first mate

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.

I'd imagine the issue will slowly get worse as the weather improves and folk start to cycle again.

But the assertion they are parking for free on the street is not strictly true.

Is this not slightly hypocritical? You want less cars to help the environment (which I agree but not the measures you're suggesting) however, you'd like a fast fashion shop on the Lane? It is hypocritical https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/fashion-industry-carbon-unsustainable-environment-pollution/ Plus, I am a cyclist and have never owned an SUV. Have you sold your car yet, Rahx3?

The study you cite is for across the EU and is from 2012. I am not sure how you can accurately extrapolate use of taxes in UK from this? But you are changing the goalposts. The assertion was that UK car users all expect and get free parking on the street. I was simply pointing out that this is not the case.

But it isn't free is it? Every year the vast majority of car owners pay a tax that goes into a central Govt consolidated fund. That money is used for myriad projects, including infrastructure, like roads. You must pay that tax even if your car is parked in the street and never driven. So I dispute the notion that car owners expect and get absolutely free parking. CPZ is primarily a mechanism for Councils to generate income and the car is an easy target. Parking pressure has been artificially constructed to a great degree. We all know this. We've witnessed it happening locally. I do wonder though when the council will start going after those who own wood burning stoves...? Far more damaging to the environment and health. I also wonder how on the one hand they can witter on about greening streets while on the other they actively seek to privatise and ungreen local parkland?

Please do not be fooled into thinking Southwark Council are prioritising eco-friendly solutions above everything. As you are discovering, generating income is the real motivation behind many of the measures.

Bic basher said: "In Peckham, I parked outside the Peckhamplex and was told it's now a "designated parking area" and there are designated parking areas on LL by the shops. You can still park on the side roads such as Ashbourne Grove and Chesterfield Grove though." You can park on those roads for now but as Cllr Rose continues to ramp up parking pressure (parking space for hire bikes being just the latest wheeze) you can guarantee that those streets will be CPZ, before long. Let's face it, that is what these allegedly environmentally moves are really all about, making sure everywhere is wall to wall CPZ...kerching. Consider again what environmentally friendly council does all the above but simultaneously offers to turn swathes of local parkland into a private nightclub in the height of summer.

Just goes to show how fairly and objectively information from certain groups is treated.

Rah, and once the area is fully pedestrianised those who really do need to use cars should sell up and move out...yes? In our topsy turvy Southwark world, we push for greening up the streets with planters and 'parklets' and advocate for children gambolling in the streets, while we rent out the real parks for private child-free use, chock full of generators, ugly giant fencing and various forms of pollution. Go figure.