Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi dimples,

A proposal to do this was rejected by East Dulwich councillors several months ago at the Dulwich Community Council.


Effectively the development of the site into this small Sainsburys had seen the removal of a shop servicing yard behind the parade. To then ask effectively to build a no parking area for Sainsburys servicing on the public highway is frankly an outrageous proposition. It would place further pressures on local parking on residential streets.


The only way this could now happen is if East Dulwich councillors and the Dulwich Community Council was now being bypassed which would be a political decision by Labour led administration. This seems unlikely.

Ah , self entitlement


"No parky, no shoppy"


God forbid you should walk a few yards to buy something. Why would anyone have such a self defeating rule?


I lived near that sainsbos. Like, 100 yards away. My downstairs neighbour wouldn't go to the plough unless she could drive. And then complain about other cars and parking!


It's madness.

Illegal parking there after 1600 during weekdays really slows down the traffic. Just one vehicle can cause a mini-jam, yet the usually keen-as-mustard attendants are rarely there. I wondered whether the council deliberately doesn't send them there because it's glad that Sainsbury's took over that empty lots vacated by the car shop.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah , self entitlement

>

> "No parky, no shoppy"

>

> God forbid you should walk a few yards to buy

> something. Why would anyone have such a self

> defeating rule?

>

> I lived near that sainsbos. Like, 100 yards away.

> My downstairs neighbour wouldn't go to the plough

> unless she could drive. And then complain about

> other cars and parking!

>

> It's madness.


Thanks for your assumptions - Shall I explain?


I never go to the Plough Sainsbury as a destination shop, but on my way back from somewhere in the car. If I have to walk 100 yards as you put it I will stop at Dog Kennel Hill and park there and walk into that store. If I'm at home I'll walk to the local shop.

See ???


More cars = more traffic = more parking = more drama


I have zero problem with cars or driving ( or ruffers!!) but when people say things can't be done or don't get done because of some minor inconvenience...


It's not about cars either. Not really. It's a metaphor for modern thinking.

Oh please , come on , it was never ment in anyway.

Like ruffers said for me too it's a very handy stop on the way home if in need of something and if they take away the parking at the front I think it will be an annoying problem for the direct people living on roads behind it .

I live nearer the horniman and I have never known parking at the front a problem for the flow of traffic going past !

I started this thread straferjack just to ask if anyone knew if the rules were actually changing or if indeed they had already changed , and if they had changed to be aware that tickets may start to be given at other times of the day !

That all that this thread was about .

Traffic wardens were issuing tickets to people who were parked there at 9.15 this morning. There was a row going on as the people who got the tickets were correctly saying that the new signage was not clear. It seems that it is now no parking in the daytime, think it was until

4? But I didn't see the sign. Is a bit crazy as the white lines are still there that make it look like it is on to park so I think people may not realise.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • These statements were in the Consultation Findings report published (later than promised) just before the licence was granted:  "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the delivery of the council’s Events service, which supports the delivery of up to 100 free-to-attend community events per year – please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" I've drafted an email to request some more details of these "free-to-attend" events, as "up to" is a fairly meaningless description - could be 100, could be none? - and therefore doesn't help anyone to decide whether it is actually a benefit to the community or not. Even if it is 100, I'm not sure I could name even one of them? "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the provision of a grants fund – the Cultural Celebrations programme - please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" A similarly meaningless statement in terms of gauging whether, or how much, this is a benefit to the local community. What is it, what does it do, how much of the fee goes to it? And how can the fee go "directly" to two different things? Surely, "directly" means without deviation, straight to, without being changed or reduced?? Again, I'll be asking all these questions to the events dept. I find it outrageous & insulting that a public body can try to justify such an intrusive & disruptive event with such flimsy and opaque "benefits", with zero figures or details to quantify them. They may as well not bother with a consultation, just say "Look, we can't be arsed to justify our decision, it's happening so just deal with it".  
    • Thanks so much. Yes I have. Really appreciate your kindness in replying. Thank you.
    • Have you posted on Nextdoor? There's a big cat community on there. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...