first mate

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

Cllr Rose comes over as a very determined person who will brook no objection to her 'vision,'once she is set on the path she has decided is the right one. She has determined that putting parkland up for hire and private use is a jolly good thing and that this is what the 'people' want...plus it'll fund a few things. As I have said before in other threads, I am not against a few events every summer but she is set on a course where a large and popular section of the park will be shut off for months on end over the summer, surrounded by huge perimeter fences to deter 'jumpers' and patrolled by uniformed guards. No thanks!

Really? Well you clearly have not listened to the various Southwark Council sessions where the matter has been raised. It was discussed at some length in one of them. There again, you don't live in Southwark so maybe do not pay so much attention to detail of what is discussed or proposed. So given Southwark's stated reason to tax car owners via CPZ is to get them out of their cars and to rid the streets of them completely, how will that be achieved if, as you assert, "Additional costs due to being charged to rent road space whilst the car is stationary makes didly squat difference to the pocket of most car owners in the area - I'm paying more for a family theatre trip and that is the cheap seats". Your argument makes no sense ( I won't descend to calling it daft). At least admit the truth, the Council just need and want the dosh, however much they primp, window dress and green wash their motivation for CPZ.

And there is a massive and inherent assumption that the majority constantly use a car when they don't need to. None of us would pay very expensive car insurance, taxes and servicing costs unless there was a real need to use a car at times. Plus in somewhere like Nunhead, there is no pressure on parking and no 'need' for CPZ. However, the council desperately ' need ' that CPZ revenue and so are absolutely determined to impose it on residents. Next on the list will be a tax on wood-burners, just wait and see.

Nor are they responsible for installation, monitoring and maintaining LTNs, often against local resident wishes. I am far more concerned about issues of transparency and democracy at the hands of those that actually have the power to govern us and make decisions for us. We have yet to see data that shows local LTNs have made a positive difference to the majority of residents. There has been much weaselling around by Cllr McAsh on these traffic issues but he is on the record as saying he wants to get all cars off the streets...he has no mandate to do that, nor were CPZ and LTN invented as mechanisms to make that happen. But that is just what Southwark Labour are trying to do.

(edited) Rockets said: "...at reducing traffic WITHIN LTN zones (pretty bleeding obvious) but with increases above the mean average on boundary roads....concluded using the same flawed council datasets Aldred et Al used." No s**t Sherlock! Hilarious. The study concludes lower traffic on roads where barriers mean traffic cannot enter..ta da!

This particular poster always resorts to provocation when their case runs out of steam. But let's not focus on that. I felt Rockets was simply trying to address the various points raised by Earl, so a bit dodgy to say Rocket's posts are discursive. P68 generally has something useful to say when they do post and others often write at length too, those who don't wish to read are under no obligation to.

Problem is it isn't simple and the many barriers to cycling have already been outlined. Perhaps there is not more that can be done at the moment, it has to be a matter of individual choice. I think Heartblock has the right idea in encouraging more walking- arguably better for overall fitness than cycling (especially e-bikes or scooter use). A combination of walking and public transport is a winning formula and more pragmatic.

Please no!

It'll be interesting to see if a similar conclusion is reached in Nunhead, where there is also no current need for controlled parking and where residents are not keen. I am reminded of the rationale Cllr McAsh gave in support of the imposition of a Nunhead CPZ and it was along the lines of 'why should car owning Nunhead residents enjoy free parking and cleaner air when residents in other areas, closer to the centre, have to pay for parking and have more pollution?' The former does not really make sense if suddenly it is felt somewhere like Dulwich Hill does not need controlled parking, after all?

I am sure we can all agree that walking is an important part of active travel. Having visited Nx road recently I was shocked how bad the pavement is, with lots of the brick pavers sticking up and clearly loose. I would prefer to see more effort on the basics.