Penguin68

A ban on people parking commercial work vehicles on these streets? Well, let's hope you never need a plumber or an electrician or somebody to rod you drains, or deliver a parcel to you (or your food via Occado) or mend anything.

I also believe that planning has to be more realistic - it is frankly stupid to suppose that increasingly people will choose not to have cars as a lifestyle choice - there is absolutely no evidence for this, particular for people choosing to live outside city centres where transport is poor and expensive (as it is in SE London). Travelling into town is OK, just, but if you want to travel across SE London, or to leave it, then without a car your journey will be complex and slow (and will often involve having to travel into the centre to find a way out again!). Anyone who can afford a car will be driven (sic) to get one, Car Clubs notwithstanding. People with children, or frail through age (but not necessarily disabled) will also choose cars if they can. What this means is that car ownership is an issue where planning permission is being granted to increase the number of households in a locale, either through splitting existing houses into flats, or by purpose-building accommodation. Parking provision at least at the real local levels (not some generalised Southwark level) should be part of required planning. Providing parking for Lordship Lane visitors (reasonably priced) - perhaps by intelligent use of the old hospital site, would additionally alleviate parking problems - cheap 'all-day' permits for local traders (and indeed people working locally in schools etc.) might encourage inward commuters off local streets - especially where the parking was seen as secure. They could even be paid for and provided via the employer as a 'perk' like luncheon vouchers (whatever happened to luncheon vouchers?) Decent parking would also probably be a better 'attractor' into Lordship Lane shops and restaurants - particularly for lunch-time trade - than the discussion about 'never to happen' Waitrose or M&S arriving - and is actually in local control, potentially, rather than begging flagship shops to come. Maybe the Northcross Road market could prosper more if there was better parking for non-locals to visit. It strikes me that you can either bury your head in the sand and wish cars (and car owners) would go away, or recognise that this isn't going to happen and work with car owners, not against them. My experience says that the carrot more frequently works than the stick (and that the people who use the stick enjoy the beating more than they enjoy the result) - so anti-car folk enjoy the unhappiness of those with cars who they have managed to punish more than they really appreciate the wider 'beneficial' impact, if any, of their actions. It was notable that the congestion charge, while permanently reducing the number of vehicles in Central London only increased traffic speeds through London (the claimed reason for it) for a short time, until other anti-car measures reduced it back to its old 12mph.

Nigella lives as the wife of a multi-millionaire in a multi-milion pound house with drivers and (I bet) garage parking. I think the issues of their respective diets (the point of the original picture article) is much more to the point. One might just as well say Nigella is Jewish and Gillian isn't, or Nigella is a brunette and Gillian isn't. I rest my case. Can we close this thread now, the battle is won. The initiating concern - pressure on parking in the area caused however is still an issue, and the unhappiness of the pro-CPZ party - even if the anti's didn't think a CPZ was a good solution, is still real. Perhaps a new thread, around parking issues, losing the bitterness and back-biting of this one, is now called for.

Maybe, before we stumble around looking for solutions we might do some real work on understanding what the problem is. So far three 'causes' for local parking congestion have been hypothesised:- 1. Onwards commuters parking locally to use ED station (but coming from where?) 2. Inward commuters coming to ED to work and add value locally, including 'public' servants such as health and education workers. 3. Residents having more cars than spaces outside their houses, either because of multi-car families and/ or multi-occupancy housing (including purpose built flats not provided with adequate parking space). Part of this latter is intentionally caused by politicians who are anti-car and want to force Londoners only to use the (currently laughably inadequate, particularly at weekends imho) public transport systems. Indeed it is arguable that lib dem politicians, pursuing an anti-car agenda, have actually been the cause of the problem to which they are now offering an additional anti-car solution. Rather than thanking the lib dems for championing them, there are arguments that the Derwent Grovers could be seeing them, and not mythical commuters, as the cause of their woes. Arguably. Either which way, finding out the true extent of, and causes of, parking congestion problems locally has to be the initiating move in devising solutions one of which could be (and hugely unpalatable to some) making future planning permission dependent upon developers offering realistic parking solutions, rather than forcing a 'use public transport or die' approach. The Garden Shop development will be the next cause of strain on local parking lives - and that will be absolutely a planning, not a commuter, blight. Working to make car ownership impossible or unaffordable in ED (clearly part of a lib dem agenda, I would suggest) is an unacceptable attack on personal freedoms and liberty, again imho. But that's all political, and if it was argued openly in that way, it would be refreshing. And maybe the electorate could express an opinion through the ballot box and not a flawed and spun 'consultation'.

I have said on a number of occasions (and I say again) that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a politician holding political views, or indeed voting with his/ her party whip - that's the 'deal' where you have formal parties and politicians representing these parties. However here we have seen all the machinery of politics being hugely dissembled by at least one of the politicians. If Mr Barber had come out, up front, as being in favour of CPZs and (implicity) against car-owning local residents; if he had urged CPZs as a necessary revenue generating device to support other 'good' council expenditure - had he argued against cars at all as polluters and saw the blocking of their entry into ED from 'outside' as being beneficial, had he put any case clearly, honestly and consistently for CPZs I could have respected, if disagreed, with those opinions and his right to hold them. Instead he pretended to be even handed and balanced in his approach to the 'problem' - while consistently putting forward the argument from only one side and, worse, consistently distorting the few 'facts' that were actually available. To go against the view of the majority of your electorate may be brave and principled, but to pretend that this is not what you are doing is either self-delusional or mendacious (50:50?). Mr Barber is not a fool, he fully understands that a 'trial''tiny' CPZ would neither be a trial, nor, eventually, tiny - the wedge principle of CPZ introduction is very well understood and documented - so he knew that 'helping' the Derwent Grovers was also going to lead to a pernicious spread of CPZ into areas which even he could not argue weren't substantially against it. So any attempts to suggest he was just thinking of a 'persecuted minority' in Derwent (minority in proposed Grove Vale CPZ, majority in Derwent, of course, as regards cast 'votes') would be disengenuous.

My family and I have been going to 1 Forest Hill Rd for over 20 years - they did have a bad patch a few years ago re appointments but sorted it out. Like peterstorm I wouldn't move.

Indiepanda I go to the Practice at 1 Forest Hill Road.

I have just phoned for an appointment with a named and specific doctor at my surgery (not DMC) and was offered first thing Monday morning. I would expect to see 'any old physician' within 24 hours (lapsed, not working, but of course not at weekends) tops. On Saturday my daughter called Seldoc at 8.00 and was in the surgery by 10:30. This is a standard I would expect across ED. If you are not getting it I would demand it, or change supplier.

Huguenot Here's another scenario - the CPZ isn't actually a solution to the 'problem' - which is over-parking by legitimate local people to ED - local either through residency or through the fact they work in ED - but when a few roads are CPZ-ed many pople who live in those roads and have cars in them chose not to pay the ?125 a year to park in their own roads (maybe they are the ones who didn't vote for a CPZ or voted against it). Instead they move to park their cars (for free) in the next streets - so the CPZ streets are empty (-er) and the non CPZ streets, which didn't really have a problem, are parked up by CPZ street freeloaders. CPZ voters who are prepared to pay can now park where they want (so they have selfishly got what they want) but people in adjacent streets now have a problem as the CPZ street people who don't want to pay (maybe they have a couple of cars and it would cost too much) now start taking their spaces so that what was a workable problem for them, if it was a problem at all, suddenly gets worse. What people are forgetting is that CPZ road residents who don't want to pay the council's aditional road tax will be part of the displaced parking problem into other streets, not just the filthly 'foreigners'. And these people may well have voted against a CPZ precisely because they didn't want to pay, so you can hardly blame them.

Huguenot As someone on the far side of the world you have not had an opportunity actually to view parking on those streets for some considerable time. The 'evidence', such as it is, suggests that a significant number of vehicles which are deemed to be 'causing' the problem belong either to current residents (just too many resident cars for the road speace available) or to people commuting into ED to provide such services as being teachers, working in local shops etc. - i.e. they belong to that 'community' which is ED. All of which would benefit from that concept of reciprocal altruism. Despite confident assertions to the contrary, the evidence of which streets are being parked up when (see my earlier note on the emptiness of Ondine Road in the middle of the day) suggest that ED station is not a huge attracter of 'foreign' cars of City commuters. Constant street works all around ED do frequently temporarily shift parking from one street to another, as kerb-sides are restricted (and this never seems to stop) but CPZ's won't have any impact on that at all. The 'survey' was actually undertaken whilst this was happening locally (I am sure just by chance) which would have exacerbated the appearance of some local problems.

There is a concept used by evolutionary biologists, social anthropologists and psychologists amongst others to suggest why collaborative and cooperative behaviour has evolved outside kin groups ? this is called reciprocal altruism (it is described amongst evolutionary biologists using games theory as a ?tit-for-tat? strategy in the game of Doves and Hawks). This theory posits that there is an evolutionary advantage in cooperation and collaboration which transcends kin-group altruism and suggests that selfishness (Hawk-ishness) is not a good long-term position. I suggest that those who see binding together against the introduction of a CPZ (because of the ?creeping harm? it can cause within a community) as very much belonging to the Doves group, with their response to CPz-ers who ?selfishly? want an immediate apparent advantage (?Hawks?) ? ?then stay out of my street? ? as a ?classic? tit-for-tat response. It is interesting that a lib-dem (James) is so clearly within the Hawk camp here, and against the concept (if he thinks this through) of cooperation and reciprocal altruism. His attitude is much closer to that with which Tories are more often (perhaps erroneously) linked.

Was this a particular doctor or any doctor at all?

It?s inevitable may as well get it in now. So, of course, is Death

I have just (11:30am, Tuesday morning - 3rd week in January) driven down Ondine road, one of the CPZ target roads - there were 19 parking spaces free - 'better' parking (not that there was a need) would have freed up another 2 or more. Most people are back at work now - so I don't feel there is (on one snap-shot occasion) much case to be made of a 'commuter' parking blight locally. Certainly it may be that some residents weren't able to park immediately outside their own house - but that has been true for the last 30 years in residential streets in London - frankly you have to go back to the 1950s and 60s (when there were far fewer cars on the roads) to find a time when always parking outside your own house was a reasonable expectation. Most people, it seemed to me, returning to Ondine, would have been able to park with 3-5 houses of their own. Actually, many people were probably already parked outside their own houses.

Besides East Dulwich has a very good transport infrastructure Which tends to fall apart at the weekends as all the lines are taken out for remedial works (obviously not all, all the time, but enough to make a car a necessity if you don't want to be trapped in ED or reliant on buses which can take an inordinate time to get anywhere). That (and the difficulty of transporting small children and stuff on public transport, or being old and creaky) is why so many are car reliant. ED for fit, young, childless people who don't go anywhere at weekends is not a watchword I want to live with.

Recommendation 1 - do nothing - is clearly a rubbish option if you passionately want something done about parknig on your road. James - this is only a rubbish option if you can absolutely demonstrate that a CPZ will, both in the short and reasonably (2-3 years) long term absolutely alleviate your current parking problem. People who have lived in some CPZs (I am one of them) do not have that experience - indeed many posts here from experienced CPZ-ers have suggested that their lives were made worse, not better, by CPZ implementation. So - your statement about recommendation 1 actually begs a number of questions. I know it is an article of faith with you that a CPZ is always and inevitably good for someone residing in a CPZ zone, but you may (indeed from posts here do) find those who have CPZ experience not uniformly agreeing with you - and yes, as I have also said, on some occasions, CPZs do work. But not always, and from what I have seen of the description of the causes of the problem in ED, not in this case.

At one time the only 'cure' for a very real problem (syphilis) was dosing with highly toxic mercury. The alternative (do nothing) was actually better for the patient than the 'cure'. Actually, CPZs can genuinely alleviate some types of parking problem (I have listed above what I believe to be the 3 necessary conditions for it to work) - but in our case the most likely cause is a high and increasing ratio of car ownership in the streets concerned together with an influx of 'working in ED' commuters - it is an area with two schools for instance and some small businesses (this isn't just about Lordship Lane shopworkers). If you then reduce the spaces available (the council's own figures say this will happen) for 24 hour resident parking a problem will simply be exacerbated (indeed very possibly not just tipped into adjacent streets, but exacerbated for those living in any CPZ-ed street). So, fazer71, not seeing an alternative (apart from 'do nothing' - which you must be able to see, but can't believe is an alternative) doesn't mean that if there is only one other option you must take it. Or can I offer you a syringe full of mercury for your troubles?

There appears to be two types of problem (outwith issues about the underlying system being implemented) being reported (on this thread and others) - failure to collect at all (possibly associated with non-availability of either crews or equipment) and 'poor quality' collection (bins left haphazardly, rubbish strewn about etc.) The remedies for these are very different - back-up crews or equipment available - (with on-costs associated with that) and training - probably for specific crews since the reporting of poor quality is by no means uniform, and I certainly haven't experienced it. Additionally there have been suggestions that a response to the reporting of an entire road being missed out has been to set up a special collection just for the reporter. If readers (councillors etc.) of this forum are to make use of what we are reporting, it would be helpful if people could indicate broadly what type of problem and where - and equally perhaps, as I have done, where the process is working as planned. It would thus be possible to build up a picture of pattern and scale. Of course, threads don't have to have utility or value, but sometimes it would be nice if they did.

I must say that in Underhill the scheme has worked fine (in so far as the right bins have been collected on the right day) and the operatives are cheeful, helpful and tidy. Overall I am not sure it is the best scheme - but the guys (Veola) are doing what it says on the can for us. Sorry that others haven't been so lucky with their crews/ equipment. Ours seem punctillious about returning bins - I went out to collect mine from the road and the operative insisted on wheeling it back onto my property for me. The new deal was always a mixed dry recylable collection, with sorting at the centre - so separating things out isn't necessary. There is no need or requirement to 'bother' with your own separation. And thus you wouldn't get fined for combining recylable material.

So this is an abandoned puppy, shortly after Christmas ... I think that that is not wholly unusual, I'm afraid. Like many puppies it probably snapped at someone, perhaps in play - and puppies have very sharp teeth...sad, but not unexpected, I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be holding my breathe for a distraught owner to be turning up any time soon.

It's a scam when something is being sold 'as if' for charity when it's not. It's a scam when something is sold of below acceptable quality. It's a scam when unreasonable pressure is put onto, often, elderly or vulnerable people to buy at the door. Often you buy things (like Remembrance poppies) for reasons other than your desire to 'have' such an item.

Wonder why it has taken the householder two weeks to get it sorted? On holiday over Christmas? In hospital? Working abroad?

No commuters Residents not wishing to pay Sorry - there has been very little evidence put forward that it is 'in transit' (using ED station) commuters that are the primary parking problem here - rather more that it is people communting into ED to work. These people will now be displaced into adjacent streets (or may choose to stop e.g. teaching our children - a real win there then). There is again very little evidence that residents choose to give up their cars when CPZs are introduced, unless these are for miles and miles - if they don't want to pay they park in adjacent uncontrolled streets. All this means is that (1) the net parking spaces in ED are reduced and (2) a small problem for some streets becomes a much larger one for others - my (CPZ-er) gain being very much your (adjacent street) pain. Oh, and as the CPZ inexorably creeps wider and wider (and almost certainly has a number of 'zones' within it) as more and more people in desperation seek it for themselves (once the wedge is in) even the initial CPZ-ers will increasingly find they can't park anywhere close to their homes, unless they spend their time watching the streets and rushing out to move their cars when they can. And the council revenue generators will be having a field day, fining and towing and reducing the quality of life no end. As they do.

ED is a community ? the vibrancy of this forum, and the fact that it attracts contributors from far away (such as New Zealand) supports this and suggests that it is a community which is not just made up of residents, but includes former residents, visitors to, worker in, shoppers in, eaters in our locale. Its regulation (i.e. CPZs etc.) needs to take account of that broad constituency ? because it is that broad constituency which makes living in (and being in) ED so rewarding ? it is the community, with its shops, its restaurants and pubs, its businesses, its schools and so on which makes it worthwhile living here. Suggestions made (including by those no longer remotely connected physically to ED, but still sufficiently part of the community to want to comment), that it is just domestic residents who ?count? when it comes to decisions effecting ED, and, even more narrowly, just those residents immediately in streets being changed by decree do not seem to understand what community is, nor how it works. Donne suggested that no man was an island, ask not for whom the bell tolls etc. ? but numbers of people seem to believe in a hugely limiting view of what community is, how it works and so on. To suggest that people who are part of the ED community and who care about ED and their lives in it should be ignored if they don?t meet incredibly narrow and restrictive residence qualifications is (to quote the sainted Dianne Abbot) a fine example of divide and rule. Well done, those who wish to uphold a stereotype!

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE - the evidence for 'commuter' traffic meaning transit traffic has never been fully made, but there does seem to be 'commuter' traffic meaning 'commuters' who travel into to ED to work and service (i.e. teach) the people who live here. Mr Barber himself has used these people (local businesses) as 'commuters' when suggesting their views regarding Melbourne Grove should be ignored. It is true that if you exclude from ED streets people who want to work in ED and teach our children the people who are resident here will find it easier to park - they will just find it less pleasant to live where teachers don't want to come here to teach or other service industries to serve because life for them has just been made a lot worse. It is a strange supporter of ED who wants to drive out from ED its economic and service providers. If the 'commuters' parking on Grove Vale are in part their people working in Grove Vale businesses then possibly they won't be quite so happy as Mr Barber suggests.