Penguin68

A lot more good stuff happens than bad, it's just we focus on the bad. This seems to be a highly unusual incident and on the face of it doesn't fit easily into any 'typical' scenario. To attempt to draw conclusions about the incident to make general points about locale etc. is, at best just too early, and at worst plainly wrong. We can agree it's a tragedy and appalling, but other than that speculation is simply wasted effort. What we perhaps do need to do is to reassure others who have been impacted by this and become fearful that what has happened isn't any norm. It is possible that the perpetrator does suffer from some long-term or temporary mental imbalance - and we do know that services to support those with mental health problems are sadly wanting everywhere; but at the moment even this is simply speculation - it's just difficult to think (or want to believe) that it's the action of a wholly sane person.

Re references to Camberwell - an old Gazette would put the area in the old borough of Camberwell - absorbed into Southwark - hence Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries way south of Goose Green. ED was once Camberwell as it is now Southwark. Random acts of extreme violence can, sadly, happen anywhere. Until more is known of this terrible incident attempts to draw conclusions about its 'typicality' for the area must fail. 24 hour shops (which are really of value) will, by definition where they are not the norm, draw people in in the small hours who would not necessarily normally consider the area 'local'.

About 15 or 20 years ago I was confronted by a dozen police in full riot gear and carrying submachine guns in Underhill Road by the cemetery - they were filming The Bill, it transpired, and were 'resting up' in Underhill before running into shot in Langton Rise. Gave me quite a turn.

Silk Road has some of the most gloriously abrupt serving staff, and their cuisine is very different from Cantonese fare - but that's not to knock good Cantonese cooking (often seen as a high point of the different regional cuisines). I've not (yet) been to the new incarnation of Mr Liu - but if they deliver good quality versions of what's on their new menu that would be fine. It's pretty traditional 'London chinese' - but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Done well it's very satisfying. 'Completely authentic' chinese regional cuisine (away from Party Banqueting (and I mean CP when I say Party) is low on proteins and high on starch. And can involve the sort of beak to toes and things with too many or no legs ingredients (and textures) which westerners can find challenging.

I have just walked down the stretch of Underhill Road leading from Langton Rise to Melford Road. If no parking over dropped curbs is 'extended' by 2 metres on each side of the dropped curb there will be double yellows going down virtually both sides of the road (because there are a lot of entrances and dropped curbs). Although there is, as yet, no CPZ proposal for that stretch, the effect of the new rules anyway will be to reduce street parking to zero. There would not be an option to get 'passes' for services and deliveries, as it would be all double yellows allowing NO parking at all. As opposed to 1-2 cars being able to park between every dropped curb at present. This whole thing is complete madness and you can see there what the impact of the council policy is/ would/ will be.

Would rather pay to guarantee parking,... That's not what's on offer. You will be competing with all other 'residents' - which may, depending on the size of the zone, be quite a few, and include families with multiple cars, if they can afford it - for many fewer parking spaces, absolutely (because of the double yellows etc.) By all means vote for a CPZ but do not think that it offers any kind of guaranteed parking, and certainly not necessarily close to your home. The 'offer' of 40% additional spaces (once others have been forced out) is not based on any forecast or experience of ED - but is based on other studies -possibly of residential only areas close to stations where there is a high incidence of through commuters - and does not take into account the draconian imposition of extended double yellow everywhere.

This seems to be the actual website:- https://sarahtrinh.wixsite.com/148chinese

Actually, for something as controversial as a CPZ I think it does matter if you have a dog in the fight, or not.

I do appreciate that we need local workers but I am not sure the answer is to allow everyone to drive. The 'answer' would be good and effective public transport, including bus services which operate effectively East: West as well as North: South. Most of the (few) East: West routes are amazingly tortuous, take an age and often require changes. I used to work in Greenwich - it took me 15-20 minutes by car and 90 minutes by public transport. Guess which I used? Amended to add - the 90 minutes wasn't just travel time but included waits for changes. Which rarely matched any published timetable. I had to set off much earlier than the journey should have required because of this uncertainty.

London Road starts at the junction with Wood Vale. OK - I had assumed it was London Road when it was the A205 - which it is where the A205 swings round at the Grove Tavern. But Google maps supports London Road starting at Wood Vale.

Do you follow these 'commuters' to the station? There are many schools, hospitals etc. locally, which rely on incomers to service them. How many of these 'commuters' are here to serve our local ED needs - their timings of e.g. arrival and departure would be the same as through commuters using ED station?

The P13 travelling towards Forest Hill seems to be dumping its customers at the Underhill/ Barry junction (at least I saw one do that) - maybe later buses are doing so at the bus stop before.

Just to add Lordship Lane is closed in both directions from Grove Tavern to the Horniman. Technically I think that stretch (which is the A205 South Circular) is London Road.

The issue is relevancy to ED, not situated in ED. Many good suppliers are prepared to work in SE22 but are based elsewhere. Great. But maybe this is the wrong section?

I think you will find that if your street was not included in the CPZ and most others were then you would have so much displacement that you'd never be able to park. This is saying - 'pass on distress to others - you've had your house broken into, now vote for someone elses to be broken into as well.' Somebody has to stop this rot - if we keep passing it on then the bullies win. All they want is our money, and if we can help them to get others to vote to get others robbed, then all to the better. No. The domino effect is what 'they' are banking on. If we are complicit in this, then we should be ashamed.

Thanks, Admin - it would be good if Southwark listened so attentively or responded so helpfully!

I would accept that there is an argument about air quality - although equally if cars are driving around looking for somewhere to park, or dropping someone off at the shops and driving round to pick them up (I've done both) that wouldn't hold - and the key issue on air quality is to do with NO2 from diesels, CO2 emissions from petrol cars have a different sort of environmental impact. However as regards to safety - the effect if implemented will be to make local roads far less parked up (because so much previously parked bits will be banned from parking through double yellows etc, not because there will be fewer local cars wishing to park) such that speeding cars are far more likely, both contributing to accidents and making them worse when they happen. I have seen no evidence to support the safety statement at all.

By the time you get to Langton Rise ('East' side) the pressure is fine - I think that's served by the main running in Wood Vale.

Threads - there are location specific issues for both ED and West Peckham which would justify two threads, but there are also CPZ comments on the new councillor's thread - and there are CPZ issues which would be common across locations. Multiple posts on different threads are frustrating - and separate discussions can emerge which would be better consolidated. On balance I suggest resurrecting the West Peckham thread but asking that it be used for location specific issues only, including timing etc. of survey closures. With comments on CPZs which are general to controlled parking appearing together on a main (ED?) thread, where debate can be contained and where good points and ripostes are not lost. Herne Hill points made are less relevant because Lambeth's and Southwark's policies are not aligned.

They want me to go to Orpington to collect a parcel? I suspect that the postie was a relief (probably from Orpington) and left one of his own cards rather than the correct one from Peckham. Doesn't help but might explain.

What they mean - without any evidence, proof or study as regards the situation in ED, is that by excluding nasty foreigners and incomers (notwithstanding they will reduce, overall, parking spaces) there will be 40% more parking space for the residents of Royston Vasey. Without any study of ED this is a LIE - or at the very least a statement with complete disregard for the truth. This statement is only true when (1) the number of authorised residents cars is substantially less than the reduced space available and (2) the parking problem perceived by residents is caused by incoming commuters parking up to use space. Even then the implied assumption is that these are through commuters and not commuters coming in to work in the locale, where local business could also apply for residents permits. Indeed it works best in areas where there are no, or very few, local businesses - which could of course be around LL in due course if Southwark has its way.

My next door neighbour and I both have dropped kerbs, mine is probably originally pre-war as it 'feeds' what was a pre-war garage (from old O/S maps). His is probably of much the same vintage. We have space for two cars parked on the street between the houses - but with the extended double yellows there will be space for NO cars. Or, by our houses, a 100% loss of parking. The only people who park in our street are visitors, trades people or residents. No commuters. So there would be no benefit to us either of a CPZ or even just of double yellow extension. Except to speed up traffic which had to be slowed down with humps after a number of quite nasty accidents. The road is narrow enough for cars to have to give way for each other/ larger vehicles - but with all the space created by the double yellows...

What do you mean ?the west side of Lordship Lane?? I'm guessing the left hand side as you look towards Goose Green. It is (very broadly) North: South orientated.

The journey carries public costs which your staff member does not pay. - other than through Road Tax (or whatever it's now called), fuel duty and VAT on fuel, general taxation, community charge for local roads... - where do you think public expenditure comes from? Even business rates and corporation tax are eventually charged out to the paying public through prices. 'Public' expenditure eventually comes out of someone's private pocket - even government borrowings have to be paid back eventually, so maybe your benefit is paid by your children or grandchildren, but then you're paying back a benefit to your grandparents. And public (rail) transport in the SE is directly supported by taxation subsidy.

James Barber would have been fighting against this. I am appalled by the lack of involvement by our councillors. His track record I believe is to support the introduction of CPZs, certainly where a majority of residents have not come out against them. For a long time he was equivocal about the last proposals (for streets around ED station) but I believe eventually he indicated personal support (though prepared to voice the concerns of those against). His party, like Labour, would like to see car usage and ownership substantially reduced in London. There are perfectly good reasons why they believe this, even if they are not reasons I, and many others, subscribe to.