first mate

In fairness, I suppose Thames Water may be keen to explain why pipes keep bursting and increased "weight of traffic" caused by LTNs is handy. Perhaps replacing the pipes in that area is now almost impossible as where would the traffic go while extensive work is underway?

My postal service is still abysmal and really important post missing.

Fascinating how frequently pipes are bursting, despite seemingly years of work and disruption locally. At the same time, TW currently installing residential water meters all around at break neck speed. Incredible how many personnel and resources they can throw at that.

I don't have strong feelings either way but, yes, the bias is plain for all to see, especially when we consider the rationale for extending Gala in the park to a month has been built around the narrative of the Council's really strong desire to fund free community events. It will be fascinating to see which ' community' events they push and which not.

This reminds me of one of the early cycling activists on here who objected to mobility scooters in cycle lanes, as this would slow down cyclists. They felt mobility scooters should go into bus lanes or on footpaths!

Too much grandstanding and back slapping for my liking, what with Cllr McAsh' references to himself and SLP being a latter- day Robin Hood, taking from the rich to give to the poor; Cllr Smith's bizarre turn on memories of wholesome school dinners in the 50's as his justication for approving the budget, and Cllr Rose... She had to be closed down by the Chair. Thanks LA for supplying the written answer to the events question. The answer was rather vague, I felt, on benefits to the park and also on the size and costs for the events team.

Could not see where issue was raised or answered. Cllr Rose gave a long, defiant speech supporting events in parks. Interesting to see Council politics play out. Really unedifying actually. For most involved it just seems a great game, however much they go on about their values and visions.

Clearly, absolutely anyone that dares so much as question LTNs is a fascistic-climate-denying-antisemite-anti-vaxxer-hip-hop-loving-petrol-headed- mansplainer...and that includes the women too!

Awaiting a vital and time limited piece of mail that I know for a fact was posted first class, 30th Jan. Things are no better.

Whatever the technicalities of what HH can or cannot do, it does read as though the group is being blocked one way or another, as well as framed in a misleading way (activists). It does not feel very democratic. And yes, a number of us saw how the reps were treated by Cllrs Williams and Rose at the famous "mansplaining" outburst.

Mal, I agree and although I love them we just cannot have them in the city.

I was tickled to see George Monbiot decided he could no longer use his. On this one I agree. I love a woodburner or open fire, who doesn't. However, having read the data I just don't see how anyone living in the city can use one with a clear conscience. If it really is your only source of heating then there may be a case and you live in the Scottish Highlands then that is different, but in London...? No.

Should wood burners be banned immediately, especially on LTNs, where air pollution is the driver for reducing traffic. Alternatively, should owners of these stoves be fined each time the stoves are used?

I think there will be all sorts of spinning and machinations to make the extension happen next year so we do need to stay vigilant. Remember, Southwark want the money so they can burnish their free community events tick box. That is what this is really all about. The fact this has been framed as park 'improvement' is laughable.

I also think choosing to use the word activist looks extremely weighted and bad form. Are other interested groups, but those with views more in line with Southwark Labour, also referred to as activists? Is there also a demand for full disclosure of detail of all those other group members before our MP or Councillors engage, I doubt it.

Good news for this summer but bad news they intend to persist. Whatever way you slice it, losing use of part of the park for 25 days straight is not good.

It is a well known developer formula and cannot believe some on here are okay with that.

It is interesting what Labour objects to in other boroughs ://www.westminsterlabour.org.uk/issues/2021/12/18/refuse-the-berkeley-homes-scheme-for-paddington-green/ Wording from an online survey in favour of the Peckham development is interesting.... doesn't sound as though even 35% of social housing is a definite and available to those on low to medium incomes is an interesting idea...quite a big range in terms of income. Surely social housing would be for those on low incomes? "scheme is still being finalised but it is likely that at least 35% of the development will be affordable and social housing, available for rent or shared-ownership for those on low to medium incomes. 65% of the homes will be sold at market rate and the sale of these homes will fund the affordable housing".

No doubt they'll sell, even if as investment properties. But a central argument here is that they'll provide much needed affordable housing for low paid and key workers, necessary to keep our city running. I just don't believe that. Look at Heygate!

I so hope you are right. But, she'll be up against Cllr Rose who is very much in favour of all this and who some view as an expert in making consultations 'work' to seem to support (unpopular) proposals...see https://www.35percent.org/revolving-doors/ We should be aware of what is happening next door in Brockwell Park where large sections are now going to be fenced off for 49 days of summer. Events are being expanded to include things like wrestling. Residents feel they have been ignored and deceived by the Council.

Sazzle said: "As we all know these developments will not benefit the locals, any social housing provisions will disappear over time." This is the point. The flats will be overpriced and they'll be thrown up and of no architectural merit. So the housing of vital workers will not be solved as they'll be priced out. It is not an imaginative solution to lack of affordable housing. But go ahead, just give away swathes of prime land to fatten developer wallets.

Awful. Look at Croydon. No thanks.

We also need to be really clear it is not just two precious weekends at the height of summer; it is 25 days straight a large chunk of our local park is totally out of bounds and effectively becomes a building site.

Southwark News is quoting Cllr Catherine Rose and all the indications are the 25 day privatisation of a large section of Peckham Rye, this coming summer, is already a done deal. So another illusion of consultation by this Council. https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/community/gala-festival-set-to-hold-mammoth-six-day-event-on-peckham-rye-park/

Thanks for posting and I have started to watch. Already we learn that the ugly metal fencing all around the area will be much higher this year to prevent 'jumpers' getting in for free...giving some sense of where the real priorities lie. They keep calling it 6 days but it isn't, it's 25 days. Please object or we will lose parkland in the summer for good. I removed a section on licensing as I believe I had misunderstood the difference between an event licence and a premises licence. Gala have been granted a 3 day premises licence in perpetuity. They now wish to extend that. At the meeting Cllr Mills of Nunhead said she objected to the 25 days. However, Cllr Rose is driving all this and seems to have form in totally ignoring resident objections to her pet projects.