first mate

Earl, Do you really think that politicians are unlikely to manipulate data when it suits? It is hardly a huge revelation to consider the possibility that flawed data has been used to prop up the council's desire to implement a range of traffic management measures.

It is true the Rye is available and much more suited to large scale events. It is where the Funfairs, the annual Peckham Rye fete etc.. are sited. This begs the question why Gala is in the park rather than on the Rye? Why lose a large and very popular area of parkland in the summer months, a time for enjoying nature? Why section it off with ugly, high metal barriers, patrolled by security on walkie talkies? Why open that area up to environmental damage when, as you say, there are other more open and suitable areas that could be used and would not interfere so much with enjoyment of the park itself, by those not attending GALA?

CPR Dave,I doubt it and I understand why you say that. But the council is in a fix money-wise and this is one small thing most of us could do to make all our lives a bit better.

If every able-bodied resident (including young people) swept and bagged up leaves outside their place of residence two to three times through late autumn and early winter the job would be done. Save fees for the gym or Peleton and do a bit of leaf clearing instead.

To the last point re need to use transport, it'll be justified re Lime hire e-bikes and scooters.

Having just posted on another thread about proposals to extend the duration of the Gala Festival in Peckham Park, I wonder how those in favour of LTNs and other alleged pollution- saving and greening-of-the-environment moves, square that 'mission' with what this council are trying to do by extending privatisation of our park? Is there not an inherent contradiction in all this?

I agree with you Saranne. It is also flies in the face of the council's commitment to a greener and pollution- free environment. Occupying the park in this way is the opposite of green. It is a demonstration of rank hypocrisy by this council. "For everyone who 'lives near the park and doesn't mind it' there are 10 who do and who are really concerned at the creeping privatisation of our public spaces, not to mention the environmental damage. The public consultation last year revealed overwhelming lack of support but they went ahead anyway. The majority of those who attend are youngsters down from Shoreditch and not locals - if you are anywhere near Peckham Rye station during the festival you will see hordes of people arriving by train and streaming up to the park. This is about so much more than individual preferences and whether or not we like having 'jolly' events in the park. There is a significant question of public accountability and transparency around use of our council tax and the willingness of the council to disregard the views of the majority of local people. Please do use the consultation to express your views"

Since I was partly responsible for taking the thread off course I have bumped the original post, as we should all check out these sessions.

Not clear Earl, how CPZ makes any of that better? Don't most schools locally now have school streets enforcements, meaning no need for CPZ? Anyhow, my apologies to all. I have, without meaning to, taken this section back into traffic measures. Perhaps we can continue this on another thread.

So how does CPZ support scooting? given you are already seeing loads of kids doing it without there being CPZ?

Yes and they also obliquely prop up big US tech companies like Lime by allowing them to occupy and monetise our public spaces.

Thanks LA. I notice that under large scale events, like the festival in Peckham Rye Park, no figures are given! Also see on the second supplemental agenda to the full agenda link in your first post they are taking a deputation from those in favour of CPZ in Dulwich to support a school scoot run. How does CPZ support scooting to school or is the idea that revenue from CPZ pays for more e-scooters? Should we support scooting to school? Why not walking or cycling? What sort of 'scooting' does this refer to? I wonder why there are no balancing deputations from those against CPZ and the proliferation of e-scooters? Loads of e-scooters lying strewn around on the pavement near bus stop, outside Herne Pub, yesterday. For any elderly or disabled person, these are becoming a menace.

But Dul, you are the poster that so wants to know who is behind One Dulwich, so why don't you email and ask them? Seriously, get an anonymised email, contact them and post what they reply. Or is this just a rather sorry and disingenuous attempt to undermine Rockets's credibility...implying they must be running some sort of Tory PR op for One Dulwich also involving the Mail? Seems you follow stories in the Mail quite closely then? It has become a bit of regular 'thing' for pro-Council- traffic-measures posters to insinuate anyone against or even questioning must be a Tory, as well as a Mail toting petrol-head. It's all a bit scraping the barrel when there is nothing left to defend the appalling mismanagement and undemocratic imposition of a raft of traffic measures by this council.

No, they are doubling the days. Also after one event is over they will disassemble and then rebuild for the new event, so overall it will be longer and more noise and upheaval.

Snap! I frequently see buses breaking the speed limit. In fact, in my view, they are among the worst offenders.

So the question you should be asking is why, despite resident requests, have Southwark/TFL not put cameras in?

I agree we do but how do we ensure building standards are high? The need for housing just seems to be an open ticket for developers to build rubbish and charge huge amounts for it. My fear is the council are so desperate to tick boxes that they turn a blind eye. I still cannot understand how the Solomon's Passage fiasco occurred, built in 2016, it had to be all torn down four years later as dwellings not fit to live in.

Malumbu, you have posted in the wrong section, this lot should be 8n the traffic section. You are up to your old tricks again!

One thing is for sure, Southwark are gearing up to charge EV users down the line. They are already discussing the rationale for this in terms of heavier cars, more pollutants from braking etc.. I think they are circling around waiting to find more opportunities to monetise any kind of car ownership. So, on the one hand they'll make encouraging noises about EVs, only to swoop in with the charges at a later date.

Sounds like a let's throw them up in five minutes and make loadsa money type development. Ugly, homogenous and no architectural merit whatsoever. I can't help but remember the Solomon's Passage, Wandle Housing scandal...rebuilding still ongoing. The flats next ED railway are already falling apart.

DulvilleRes, please do email and ask One Dulwich and you can share their reply on here.

Earl, weasel words. Not many of us are buying it. We all know that within LTNs traffic is reduced...that is it. Plus we are interested in the local picture, not the general.

What a complete and utter smear and hack job. With no evidence whatsoever. "One Dulwich activists"...hilarious. We've been here before. I am not a member of One Dulwich. I don't know anything about them. However, 'they' seem to have similar doubts, based on scrutiny of current supporting research, on Southwark's interventions on traffic and street management. On that basis I want to hear what they say and make my own mind up, rather than consistently being told what I should do and think by certain voices on this forum, who are wholly in support of the council's traffic interventions, as part of a wider agenda. I find it useful to find a single voice that expresses those doubts and robustly challenges the serried ranks of council supporters which include the London Cycling Campaign (with some very active members on this forum) and the various climate change organisations, already mentioned. You sound incredibly rattled by One Dulwich for reasons that are not entirely clear? Being the recipient of information does not make you a supporter. I hope that whoever is posting the One Dulwich statements continues to do so; it balances out the rhetoric of some of the other loud and vociferous posters who echo Council and LCC party lines. Many of us have strong reservations about the way the council has managed its various traffic interventions. In the old days, James Barber was a regular on this forum but Cllr McAsh won't come on here. Unless you are in one of the 'special' groups where you get a direct line into the Council it is pretty difficult to get your views heard.

I may have missed and someone please point out if I have, but in the cycling plan two key issues that do not seem to be addressed in terms of safety are road surface quality (potholes/cracks) and crime. I may be in the minority but these two factors have deterred me from cycling at night. I have friends who have suffered awful injuries coming off their bikes in London because of poor road surfaces. I have had a few near misses. I have also been assaulted while on a bike in the local area. Not sure what can be done about the latter but it at least needs to be acknowledged. It has certainly put me off. The last is also a barrier to walking, especially for more vulnerable people. What is the point of sinking money in these projects if there are certain insurmountable barriers like this?

I have just read again the opening post and see that an FOI request was issued to determine what happens to funds generated by the Gala Festival in terms of what Southwark gets and what is put back into the Park. "Note Limited funds from this event directly benefit the park. (A Freedom of Information request was made to the council to provide an actual breakdown of the total event fee they receive and what actually goes back into the park which they are unable to provide any details on “due to commercial competition interests” The Council are not a private business, can they legally hide from scrutiny using the commercial competition getout? At any rate, I imagine FOPR might have a good idea how much money makes its way back to the park, perhaps someone can comment? To summarise: -They plan to wreck the Park by bulldozing trees to facilitate more events, this suggests they plan to mount even more, further extending use of park land for hire -They will section off a quarter of prime parkland for most of the summer, closing it off with extremely high fencing and patrolled by security -Most of the revenue raised will not go back to the Park. -The Council will collude with the events company to protect their commercial interests and will not reveal to residents what is earned by private events mounted in the Park