first mate

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.

So part of theCouncil's Streets for People Work is to visit local primary schools and do what exactly? How are the young children invited to make drawings and banners about the environment and pollution? Assuming this is a council funded exercise, I'd like to know more. I am aware Cllr McAsh is a primary school teacher as his day job, but really this seems a bit desperate.

Maybe in some places it does, who knows. However, to stay on subject, there is hardly a need to reduce car journeys in Dulwich Village and many residents will be under no requirement to stop using their cars as they have plenty of room to keep them without incurring CPZ charges. Those impacted will be the poorer locals, without the land on which to keep cars. It will also impact neighbouring areas and less wealthy residents by creating parking pressure. As I said, a socialist council benefitting the rich while taking from those less well off. Great job!

I doubt many Dulwich Village residents will mind that much. As you say Spartacus, many have huge driveways, garages and front gardens, more than enough to keep multiple cars without ever having to pay CPZ fees. I wonder how many of those houses is truly car free? What this will do is keep the hoi polloi from parking in DV and make the lives of poorer residents harder, while the wealthy get off scott free. Rejoice in our socialist council, giving to the rich and taking from the poor. Remind me also, how many councillors live in this area? It will also place parking pressure on other nearby areas, I think that is what this is really about. Because, as you say, with the installation of village squares onto highway junctions and cameras set to fine ' motorist incomers' at various times of the day, it is not as if the area really needs CPZ. Deeply cynical, in my view.

I believe in China, where there are many more bike riders than here, accidents and injury involving reckless use of bicycles -and especially e-bikes- is on the rise. With the few cycle riders we have currently, there are enough examples of reckless use, whether riding on pavements or exceeding legal e-bike speeds, to indicate that the same could happen over here if cycle and e-bike use grows in the way some hope it will.

Don't see why asking for anonymity invalidates what is being said? The stakes are high around these traffic measures, there have been reports of intimidation from both sides.

If on the payroll and kicking their heels they could sort out discarded e-bikes and maybe sweep a few leaves too?

Indeed. A bunch of them seem to spend a lot of time hanging around side streets off Lordship Lane, especially near to M&S, puffing on ciggies and waiting to pounce. Oh the irony, as they do Southwark's 'work' on 'greening' the environment, dropping ciggie butts and exhaling nicotine breath as they go.

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.