ed_pete

James - you wrote: "Yes our recommendations are based on a fuller set of information than is currently (un)available publicly. This is due to data protection concerns. " I assume that you meant unavailable. As someone that works with personal data and is familiar with Data Protection legislation I would like to understand exactly what the "concerns" are and why they are preventing the information being made public. I am not asking for the details of individuals. All I am asking for is the for/against/undecided numbers for each street in your proposed area. How does revealing that cause data protection issues ?

@golilocks: To quote an earlier post from someone within the Herne Hill/North Dulwich CPZ. "It does deter commuters. I live in the Herne Hill/North Dulwich CPZ and since we've had a CPZ introduced in April 2016 we can park in our own street after having terrible parking problems due to Lambeth introducing a CPZ near Ruskin Park." So it seems the commuters that were parking near Ruskin Park - possibly because they need to work at KCH or use Denmark Hill station and as a result of the Lambeth CPZ moved out to other nearby streets where there wasn't a CPZ. The result: another CPZ. "in the scheme of the costs of owning and using a car, its unlikely to be a significant number who would value the saving over the convenience." I beg to differ and because James is unwilling to share the numbers we'll never know.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Poll shows (as well as some Brexit party gains) > large Liberal Democrat and Green gains in > London. > > > > I still suspect there's a lot of "Don't Knows" > in > > the raw data. > > The Lib Dems and Greens do not have many Policies > of their own. > They are both just against most of the Polices of > other parties. Or you could say that the other parties are just against the policies of the LD's and Greens. What piffle.

There is no mention of the brown bags in the leaflet so my presumption is that they may collect them but once you've run out that's it. Not sure that the libraries will want to take on the admin of selling the bags in future.

Stopping the brown bag collection is stupid. I only have a small garden and cannot justify the space/usage for brown bin and use maybe a dozen or so bags a year. Now I will either have to borrow space in a neighbours bin or take them to Devon Street. Madness. (BTW I already have a compost bin).

James, you say that ?the majority of people in the area I have proposed above want a CPZ on their road too.? The information on how many voted in favour or against from each street is not available in the consultation report so is it something only available to a select few ? Why has it not been publicly disseminated ? Are you making recommendations based on information that isn?t in the public domain ? Did the majority of people in the Glengarry/Tarbert/Thorncome/Trossachs/Hillsborough/ East Dulwich Grove and East Dulwich Grove Estate vote in favour of the CPZ ? What are the numbers ? For those that live in the East Dulwich Grove Estate, on which road were they voting for the CPZ to be created, as their streets are pedestrianised. You say that your proposal has "boundaries which make sense." Make sense to whom exactly and on what basis ? You have already divided one road into two - Melbourne Grove and excluded the part (South) that is both closer to the Station and the School and Health Centre than other roads that are included. You are also no doubt aware that 2 hour operation times doesn't deter commuters. They simply set an alarm on their phones for the time the 2 hour window starts and pay by text from work. This happens all the time in Herne Hill/North Dulwich where there is a CPZ.

James - for some reason you have emphasised that residents were asked if they want a CPZ on their road as if this is the way the CPZ will be implemented. It seems to me that you are making this point to deflect from the fact that overall, in the consultation area the majority of residents voted against the CPZ a significant point which you choose not to mention at all in your summary. However as we know, your recommendation is not on a street-by-street basis, it is based on a selective area where you have managed to find a majority in favour. Your area includes the streets to the west of the East Dulwich Grove junction with Melbourne Grove, near the new Charter School and Health Centre. According to the consultation the results for these streets are as follows: East Dulwich Grove - against Glengarry Road - undecided Trossachs Road - for Tarbert Road - for Thorncombe Road - undecided Hillsborough Road - against East Dulwich Estate - 2 for, 4 against, 2 undecided, 2 no response. So in total we have 4 for, 6 against and 4 undecided. Hardly a majority. Within the East Dulwich Estate, on the side closest to the railway, there is a large area for residents parking between the estate and the railway line fence. I walk through here regularly and there are always parking spaces available. So, were we to discount the responses from those streets within the East Dulwich Estate on the railway line side where here is adequate free parking provision, then we have 2 for, 6 against and 4 undecided. How, on that basis is that representing the residents desire for a CPZ ? Furthermore, how can you exclude Melbourne Grove South ? part of which is closer to the new Health Centre than the above streets - and include those above ? Surely visitors Health Centre visitors will soon realise that they can park for free there and you will suffer the classic displacement ? I look forward to your response.

Same here and the council marked them with double yellows in the recent CPZ consultation pack.

/forum/read.php?20,1960283,1960283#msg-1960283

@Redpost - not strictly true, of the whole area the study said: The overall response showed the majority of those who responded (69%) were against a parking zone, 25% wanting a zone and 6% were undecided. It's only in the "Melbourne Grove" area that the 54% figure applied and within that area "14 streets were in favour of a parking zone, 12 were not in favour and 8 were undecided."

natty01295 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because they count for a small percentage of > vehicles on the road > Its just a money making scheme Making money for whom exactly ?

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Allowing 15-year-old black cabs to continue is > pathetic. I regularly follow 53/04/54 plate cabs > belching out soot. Someone made an FOI request a few years ago asking TfL of the average age of black taxis. Less than 7% were 15 years old. 50% were between 7 and 8 years old. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/spread_of_ages_of_londons_black

Foxy - do you own a car, I don't believe you do as you said on another thread that you'd sold yours. Do you ever think that you might come across as a bit of a doom-monger ?

Nice one Sherry.

Just emphasising Louisa's point, if you can go on a Tuesday or Wednesday, and there are at least two of you then using Meerkat Movies is a good deal as it enables you to get one ticket for free. I'm not sure how it works if the tickets are different prices - I suspect the cheaper one would be free. Also you cannot book ahead with Meerkat, which makes it less useful for popular movies at peak times. While Picturehouse and Odeon do accept Meerkat, Peckham Plex don't but given their prices I'm not surprised. MoneySavingExpert has a page on how to get Meerkat Movies - I got mine by taking out a 1 day UK travel policy that cost about ?1.50. So long as you go through the Meerkat site then that gives you membership for 1 year. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/deals/deals-hunter/2018/07/2for1-meerkat-movies-cinema-and-meerkat-meals-restaurant-trick/

That's a no then.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The ULEZ is not going to make that much difference > to Air Pollution in London. That's pretty bold assertion Foxy, is it your opinion (like the dodgy electrics saga) or do have you something more objective you can share ?

Loutwo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichFox Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Businesses in East Dulwich know they can get > away > > with it. #Outrageous. > > > > DulwichFox. > > Exactly this point foxy. If they can get away with > it, they will. > > Louisa. Careful... ". I will try not to involve myself in any class related conversations, and aim to be as nice as I can muster for 2019. Louisa."

That'll be the Herne Hill farmers market in Stoke Newington. Not the one in Herne hill.

Chesse ? You should ask for a refund on your school fees Bob.

I've had exactly the same - post for next door and post for a house with same number in a different street. Poor quality service. And as you say what's happening to your own post ?

No, it's not a new charge ! I discovered yesterday that Southwark Residents can visit the inner workings of Tower Bridge for ?1, normal adult walk up cost ?9.80. https://www.towerbridge.org.uk/learning/communities/community-ticket-terms/

And when did you last write a cheque ?

Existing thread /forum/read.php?5,2011302

Lovely old sign on the shop that was previously a newsagents on Bellenden.