first mate

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)?

Posted Friday at 11:20 "Is anyone going to the CPZ meeting at the Library tonight?" Did anyone manage to get to the meeting? Can they say what happened?

If anyone did, please let us know what happened.

Back to the Daily Mail trope. Stereotyping is the laziest of ways to try to make a point. As for 11.5 million spent on traffic wardens, I cannot believe others here really think that is okay? The council have spent money to try to create a parking problem and are now spending money to "police" it with a load of wardens who are, for the most part, lurking around on residential side streets trying to find cars to ticket, or congregating for fag puffing socials. Them mounds of cigarette butts on the end of my street have noticeably risen. Courtesy of Southwark Council making my road safer and greener...allegedly.

Kathleen Olander, spot on. Come hell or high water this council are intent on imposing CPZ on an area that does not want or need it. How the Cabinet Member responsible aligns this with a democratic process is beyond me. It is all about money. Just to make the point, were this council as green as they try to make out, they would not countenance turning a large part of our local park into an events space for hire, chopping down trees to facilitate contractors.

So all that daily school drop off traffic will have gone onto local boundary roads won't it? All those parents ferrying kids across or from out and into the borough will not have suddenly got their kids cycling in, will they? That traffic you talk about on your old daily commute won't just have evaporated. Maybe they now put their child on a coach (able to park in DV for free) or they get dropped off on a boundary road. Either way, I am pretty darn sure those children are not walking or cycling, especially not in this weather. You seem comfortable that local residents bear the burden of the children of the wealthy ( many from out of borough) by giving them access to park for free in space everyone else has to pay for? Seems it should be the other way round to me.

My question is how do you get to be on Cllr Kieron Williams' emailing list? Perhaps this is to his ward constituents?

And, free coach parking for children attending private, fee paying schools, where many of them also live well outside the area and even outside the borough. No free space for local residents, they must pay. However, free for those wealthy enough to put their children through private schooling. Go figure.

Perhaps I am alone, but I find the idea of using children to support political agendas a little bit questionable.