Rockets

No, you hadn't bothered sharing that information. Perhaps you would be so kind as to share the report as I do not live on Gilkes so am not privy to it? Also I am not familiar with Gilkes - was there a big parking problem there - I know there have been concerns about school drop off and pick-ups but CPZs do nothing to alleviate that? Also, not sure how long it has been since you went to school but nothing just evaporates....it evaporates, condensates and then falls as precipitation elsewhere...but it seems that as you are so happy about how clear Gilkes is (and the council no doubt over the moon they can chalk another street as being an additional revenue source) that what happens elsewhere probably isn't much of a concern. Not necessarily - Southwark have a number of criteria about what qualifies as an abandoned vehicle. If you report it they will visit the car to see if it qualifies - yes they will check if it is taxed or has been registered as SORN but they will also look to see if there are signs it has been left for a long time - disrepair of car, grass or weeds growing around/beneath it, flat tyres, damage to car, missing number plates etc. If so, they will put a sign on it alerting the owner that they have 7 days to contact the council or it will be removed. Did the Gilkes RA advise people to follow that process to have semi-abandoned cars removed before lobbying for a CPZ? Still struggling to understand why anyone would semi-abandon a car, especially on Gilkes Crescent.

But @Earl Aelfheah that one 55% stat showing support for the Streets for People strategy does not back up your claim that there was majority support. There was majority support for the streets for people STRATEGY - and it is exactly that it is a strategy. When you actually bother to look at the detail of the very same council report you can see that the TACTIC of the Dulwich LTN was not supported by the majority as the majority of respondents preferred for it to be returned to it's original state. That, I am afraid, shows majority opposition to the LTN - after all the consultation was on the TACTIC not the STRATEGY. I am sorry but the below means your claim is pure whimsical fantasy and a massive stretching of the truth. Ok, I know you can say "well that's what the council told me in their infographic I read" but you should really do more detailed research and try to cut through the council spin. I remind you it was that type of spin that the High Court judge in the West Dulwich case took a very dim view to. I refer my right honourable friend to the passage above and suggested one might get their own house in order before accusing others....;-) I am sorry but the 55% stat you quoted a proof of support for the Dulwich LTN is the very best example of misinformation. Come on @Earl Aelfheah you're spinning again. My accusation was that some on here seem to have taken pages from the despot dictator and fascist playbook in trying to manipulate facts, deny the voices of anyone who dares be critical of the measures and encouraging people to move on - nothing to see here. Honestly the way some of you argue is very Trump/Vance'esque. I think the "worse at the weekend" is because weekday traffic patterns have changed a lot and has nothing to do with timed restrictions - fewer people are commuting to offices during the week.

Again, the overwhelming weight of more scientific evidence than just your hunch suggests you are, badly, wrong. You're starting to sound like a despot dictator (or someone trying to prop up a regime)....honestly "if everyone that responded opposed, that is academic". Someone put a blue plaque up on this site entitled...."today marks the day democracy died....". It is really starting to creep scarily into Active Travel Fascism now....

What evidence is that because according to the active travel lobbyists on here personal assessments/opinions presented on here cannot be taken as fact...do you have anything beyond your own personal opinion to back that up. Still looking for a rational explanation as to why people doing a car sale ride hustle would "semi-abandon" cars on Gilkes yet seemingly no other road and what the motivation for that is....cars depreciate over time.... Look, we get it. Your street is now much less crowded than it used to be - you are clearly very happy with that but if what you say is true then have you given even a moments thought to what this has meant for other streets nearby or does that not come into your consideration? Do you also realise there is a perfectly good mechanism for reporting abandoned cars? We had one near us, that had been involved in an accident. Someone reported it to the council a notice was stuck to it and then it was removed after a set period of time. No-one thought a CPZ was the best way to deal with it.

Thanks @malumbu.....;-)

@malumbu on what evidence are you basing this on as every consultation, as your good friend Earl can atest, says exactly the opposite?

@Penguin68 completely agree. There is a huge level of hypocrisy from many on the pro-active travel lobby who are happy to preach to others about how they should live their lives but happy to turn a blind eye to their own indiscretions. Happy to tell everyone how they cargo bikes their kids to school (although they moan it tales longer to get the bike out and load the kids in that it used to to walk) and how they drive a Tesla (bought before Elon turned into a facist of course). They are less likely, of course, to talk about the 4x4 they own for trips to their 2nd house in the country due to range anxiety of the Tesla.

@Earl Aelfheah of course it is. You also dodged your question, are you still convinced after the 55% support nonsense you regurgitated that the majority supported the Dulwich LTN? Or have you changed your opinion when presented with actual fact rather than weak council spin? Is the Sydenham Hill consultation the only one left you can claim had "majority" support? Not sure how that gives the council a mandate for the ones in Dulwich do you?

So @DulvilleRes let me get this right...around Melbourne Grove it was commuters driving from Kent and Gilkes Crescent was full of semi-abandoned cars for people running a side-hustle....i always thought car depreciate over time. Have you checked what the roads nearby are like? This is why a lot of us have an issue with the self-centred and selfishness of many who love the new quiet roads but dont give two hoots about the impact it might be having on others. I'm alright Jack, I love my street transformed - who cares what's happening at the end of that street. @malumbu dont know about your cats but mine hardly ever stay put, they go everywhere...;-)

@malumbu maybe don't throw in road closures that create increased congestion...there's always that too isn't there? I am not on a train.....

One wonders as well how many of the residents who ignite the consultations have close ties to either the council or the active travel lobby.

Ha ha...thanks for validating my point Mal....good grief...

I think a lot of it is that nothing seems to work anymore, nothing is joined up and since Covid planning and delivery just arent lining up. Has anyone had anything close to the level of customer service big companies used to give before Covid...it's almost as if they don't care anymore and I can imagine in utilities with items being shipped from around the world that it is utter chaos. I hadn't been to that part of Dulwich for a while and it is really bad.

You can add a "consultation is not a referendum" to the growing lexicon of BS phrases spouted by those who know there is something to hide.. It joins such classics as: A small vocal minority You must be a right- wing pertrolhead There is majority support for these measures It was five years ago..move on Nothing can hinder cycle growth The council said it is so, so it is so

It's no wonder some truly believe that there was majority support for the LTNs when the council focuses only on the stats that validated its decision - the 55% support the aims of the Strretspace initiative was front and centre of the council's summation of the consultation yet no mention that most wanted it returned to its original state. This is something the judge in the West Dulwich case was highly critical of - a manipulation of the results to present a misleading picture. The problem is people believe what they are spoon-fed.

Funny how you dont want to go over it again when you've been shown to be wrong. So without the Dulwich LTN consultation to prove your point you're now left with just the Sydenham Hill one. That's hardly compelling evidence against the weight of consultations where clearly respondents said no. Honestly...sometimes it's like watching a White House Oval Office meeting with a head of state Trump and Vance don't like waving "proof" which upon proper analysis is nothing of the sort.

@Earl Aelfheah you really need to take a look at the actual data rather than the headline infographics the council put out. Below is the reality of the report that you have used to chmapion the headline 55% stat you have quoted. This headline hid a much more powerful stat that massively undermines your position. In the report, look at page 18...you will see this.... So you're absolutely wrong (again) - that 2021 consultation report actually showed majority opposition to the measures....it's there in black and orange.....anything to say about that? Dulwich Village consultation report.pdf But then you're happy to suggest (incorrectly) that the 2021 consultation report showed support for the measures.....hmmmmm

Oh dear @Earl Aelfheah. You have selectively plucked a response to a single question. Remember this was the consultation that didn't allow you to say no to the measures. The question response you have selectively plucked was whether respondents supported the aims of the Streets for People initiative which was a question that had diddly-squat to do with the specifics of the LTN. That's a huge reach to claim that is majority support for the LTN. And I am not going to argue with you again about the Sydenham Hill consultation. Maybe we should talk about all of the other consultations as well - do you have anything to say about those ones as the results were not at all in support were they?

I am sorry, for which consultations was there "majority support"?

Based on what exactly @Earl Aelfheah- a hunch -because every slightly more scientific consultation has suggested the exact opposite of what you claim? Given that is the only mechanism the council has given us to judge surely that is the bar?

Meanwhile on streets surrounding Gilkes Crescent the situation is very different? But that's the point, isn't it? Shoehorn a CPZ in on one street to create parking pressure on others so they ask for a CPZ. Dulwich had no parking issues until the council started installing CPZs....that's why 68% of people in Dulwich respondents to vote against them all those years ago. Creating parking pressure might be the only thing this council is good at....the Townley CPZ is the most ludicrous example of parking pressure creation as the council goes seeking more revenue. Can I ask, does anyone know what the motivation is to "semi-dump" or dump a car on a street? We hear that these are the new "Kent commuters" causing problems but what's the rationale for that? P.S. If my experience of emailing the council is anything to go by they tend to be quite selective about what they respond to and tend to be less than keen to engage beyond a cursory response if it's anything to do with LTNs/CPZs etc.

FM, the rate at which the council moves the online homes for many items I have now got into the habit of saving anything and everything as this is happening a lot.

Aren't there a few others going through/about to go through the High Court elsewhere the country? I presume Lambeth will have to refund any fines dished out in their unlawful LTN? Given the similarities between criticisms of the West Dulwich LTN by the high court judge and other schemes and the propensity for our councils to have, ahem, issues with oversight and getting the simplest of things wrong one does have to wonder how long it is before another LTN falls victim to council corner cutting as they rushed to get them installed, often against the will of local people with botched and misleading consultations. Place your bets folks....

@Earl Aelfheah feel free to start a new thread and I will happily take the discussion up with you there and to catalyse you to do it - I repeat - you are wrong with your assertions - very, very wrong but we have seen this time and time again, an inability for anyone on the pro-active travel side of the argument to be even be slightly pragmatic. You suggest I am suffering from cognitive dissonance which is surprising because I thought admin had banned people from making such accusations. @march46 usually has a hotline to council documents so maybe they can help, it is odd they have disappeared as some of the othe pages are still up: is this where they posted the results or was it somewhere else: https://engage.southwark.gov.uk/en-GB/projects/melbourne-grove-south-parking-survey Is this a council oversight or do they not want people to see the results of the survey?

Oh dear, wishful thinking on your part......the trial LTN in Streatham Wells was removed (or suspended as your comrades in Lambeth spun it! ;-))