first mate

Proof, if proof were needed, it is all about the money.

Deleted

On balance, however tempting, I would advise against feeding foxes. It is in their interestS to maintain their innate wariness of us. Foxes are naturally exploratory and curious and if they lose their wariness of a household they can become more dependent and more territorial. You may not mind fox poo in your garden but your neighbours may not be so keen. Fox poo carries all the nasties that dog poo contains but foxes are not wormed.Foxes carry Toxocara Canis. I would prefer foxes to focus on their natural diet and maintain the balance of nature, capping the populations of slugs, snails rats and squirrels. Limiting food sources also acts as a natural cap on the fox population. We tend to feed foxes for our own benefit, not theirs.

Do you mean no left turns off LL into those roads. How would residents get onto their streets? What about volume Of traffic on Lordship Lane and ED Grove, that also have schools and a medical centre within yards of the road? Additionally, what about social distancing next to all the shops? I suppose we can then narrow LL to further block through traffic and enable pedestrians on the road but that will hamper the regional economy and cause issues for those using public transport and emergency services access.

No if we put up a really big fight they won?t. This really is time for the community to get vocal and first port of call should be councillors. They have to represent us. Perhaps we should push for a large public meeting, maybe an online one. I am tired of this Labour Council behaving in such a paternalistic manner. They need to start listening properly or we will end up in a mess.

Photographs and film of statue and its final destination for the museum, melt down the bronze and cast a new statue. fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also kind of like the idea of putting it in a > museum... lying on it's side, complete with > graffiti. With an explanation of both the slave > trade and the BLM movement. > > Melting it down is fine too, though...

Actually, now you mention it, the proposed Tell Grove barrier on MG may become a parent drop off point for Charter. They are removing parking and putting double yellow lines in the run up to allow cars that try to use it as a cut through space to effect a three point turn and go back. Who knows how these things can turn out.

But we are not talking post covid, these measures are framed as the Council response to Covid and social distancing requirements. 2 hours is a fair chunk of time to remove a ?temporary? barrier. No reason it cannot be made permeable to certain types of traffic, especially emergency services. exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As I keep saying, how convenient that the very > measures the council has pushed for years now are, > miraculously, the solution for the effects of the > pandemic and social distancing requirements. > > I'd be more concerned and worried if the council > had said "all these things that we've been > consulting on and modelling and surveying people > with a rough general idea of expected traffic > outcomes - yeah well we're not going to do any of > that post-Covid, we're actually going to do a > whole host of completely unrelated stuff which > we've suddenly decided is better". > > Not saying they're right or wrong at the moment > but they're only NAL barriers (blocks of > concrete). Can take them out in a couple of hours.

Normally Emergency Services would be statutory consultees for any planned road closures...they have to be so they know alternative routes. However, the legal imperative of these measures leaves their input much less clear, the measures are being framed as temporary but implemented with some very permanent looking structures. Plus emergency services have a lot to consider right now and we do not know how all this is/ will be presented to them. For instance, is it a matter of ?residents were asked and over 80% of respondents were in favour?. If something along those lines why would statutory consultees object? It does not feel transparent. As I keep saying, how convenient that the very measures the council has pushed for years now are, miraculously, the solution for the effects of the pandemic and social distancing requirements.

Blocking off major access points does not seem helpful in that respect. Moreover, digging up streets where utilities have failed is in itself an emergency. This is about facilitating social distancing. It is still not clear how these road blocks will help in that respect. Again, the barriers could and should be fully permeable- removable for emergency access. Instead, we understand, they will be immovable.

Set up a camera and then we can all see the results!😀

Goodgirlbadhair, this is appalling I hope that you might receive the support of your neighbours in mounting a challenge. You could also approach James McAsh who should be sympathetic and keen to help. It seems clear that your very present and pressing needs have not been considered at all. Did the council person who allegedly visited and checked the street in May make contact with you?

How about a bike bag that you pop your bike into into before entering your property? Obviously much easier with a folding bike and most of those have bags designed just for that purpose. Folding bikes are probably an ideal solution for most city dwellers and help solve the potential theft issue as you can take them just about anywhere.

The definition of what constitutes ?healthy? has shifted with Covid. Accessible and equitable social distancing across the community is what we need and the needs of the elderly and extremely vulnerable are especially important and must be carefully considered. Emergency access is vital for them as is the ability to travel by whatever means they are able to, safely. I am not wholly convinced that the old plans meet those needs but I may be wrong.

I expect we may not always be on the same page but I agree and this tunnel vision, pick and mix approach will increase pressure on Lordship Lane and ED Grove...while a handful of residents reap the benefits. You cannot put the needs of one section of the community before everyone else. Of course we must protect children but it is not only about children and cyclists. We must also consider the needs of those who cannot cycle and who may not be able to walk very far. We absolutely must consider access for emergency services, especially now. The Council and its stakeholders are not thinking this through, instead they are reverting to old ideas and coveted solutions, in an almost blinkered manner, and repurposing them to fit the moment and legal obligations. I still fear that underpinning the above is an eye to CPZ and generating income in future. If emergency measures were really a genuine and thinking response to the current situation I suspect the solutions might look a bit different. The fact that they are old, pre-covid ideas just looks dodgy. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the council want to make it easier for people > to social distance and support local shops as > things start opening up again, then the single > most pressing local challenge is along Lordship > Lane. > > Then there is the need to quickly create space > outside of schools (which they are taking some > action on, but not everywhere). > > Lastly, they should be looking to create > segregated cycle lanes into central London to > enable people to get to work, whilst avoiding > public transport or having to resort to cars. This > could most obviously be done along the 'Southwark > Spine' route (so down Crystal palace and Bellenden > Road an on northwards). They need to be radical. > All they have done so far is to bring forward a > few discrete projects they had planned already. > > Lambeth on the other hand are creating new 'low > traffic' neighbourhoods, widening pavements and > creating previously unplanned cycle routes. They > are acting with urgency. > > We need much bolder and strategic action.

Perhaps the Council can under emergency powers find a way to intervene with Landlords if they are not being reasonable in meeting the needs of cycle owning tenants. Folding cycles are also a great solution as they are easily stored inside the home.

Well the new Charter school and Medical centres, as well as Harris primary, are right next to main roads that can expect increased traffic and pollution as a result of these measures.

Any barrier should be easily removable for emergency access. This would not affect the walking or cycling aspect. However, the barriers indicated, along with the double yellow lines, look to be far more permanent, despite all the empty rhetoric around feedback to see if they make a positive difference. I am also sure this council is more than capable of dressing up a different agenda to look as though it is meeting govt imposed legal obligations, after all, who has oversight or is checking? rollflick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This scheme is about enabling far more people to > walk and cycle, in recognition that capacity on > public transport is seriously limited due to > social distancing. > > Melbourne Grove has been repeatedly designated as > a future local cycling route but the council has > failed to deliver. Trouble is the council has now > also failed to communicate this plan or explain > that it has a legal obligation to provide for > dramatically increased levels of walking and > cycling. > > Given this legal obligation, anyone writing into > the council to complain based on the comments in > this thread is wasting their time, as well as > that of officers and councillors. If you have a > better suggestion that can be delivered in a > similar length of time that could be different. > Certainly there is a case for also filtering > Crystal Palace Road too (rather than as an > alternative).

KK, yes, but it is interesting that although the Council?s ?emergency? justification for the MG barrier is to do with social distancing that all those who have come on to voice support have changed the direction of justification to align with the old, original proposal. Social distancing is not mentioned...at all!

It goes without saying that if he were disabled, it may not be so easy for him to simply ?walk? around the corner and the needs of all drivers are therefore not, as you insist, over-stated. Please, try to see the light and shade. If people can cycle they probably will, but not everyone can. Try to accept that.

I don?t think that is what EDAus wrote, or implied. But if he were or is disabled I am shocked you would, without any knowledge of his circumstances, be directing/pressuring him on his chosen mode of transport. It comes across as high-handed and insensitive.

I am also really unclear how all this enhances social distancing in the area?

I think the general understanding of a permeable filter is rather different. Aside from everything else stated, emergency service access is a real worry, has this been properly considered, given we are living through a pandemic with a likely second wave and all that?

Bels123 it is a road block, no vehicles can pass through.