first mate

Don't you think a lot of people in this area are already doing most of the above? The fact remains that a vehicle is often necessary for certain types of occupation and to service the needs (needs not wants) of the vulnerable or elderly. You know this to be true. We are not talking about transport of items from the UK to our second home in France ( definitely in the want category) but serious, genuine needs.

But Earl, they are using every possible means to extend CPZ, they are not intending to limit it to areas around the station, they want it borough wide.

The fact is many residents are reliant on cars. It is an inconvenient fact. Dictating by force will only work up to a point. The council have not been straight about reducing car use. I still do not believe they genuinely want to, but in a cost of living crisis they have had to come up with some sort of reason to justify hiking parking fees and have greenwashed their true motivation. I think they are charging as much as they think they can away with, knowing that many will be forced to find a way to cough up.

Until recently there was little issue on the majority of residential streets for pedestrians, for cars to park or for vehicles to pass each other on streets. Problems have been artificially and systematically constructed and imposed by the council with a view to extending CPZ boundaries.

They keep changing the narrative around all this stuff. The early rationale for CPZ was to help those living closest to the train station who were unable to park their cars and were being harassed every morning by evil commuters looking for spaces to park. CPZ, they said, was to help these poor residents get a space to park on their own street; now suddenly it is to stop people owning cars? So first they introduced CPZ to empower and enable car ownership for those living closest to transport hubs. Now they claim to want to make CPZ spaces so expensive that car owners will relinquish their cars and this is their big contribution to saving the planet. At the same time, they are turning over swathes of green park for commercial environment polluting events and sections of green MOL for property development. Am I the only one to see a contradiction in all this? The one thing both endeavours have in common is they are making more money for the Council.

It was only a matter of time. Saw this today https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/25/ltn-can-only-work-with-decent-public-transport

Well, first I have heard of this too. How or where has this been publicised? Anyone who is local and uses the park should be considered a stakeholder. That would apply to me, yet I had no warning of this meeting tonight? This sort of approach does not invite confidence. Will there be Council reps at the meeting? If not, it begins to feel like ownership of that section of the park for that time has been passed over to Gala. Note another timely article in Guardian today. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/23/the-guardian-view-on-parks-an-asset-that-should-be-for-everyone

@wordsworth ironic, given your name or chosen moniker. The poet Wordsworth celebrated the power of the natural world, and its central importance for humanity, even in a city like London. See below, explaining why relatively quiet, green spaces are so vital for city dwellers. https://depts.washington.edu/hhwb/Thm_StressPhysiology.html

Don't worry. Within a short time the traffic will evaporate and many of those who had used cars will cycle. Simpulz.

https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/community/gala-festival-set-to-hold-mammoth-six-day-event-on-peckham-rye-park/ My mistake. It does seem that for this year it will be the format used before. However, given the 6 days premises licence, they obviously plan to extend the event for 2024. I agree that we should continue to resist.

Supporting the continuation of the football club while also wishing to preserve MOL and freedom of access for all, should not be mutually exclusive.

I believe they are already advertising a 6 day event, having earlier said it would only be three. This suggests the events licence is a given.

Devastating result. Add this to moves moves to remove protective covenant of MOL at Greendale and we can see the direction of travel. I am assuming that anyone anywhere in the Borough could vote in favour of Gala for 6 days. Cannot believe 56 in favour is made up of people living near the Rye. I imagine objectors were local, so wonder what weight was given to those who are not?

My understanding is that DHFC have promised to give Charter schools free access to the new pitch and facilities, for how long is not clear. This does not address the point that the current astroturf is free for all to use and is therefore a community asset. Making facilities free for Charter school use for an unspecified amount of time is a great bit of spin and will appeal to parents but the fact remains that land currently freely available for public use is being taken away from everyone else.

Tomskip, I don't understand. Are you saying that if you just get the bags your garden waste will be picked up free of charge and you don't have to pay for that service? Why would you have to pay, now, £60 a year if you have a bin but nothing if you use bags? The bin men still have to lug them to the lorry. Or do you take yours to the dump yourself?

Does anyone know if Peckham sorting office has been investigated? My postal service continues to be dire and I am now really concerned about where all the missing mail has gone and whether it has been tampered with. It just feels as though RM do not give a stuff, there is no robust complaints process and they are getting away with it.

Thanks Legal. I have skimmed. Is there anything in for Dulwich Village, close to bike friendly Dulwich Square? Surely this is now a destination worthy of a dedicated hire bike parking/storage area?

And anyone who cares about democracy, transparency and a degree of plain old honesty, should continue to call out the imposition of LTNs.

Thanks legal. I see The Friends of Dulwich Square got £3000.. for what, I wonder? Cannot believe the cost of cycle hangars. £5000 for a hangar in Friern Road.

I would agree with paying more tax and for the council to focus on getting the basics right; road and path maintenance, waste collection etc.. as for free events, I am not really sure why the council need to offer these. In times of plenty then fine.

No problem with a self funding events team and for the range of free events but I don't think that quiet green spaces, the "lungs of the borough", should be sacrificed for weeks at a time, mid summer, to become a fund generator.

I wanted to add to this the relationship between urbanisation, loss of access to green and quiet environments, and stress. We really have to think carefully about losing green, quiet spaces for regular noisy, consumer events (pushing alcohol). Again, there are other, multiple venues for this, if people want it. The Council are not trying to improve the health of residents or improve the quality of parks. They simply want another revenue stream.

Another dodgy deflection attempt there by Mal.

And in that same thread /viewtopic.php?t=2249079&hilit=harriet+harman DuncanW was asking in 2021 how far left Southwark CLP was and was told by an insider "very" and who also described it as probably the most far left in the country.

"Clean air is a human right, not a privilege"... interesting in the context of LTNs.