you must admit given the site, local geography, wealth and resources available, plus the multiple destinations and opportunities to 'safely connect, socialise and play' that already exist in Dulwich, this looks an exercise in extreme profligacy by the council.

But the increased congestion at that junction (and associated increased pollution) occurred after the council made their alterations. The uptick was part of the council's report into the alterations - they basically admitted they had made the problem worse (at great expense to the tax payer).

As you know, they have already tried to get the event extended to 6 days and then backed off; my guess is they'll try again next year. Catherine Rose seems to have now been replaced as Cabinet Member for Parks, so I don't know if that will affect things. However, she was absolutely set on monetising park land. As a matter of interest, would you support extension of this event as well as opening up the park for other similar events? I do wonder what would happen if it was proposed to rotate the event, so one year it is held in Peckham, the next in Dulwich Park. That way the pain and the pleasure is shared around (transport a barrier to the latter, I guess).

It sounds like you think any objection is fruitless - is this because you think the event has full council backing, no matter what? Your reference to brownie points (at least I think that is what you meant) does make this feedback meeting sound like a tick box exercise, which is really disheartening. I don't think the three day event will be stopped. My greatest concern is that the event is extended and then a precedent set for yet other festival, large private events to be held.

In summary, £5million for an improved junction in one of the borough's most wealthy areas, by an allegedly cash-strapped council. Go figure.

Not only that, the location chosen for feedback means they may be more likely to draw in more of those in favour, but who don't necessarily live adjacent to the event. The event is in the park, not on the common. A feedback location should be much closer to the event site, as it has always been before.

Southwark Council has proposed paving over a swathe of the Dulwich Village junction to create a ‘public space’ with trees and outdoor seating. The council says the changes would mean “reclaiming space” so the community can “connect, socialise and play” in a “safe and pleasant environment”. It’s the latest proposed changes to the junction which has increasingly restricted motor traffic ever since the Dulwich Village Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) was installed in June 2020. So the above is the rationale for overhauling this space. A need to connect, play and socialise. In one of the wealthiest parts of the borough, in a locale brimming with restaurants and cafes, a Picture Gallery ( with plans for children's play areas), with no less than three massive areas of parkland in which to meet, socialise and play (Dulwich Park, land next to Picture Gallery, Belair Park)? What is the overall cost of the whole Dulwich Square deal? Cycling through there yesterday, could not believe extent to which everything dug up and ripped out. Really major work and disruption. I thought the council was struggling for cash?

"At least try to watch it with an open mind and give some credibility to the experts in academia". I must have misunderstood, I thought Rockets was commenting on it because they watched it? But because they do not agree this means they are not open-minded?

I think Angelina's post is spot on: "To have a proper review, with full intention to follow up on any lessons learned, there should be a full fact find. This should be accessible to ALL residents (not just those invited) and should embrace other methods than one in-person session (they could send out a survey via Southwark website, or local social media). The council should be involved as well. There should be a compilation of the main issues raised and importance. Follow up should be based on addressing each point. The council should be involved. There should be accountability and a clear way forward, as agreed by all. So - the gap between what has been set up as a one day by invite meeting, is far, far away from what it should be, if the organisers truly wanted to listen and make improvements. Perhaps a clue would be that the meeting is set up by the Public Relations team - it's just a tick box. to be seen to be doing the right thing."

You are to be commended on broadening the definition of careless driving to include all road users that are not pedestrians. I think we can all agree that anyone using the road, whatever their mode of transport, should be ready to slow and brake and always be on the lookout for pedestrians.

Sunday last, cycling through Dulwich Square, other cyclists ignoring red light and cycle filter red lights. What is the point of the cycle filter if it is ignored?

I also hope the young woman is okay. Is there any sort of an update? One would imagine that in such a busy, prominent part of Lordship Lane there will have been plenty of witnesses?

Thanks for the clarification. If I have understood, you have lots of experience in organising and attending feedback sessions after these sort of park events, but you have no stake in this one? Will you be attending this Gala feedback meeting? I cannot remember if you are local or not? It is worth considering that objections to this event are not born of a hobby of revelling in misery and carping- as someone who says they have organised and attended feedback sessions it is surprisingly narrow-minded of you to frame objections in this way. I am sure the event is enjoyable for those attending, I doubt they'd pay if it were not. But, that personal pleasure is at the expense of access to a lovely part of the park for many others, also impacting the park in terms of damage. Out of interest, do you support Gala's aim to extend the event? Would you like to see the park hired out for further events, as has been done with Brockwell Park?

The only person actively taking the 'p' is you, Cyclemonkey. This is a serious issue for some locals and I do not think anyone has expressed a 'fear' of going to Peckham, so kindly cease the misrepresentation. You say you are a veteran festival organiser and attendee of such events, are you involved with the Gala event and organisation in some capacity?

I agree and I'll bet the invitation list is a carefully curated mix of those for and against to maximise the narrative Gala wants. It should be an open meeting, available to all local residents.

It would be better to hold a meeting adjacent to the venue, as has been done in the past. Let's not pretend that holding the meeting further away from the venue is not a useful deterrence to attendance. Holding a series of smaller meetings is just another way to divide and rule. This smacks of a tick box spin exercise, where the aim is to control the narrative rather than make significant changes to the event. If there is to be no council representative attending then that is even worse. It is the council that truly call the shots on all this.

I guess what we can say is that while 300 locals chose to use their GE vote against local LTNs, not one person voted exclusively in favour.

Only you have used the word significant, I believe 🙂

I don't think anyone on here was suggesting it was not a scam?!

Popular with some but deeply unpopular with others. The consultation process questionable. As already observed, some 300 locals used a GE vote to indicate their dissatisfaction with the current state of play. I don't think this is going away any time soon.