shoebox

Perhaps the issue is that Southwark don’t listen. They didn’t take account of responses. The proposed CPZs for west Dulwich stopped when the Council was threatened with a judicial review. Not before. Whatever consultation process was worse than flawed with McAsh arguing that because they were in power, they had a mandate and didn’t need to listen to anyone’s views, rendering any democratic process void. The criteria for LTNs was high population density, high public transport usage and low car ownership so Dulwich Village was a perfect candidate…not. Just a coincidence but I believe some councillors live within the scheme

Closest is Gordon Grove Metal Co. They pick your car up . Best to compare prices. https://ggmc.co.uk

According to BBC,Hayes did NOT vote for ceasefire. When it comes to making any decision, she sits on the fence. LTNs, CPZs now Gaza. She has no shame and won’t be getting my vote any more.

Is there a Southwark wide petition to object against CPZs? As petitions are all about numbers, solidarity of the wards would have more impact and clout

I was curious having read this. The Hamlet was not in the Dulwich Estate but I was thinking that the argument is the same and the precedent was set. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e3bea4fe5274a08dd7277a7/The_Hamlet_decision.pdf

IMHO. As an enfranchised freeholder not living in the 'village' , I see very little spent on local amenity. Planning and development is protected more by local council. Are there any bright legal minds that consider any avenues to vary the estate management scheme where a majority of enfranchised freeholders can self manage micro-schemes. Is this possible? Does the Dulwich Estate provide good value to all who have to contribute to this possibly outdated and unnecessary scheme? Curious to see what the consensus is (and it'll make a change from chatting about LTNs)