first mate

Yes, PeckhamBoy you are right. It does seem as though the council are relying on resident apathy (in reality too busy trying to earn a living and too tired for anything else) to drive this through. The tone from us all is slightly defeatist in that whatever we do it'll happen. This cannot be and I would ask Gisrett and the organisers of the petition, to lead another campaign against this.How can we energise those who signed the petitions against CPZ? Is it worth involving Tessa Jowell- what do others think? Surely she must read these forums? Are the press aware- would a national be interested in locals fighting the council on something like this?

We cannot just let the council impose something on us like this. There must and will be a way to stop it. If the majority of ED want CPZ, then so be it, however, until there is clear evidence for that we must ensure that this process is stopped. There are others on here who have a much clearer sense of process, so what should be the next stage?

You can still have your say: 7pm 24 January Dulwich Community Council will be held at St Barnabas Church 40 Calton Avenue SE21 7DG and the chair person has agreed to largely hand over - as much as he can - the meeting to discussing the CPZ. 7pm 10 January Camberwell Community Council is proposed to be held at Jessie Duffett Hall, 92 - 94 Wyndham Road, London SE5 0UB. North and east of Grove Vale is covered by CCC, south of Grove Vale by DCC. -------------------- Regards [email protected] 07903 964130 Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward If you read through the last few pages of the thread you will also find names of councillors and emails addy's trying to push CPZ through as well as others with different views. You can email all of them letting them know what you think.

I find it hard to believe that such wholesale criticism of CPZ coexists with a desire for the system to remain in place.

As most have always said, at least James comes on here and replies and gets involved and that is to his credit. Has there been any response from the council with regard to the various petitions?

I do hope local journos are being kept in the loop about all of this.

I'm sure James Barber will tell us all about this and what the financial relationship between the developer and the council is. But, if true, it all sounds a bit stinky.

More than likely due to much greater available off-street parking, and yet HH residents are still objecting to it.

But, would a large skip fit in the spaces proposed and if it does not, how does that work?

Mastershake, What is your evidence that the scheme in HH is working pretty well? If it was working well why would there be such opposition to it?- see my earlier posts. On another note, and not to you MS, what happens, in the case of a CPZ if building work is underway- say you need to hire a skip or take delivery of large building materials that won't fit into your front 'garden'?

garnbwa, The situation in Herne Hill is not a useful model. There is plenty of opposition and plenty who are not happy. This despite the fact that many more house in HH probably have enough room for offstreet parking.

H, You have a point. However, from what I have read and understood, the initial impact is good, but over time the benefits are lost as creep truly takes hold. Anyhow,the points you make are the sort questions we need answering before anything is implemented anywhere, in my view. I haven't done a street survey and so cannot say for sure, but my general impression of Herne Hill is that houses are rather larger than ED on average and possibly more opportunity for offstreet parking, so perhaps HH is not the best comparison. Here's a little comparison chart on another site:http://www.bacchus.org.uk/html/pros_and_cons.html

Or perhaps many more houses in HH have room on their land for offstreet parking? It occurred to me that if CPZ goes through in ED in any big way we may see those who can tarmacing/paving over front gardens to park cars- that is if they can move the myriad bins :)

The conclusion of the Herne Hill 2nd stage consultation states that most streets in the area are not in favour of CPZ.

From the Herne Hill forum- Controlled Parking Zone for Herne Hill/Milkwood Road area - updates Yesterday evening there was a meeting for stakeholders involved in the proposed extension to the CPZ for Herne Hill. The Lambeth Transport and Highways department wanted to discuss the results from the second round of consultation about extending the CPZ currently in the north of the area further down south towards the station. Unfortunately Lambeth Transport and Highways department failed to provide any of the results information prior to the meeting and did not have any spare copies of how the voting had gone at the meeting. Of the two copies of the results that were available (one had been obtained specifically by e local resdient callling up the Transport Department and requesting the information) it was apparaent that some of the statistics on percentatges in favour or against for individual roads didn't actually add up correctly. Lambeth Transport and Highways have promised to go back and check their addition and issue the full corrected results. We will post them here for downloading as soon as they are available. In additoon there was not provided the breakdown of voting by postcode so as to get a better idea as to what stretches within a street were in favour, no overall view or against a CPZ. This information is available to the Transport and Highways department but was not provided to the meeting. Lambeth Transport and Highways department promised to send it out and we will post it here for everyones information. One enterprising local resident has done a full survey of the area to see what houses have off-street parking already and it will be interesting to see if there is any correlation as to voting patterns and existing off-street parking availability. This information will be available here as soon as it is sent through for download. There is a public meeting to be held on the 27th October to review the findings of the survey and decide the next steps. Many local residents gave up their evening to contribute to the meeting and had done a great deal of work prior to the meeting which was shared with all. It was a shame that key information was not made available by Lambeth Traffic and Transport department to make the evening more productive. Update 6.00 p.m. Wednesday - files now available for download: MORE INFO on HERNE HILL HERE:http://www.hernehillforum.org.uk/sites/default/files/u41/Herne_Hill_SECOND_STAGE_CONSULTATION_REPORT_FINAL_%20%283%29.pdf

gm99, No doubt that is the case. If you want to get CPZ started in a few streets and then roll it out, I can think of no better strategy than the above. On another note, with regard to John/Chener Books' excellent point about costs, why would the cumulative cost of street by street consultation ultimately be less than doing a large chunk in one go?

Huguenot, You talk about irrational debate. The point is there has not been a debate. Many residents are not convinced by the limited evidence available. They do not believe the 'solution' being offered will make a difference long-term. On the contrary, it is suggested it will have no impact in the long run, and it may even make things worse, only we'll all be paying for it. You say the council are not deliberately trying to ignore the 'no' vote. Well, let us see. What we want is dissemination of the evidence, the reasons why the council think it will work, how it will be funded- in short, the case for. Then, at least we have an opportunity to talk about it and make a decision having some grasp of the facts. I don't understand why you think that looking at CPZ on a street by street basis is the way to go? If the decision on imposing CPZ on the streets around the station were to have no impact on the streets nearby I could understand the logic of your stance. However, given that such an imposition will, almost certainly, simply displace the problem it is logical to consult those streets too. Given that displacement will continue street after street, it also makes consultation on a street by street basis illogical and disingenuous. The pattern is pretty clear and that should inform any consultation. Nonetheless, if the case could be made that CPZ would ensure parking for residents that is better than the current situation or, at the very least, no worse, it might be worth consideration. However, there are compelling arguments that propose that the situation will be no better and likely worse, with a variety of additional inconveniences. And we will have to pay for the privilege. I don't think there is any bullying going on. There is real fear at a time when purses are already stretched to the limit in many homes. I think there is also a fear that if we don't fight for a proper debate now we'll be kicking ourselves for not having done so, down the line, when the CPZ snowball effect is fully underway.

.

Hi PR, If you look at the first link it goes through all the different vaccines licensed in the USA, both live and non-live, and gives loads of info- see the various tables. Jean Dodds is a quickie guide and she is careful to say that her view is not the only view and to check with the vet etc.. Some vets may have a vested interest, always bad apples in the barrel. However, I think most vets are merely cautious and tend to stick with tried and trusted methods. There are risks whichever way you look at it. I believe the best approach is to go to your vet with as much information as you can, including, if your dog is pedigree, health information about the breed and your own dog's lines. The vet also has your dog's clinical history- whether there is an autoimmune issue and so on, together you can work out the best way forward for that dog. Hugo is right in that most dogs are probably more protected now than they were because they are vaccinated. The other way of looking at it is that in days gone by, viruses picked off the weaker animals, leaving only the strongest to work and breed.

H Yes, some human vaccinations require a booster, but not all. I think if you have a careful look you'll find the debate is not whether to vaccinate at all but how often to give boosters and where is there risk. I believe that the AHHA canine task force as well as Dr Jean Dodds probably have a reasonable grasp on the latest evidence. I do agree with you that a debate about how often to booster should not get contorted into whether to vaccinate at all. Then again, there's nowt to queer as folk.

Here is a vaccination schedule- easy to read as recommended by Jean Dodds who is an expert in canine autoimmune conditions. She has also done a lot of work on vaccinations. This is a schedule you can print and take to your vet to discuss. Everyone must vaccinate their dogs, that is puppy innoculations; the question is how often to booster. Humans are not vaccinated every year for various diseases, so it begs the question why dogs need to be. It is a difficult one to answer, and none of us want to harm our dogs by over-vaccinating. Nonetheless, there are diseases, like lepto, that probably do require annual boosters.The key thing is to discuss with your vet and then decide. The other point is that blood titres are very pricey and they are necessary in order to test for antibodies which will indicate whether or not the dog has sufficient immunity against x,y,z disease. http://www.weim.net/emberweims/Vaccine.html

Please click on this link for a roundup that takes into account much of the latest research.https://www.aahanet.org/PublicDocuments/CanineVaccineGuidelines.pdf

It is my understanding that not only does Huguenot not live in Southwark, he lives in a different time zone altogether. Forgive me Hugo, if that is not the case.

P68, Quite. What disturbs me is the almost paternalistic stance of some of these politicans/ councillors- not just James. Their mindset seems to be along the lines 'we know better than you what is best for you'. The idea that most of us would not see through the biased online Southwark Council survey rather highlights the way these guys and gals must view voters/taxpayers- gullible and dim.

peckham boy, Many thanks for that information. I wonder, who sets/decides the threshold for approval, and does that decision have to be taken within some kind of legal framework?