first mate

I think it is pretty much a given they will.

The issue I see is that if you put down the road you live in you have limited options. The only roads named are those within the proposed consultation area. However if you answer that you live in one of those roads there is no way to check if you do or do not. There is also the category of 'other'. By ticking that box it means you may live in a road adjacent to, or very close to, the consultation area and may therefore be directly affected with displaced parking if the CPZ is imposed. But, 'other' could also apply to anyone living in any other road in the borough; so how does this then relate back to the question "do you want permit parking on your road"? Are all the 'other' answers given equal weighting? What about the bit that asks if you are a visitor or a resident to the area. How does that relate to the "other" and "on your road" questions? Someone in an adjacent road or very close by might legitimately say they are resident..but what about the those living further afield?

Not at all, if people feel strongly that a street they do not live in should have CPZ then obviously they are free to post their views on here. This is more about me trying to understand how the results are collated and interpreted. For instance, one poster on here said he was advised that the council would not make those streets that do not want CPZ have CPZ (aligning with Cllr McAsh' 'promise' this would not happen). However, from the design of the consultation questionnaire, how can they be sure what each street wants?

Mal may have somehow sent in a submission to test the link, perhaps he will say. I am however puzzled as to how you can respond in an honest way to the consultation if you do not live in or adjacent to the consultation area? One of the very few mandatory questions asks if you are a resident and if you want permit controls "on your road". There is not an option to say I live further away but I support CPZ in destinations I visit.

I am sorry, but it is more than three people and they actually live in the consultation area which suggests there is a bit of an issue no? If those meant to be consulted cannot actually respond then what is it all meant to be for? Just helping me to understand how this works? Many of the questions are optional but there are a couple that are not; one asks if you "want permit controls on your road"? If you live a bit away from the consultation area, neither on one of the roads in or adjacent to the area, how do you answer that? Doesn't the question suggest you live on one of the roads in the consultation area? I can see that people close and adjacent to the consultation area might be affected and so could answer if CPZ installed then they also want controls as they will take displaced parking. But, if for instance, you live a bus journey away and answer 'yes, I want permit controls on my road" doesn't this suggest you live in or adjacent to the consultation area?

That is simply amazing that you managed first time. I have been trying again today, on various devices and with no luck. Just from this forum alone, that is three of us that have had issues. i wonder why....? Speaking to neighbours; they are also having issues and cannot get beyond the green circle going round and round. One aspect of the questionnaire that puzzles me is how someone like Malumbu, who has managed to fill it in online and submit, answers the question about "Do you want permit controls on your road"- online most of the questions are optional, but that one is not. If you do not actually live in the consultation area how do you answer that question?

I guess their contention would be that someone saying they cannot complete online is lying. That is the problem with these consultations and the way they are operated. I really do think responses should be limited to the streets directly involved as well as those immediately adjacent/ contiguous, otherwise the whole thing is open to abuse. Pro CPZ groups are highly coordinated and motivated. Of course, you may be in favour, so apologies if I seem to be making assumptions. Hand on heart, I feel this is a done deal and the example of Dulwich Village CPZ shows that they will push it through, whatever the result. Cllr McAsh has said he would like to rid the streets of all cars so I think we know what is coming. One thing I understand is that the leaflet gives options of times for parking controls and you have to fill one of the options out or your response is voided. The online consultation did not seem to have these? Is it legal to have two 'varieties' of consultation format operating at the same time, if indeed that is the case?

Thanks rch and Penguin, well, well, well how very interesting. I have been trying and still had no success. I would not be surprised if others have tried then given up. How convenient. It is interesting how often these consultations seem to suffer 'technical' glitches. If anyone has succeeded then please let us know the magic solution. Better still perhaps the man in charge can sort it out.

I may have misinterpreted but I felt doubt was being cast on P68 saying that they had experienced an extreme unforeseen weather event. I was simply saying I had also had this experience and not just with snow but also rain. Both times I was really nervous driving and nearly had to pull over, especially the snowstorm at night. So I was posting about that. Glad we can agree weather unpredictability may be on the rise.

Just wondering if anyone has had success filling out the consultation online? There is only a week left to do it.

If I know there is extreme weather coming up, personally I would try to avoid going out in it, although I know some people get a buzz taking risks. I think what is different about the weather events experienced by myself and P68 is the surprise element. I guess with climate change we can expect more unpredictability.

I didn't say that; I was just commenting that like P68, I had also got caught out in a totally unexpected snowstorm, in this country. I think the snowstorm was around 2018; I wonder if that was the same year for you Penguin? The torrential rain was much more recent but really unlike anything I have experienced in this country before.

Malumbu said: " just in case a freak snow storm happens. I've never experienced one of these in the UK" Surprised you haven't experienced this ever in the UK? I have. I remember being caught out by unforecasted snow, falling so fast and thick there was near zero visibility. The weather conditions changed incredibly fast and lots of drivers caught out. It was also early evening, so dark. Many cars had to pull over; a number of them sliding around on the road too. It was incredibly scary. More recently I have also been caught out by absolutely torrential rain (more akin to monsoon conditions) similarly unforcasted and also very difficult to drive in.

I think I remember that year. Was that the time buses were all parked up in lines because they could not get up or down the hills either end of ED?

You also have to factor in which is more polluting.

He also 'thanked' me in an earlier post for reminding him about the consultation and signalled an intention to get involved. Of course, no-one is objecting to Malumbu posting his views on this forum and he posts plenty; the objection is to those living well outside the current CPZ weighting the results by responding to the process for idealogical reasons, and it is the case that various pro CPZ organisations do get involved. Surely those living inside the consultation area or adjacent to it are best placed to judge if CPZ is required or not? It is easy for anyone outside the area to decide for idealogical reasons that everyone should have CPZ. However, as I said, there is no evidence CPZ directly reduces pollution or mitigates climate change. For what it is worth, I am not a climate change denier.

Can anyone say if they have managed to successfully respond online; I cannot seem to make it work?

A fair amount hangs on SCOTUS in the coming days. Will they prop up Trump's powers under Executive Orders or choose to support Congress? Some of the Judges are clearly corrupt but perhaps others, like Coney Barrett, will grow a conscience.

Has anyone successfully managed to reply to the East Dulwich CPZ consultation online? I have tried to submit a number of times and it does not complete; it gets stuck on a green icon going round and round?

Weight keeps being mentioned as a major issue, because of greater damage caused if there is contact. What is the thinking about the move to electric vehicles, which I believe are heavier still? Interesting thought and you may well have point.

The title is a great example of hyperbole even with the use of quotation marks for irony or humour. In future we can also discuss Lime bikes - "An epidemic".

You live in Lewisham, don't you? You do not live in the area up for consultation in East Dulwich, or on streets adjacent to or contiguous with the consultation area, do you? I travel through Forest Hill a lot and use shops there but would not claim to be a local. There is no evidence CPZ directly reduce pollution or help climate change, unless you are one of those that sees CPZ as a way to tax people out of car use altogether ( I think we know the answer to that). Since you feel so strongly about all this, to the extent you will instruct others on car use, I cannot imagine you would use a car for any reason, even less that you would own one. Thurs 6 March 6-8pm Last CPZ consultation meeting at Dulwich Grove United Reformed Church To send your response online go to: https://southwark.gov.uk/melbourne-grove-south-cpz

I hope others see that you have an agenda, since you do not live locally but have extremely strong views on what you believe should be the priorities of those that do live here, to the extent that you have said you are prepared to attend local meetings out of your area. We do not need CPZ. Currently, most people are able to park, including visitors and contractors in cars. Parking may not be directly outside the home and sometimes it may involve parking a street away, but for the most part everyone manages, including shoppers in cars. Demand for CPZ is wholly a council led agenda with the help of activists, like you. Thurs 6 March 6-8pm Last CPZ consultation meeting at Dulwich Grove United Reformed Church To send your response online go to: https://southwark.gov.uk/melbourne-grove-south-cpz

Thurs 6 March 6-8pm Last CPZ consultation meeting at Dulwich Grove United Reformed Church To send your response online go to: https://southwark.gov.uk/melbourne-grove-south-cpz Most in this area live in old Victorian terrace housing, maintenance costs can be frequent and high. Consider that if Southwark council steamroller through their CPZ agenda, the costs for necessary work on your property will be much higher every year as you will pay for contractors parking. You will also pay for any visitors who use a car. The council aim to stop you owning a car altogether if they can, so expect CPZ costs to go up year on year. Don't forget, they want the cost of owning a car to become a huge burden.

This is very true, they have tried and tried and now they are trying again. The suddenly 'necessary' proposed installation of paid parking bays for visiting shoppers in cars (something they were very against up until now) is just another way of turning up the heat.