CPR Dave

It's unbelievably slippery.

They won't worry about though because self defeating morons keep voting them back in!

"Change of CPZ approach and says it’s required as a matter of justice - non car owners should not subsidise use of public space by car owners etc." outrageous. Why can't they just be honest. The only part of the council budget that is in surplus is roads, paid for by car owners.

Modern major general, have the council told you what action they will take in response to your epetition on their website? It seems to me that is a crucial piece of the campaign and you need to get as many signatures as you can, preferably more than 500

This is moronic. If everyone has switched to compliant cars then it has by definition solved the problem it set out to - anything other than ultra low emissions. The only possible way it would solve "nothing" would be if its sole purpose was not to reduce emissions but instead to pick peoples pockets with a greenwashing stealth tax. And we know full well that Labour and the LTN / ULEZ lobby would never be so dishonest.

I really like this pub but it's a bit hit and miss at the weekends whether it will be open or not as they are regularly closed for weddings and they don't seem to warn in advance on their website. So I often end up somewhere else on Saturdays just to avoid the disappointment of not being allowed in!!

There's nothing at all logical about people stealing from shops. That's a very dangerous tweet from the cyclists. If this activist was in a regulated profession she would have lost her livelihood for stealing that poster. If she was in my company she would have been summarily dismissed for this. Her pass would have been cancelled before she even got to work the next day. In my business we just can't trust people who thieve stuff that doesn't belong to them and nor will our customers.

I agree with you Nigello, it should be a case of turn up and swim if there's space in the pool. People can work out themselves which times are busy and suit them best. That always worked in the past, apart from for the family swim where there would massive queues 45 minutes before it started and loads of disappointed kids at the end of the line.

I guess they assume that no one has the resources to go through judicial review and they've picked people off in a piece meal enough fashion to avoid there being group initiatives. On this: Have you seen the state of what the Councillors put in on Grove Vale. Those benches and planters etc that costs us tax payers tens of thousands of pounds now look utterly dreadful. The council doesn't even look after the stuff it makes us pay for.

I suppose it's relevant because, just like these new CPZs, it's yet another example of Labour picking our pockets and pretending they are going to do something "Green" with the money.

225 people have signed this ePetition now. Spread the word!!

First Mate, re "Everything turns on the notion that parking round here is scarce" It looks like that is going to be the tactic for the Goose Green councillors to avoid a charge of dishonesty being levelled at them. Goose Green is not included, yet, in the consultations. So if the CPZs come in all over Dulwich Hill and Dulwich Village a lot of those residents, especially on boundary roads alongside Barry Road and Lordship Lane will start parking their cars in CPZ free Goose Green. At that point some people here will start asking for a CPZ and the councillors can keep their "promises".

The pool has been closed for about 3 weeks. Ever since Southwark took over.

Quite a few of the Clean Air Dulwich people have left London altogether.

jamesmcash Member 330 Author jamesmcash Posted May 15, 2019 Hi MarkT Just realised that the document you linked [referencing borough wide CPZ by 2025] was a consultation document and not the final version. The final version includes no reference to 2025 and instead talks about a general strategy to reduce car use by 13% by 2041. Best wishes James Posted June 8, 2019 Dear all ... Borough-wide CPZ The Southwark Local Implementation Plan 3 states that the council wants to reduce trips made by car/motorbike to 13% by 2041. It further states that introducing a borough-wide CPZ would be a means of achieving this. Personally, I do not think that this is necessary. I think that the council's current policy - to be led by requests from local people - is the right one. But there are 22 years (and 5 local elections!) to discuss this before we reach that deadline. Of course, there are definitely some people who would like to see this happen and want to see it sooner. I am not one of them though - and I will continue to argue in favour of existing policy jamesmcash Posted June 12, 2019 ed June 12, 2019 Hi all Policy on CPZ implementation I am afraid that I am unsure of how these different documents interact. But I do know for certain that the current policy in practice is the one I support: CPZs to only be implemented with the consent of residents. This will be confirmed, no doubt, when the East Dulwich CPZ is implemented in an area with majority support from residents.

This is coming to all of Dulwich now so it's worth any affected getting behind the Nunhead campaign too and trying to stop this as much as possible. There is a Southwark petition here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=50000035 Southwark aren't going to do anything with this at all unless it gets to 250 signatures, and realistically it needs at least 500. If you want to stop CPZs in East Dulwich, the nest place to start is by helping Nunhead. We can then ask them to return the favour when petitions go up for our CPZs. Get your voices heard, and get those you know who are also against this to sign the petitions.

I've found the council's report on their consultation on this movement plan, here:https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/9429/Movement-Plan-2019-Consultation-Summary-Report-April-2019-.pdf Some highlights: And then, the only mention of parking in the whole document comes from "Stakeholder submissions": That's it. No doubt that this particular stakeholder included some cyclists many of whom don't even f***ing live here.

Did he mention the forthcoming CPZ in Dulwich Village when he met them?

It's a good point about skips, Earl A. At present in non-CPZ zones you only need to pay £96 @ month for a skip licence. When they bring in parking zones you will need to pay for a parking bay suspension on top of that which costs an additional £45 PER DAY plus an administration charge of another £79. So the cost of having a skip for one month will go up from £96 to £1,525. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/guide-to-parking/suspension-of-parking-bays

A reminder to everyone that "Malumbu" doesn't live or work in Southwark and has no business pretending on these threads that they do. Sorry Jules but this is a Labour policy through and through. The local Labour Councillor is a self declared Marxist. By his own definition he doesn't believe in people owning private property. Taxing people out of car ownership is the definition of this man.

It's in that consultation, Duncan. "...we plan to put in place more local parking zones to cover the whole borough over the coming year." Worth remembering too that they have doubled the costnof parking permits in CPZs this year. They will likely do so again next year.

"...we plan to put in place more local parking zones to cover the whole borough over the coming year. Your area does not currently have a permit system, so we are launching a consultation to ask you how we can make this work..." They aren't asking if they should do it, they are doing it and this consultation is a joke.

The way that consultation is worded shows that the CPZ is a done deal. That's why there is no option to object to the CPZ . It's a consultation on how the CPZ will be implemented, not on whether it should be. It also seems that they are implementing these in Dulwich Village and Dulwich Hill, but not Goose Green. Presumably that's so that local councillors can pretend they've not broken any promises.

Still no and getting more sceptical.

The gullible muppets who voted Labour can't say they weren't warned about this.