first mate

fazer, It is well recognised that residents on two streets feel they have a problem. The objection is that the 'solution' as proposed, will merely shift that problem to another street- as you suggested, streets on the edge of the CPZ will always have a problem. A further objection is that the majority of those participating in the consultation have said no to CPZ. Many are also distrustful of how any CPZ system would be managed in terms of permit costs etc..There are also fears that an overriding political motive is 'money' dressed up and presented as the 'greater good'. In short, I think many distrust the process, the motive and the proposed system.

I really do think we should stop any personal attacks on James. It may be true to argue that he is playing politics with this issue but then he is a politican...... Pointing out flaws in his arguments is perfectly fair though. Let us focus on the issue which is CPZ. There are extremely strong arguments against and thus far, the only argument in favour seems to be that it may help a minority of residents on two streets although, as James has stated, there is no guarantee it will defintely have the 'desired affect', and the problem will, of course, simply be passed on to the next street.

"others has been told controlled parking across all East Dulwich is proposed - it isn't." James, come on, you know that the displacement effect will mean that large sections of ED are likely to become CPZ once a few streets are actioned. You keep citing streets that say they'll have CPZ if the adjacent street gets it- that is because of displacement, they are not in favour of CPZ as a principle. CPZ is not a solution it moves the problem on to a new street, until the whole area is CPZ and then we are at the mercy of council permit hikes and all the other shenanigans we hear of in other CPZ zones. No doubt you'll have plenty to say on the subject at the Dulwich Communmity Council meeting on Tuesday 24th.

I always, always complain by going through to sales. Ignore 'phone menu options that put you through to technical support or other complaint based stuff. It really does not matter who your service provider is, most of them run call centres from India and other far flung places- these deal with technical issues and customer support and you will end up going round and round in 'phone menus, get cut off and even talk to soemone whose english skills are not up to the job. On the other hand, if you want to join the service you'll always get through first time, to bright, chirpy sales teams, based in the UK. My top tip, always take your complaint to the sales team and demand to speak to a customer service person in the UK. It always works for me. ISP's grrrr.

nabz, just click on the website link that bonniebird has posted.

The Minkey, Spot on. These were Battersea's own words in a Panorama on the subject. I am not blaming Battersea, I sympathise with the staff who have dedicated their lives to working with rescue dogs and who find themselves having to make these sorts of decisions on a daily basis- it must be awful for them. I too blame the idiots who breed these dogs willy nilly, often to try and make a bit of cash on the side. They don't care about the welfare of those pups. They sell to anyone and, as we know 'anyone' might be someone who likes the idea of a pup but once the going gets tough or circumstances change, the 'fantasy acquisition' is discarded. It makes me furious because there is good scientific evidence that dogs, as well as other animals, think and feel very much more than we credit them. As a result they can really suffer- Colin's initial description of that poor pup, shaking and crying all the way to Battersea, says it all.

I would respectfully suggest that the first stage to building a better ED is to ensure this badly designed and ill conceived CPZ plan is thrown out. Send the councillors back to the drawing board knowing that we cannot be steamrollered into accepting propodals that do not stand up to scrutiny. I hope that as many people as possible will attend the key ED Community Council on the evening of 24th January at St Barnabus Hall. Our future depends on it.

fazer71, No you are right, long-term there is something for us all to consider, but we need to see imaginative, fresh and well designed proposals, that clearly have the common and greater good at their core. The issue here is short-term, misplaced thinking on the part of the council, where they want to try to foist a leaky sticking plaster onto the current situation, which, by their own admission may not achieve the "desired affect". A 'solution' which may also become a revenue raising tool in future. They have also played fast and loose with the figures and definitions to try to achieve that aim. Why would we trust the proposals?

pommie, If it is temperamentally sound and healthy it might stand a chance, but I know that after a given time even sound dogs that have been assessed and shown to be good pet material are killed to make room for the next wave of abandoned dogs. The word 'killed' is one that Battersea used last year in a Panorama, as it accurately reflects the horror of the current situation with overbreeding and subsequent abandonment of bull breeds.

fazer71, I don't know if the last comment about misinformation was being directed at me- if so, it is rather out of order and unsubstantiated. You espouse CPZ that is properly implemented but a cursory glance at the current design will show that it is badly designed. Proper implementation of a system built on a bad design is a non starter in my book. You also state that "the fringes of the CPZ will always suffer" in what way is that essentially different from saying that those that live near a station will always have more of a problem? I do not see the displacement is a real solution, it just moves the problem on to someone else. Finally, yes Southwark have, in my view, shown a degree of incompetence- why then give them another system to abuse?

fazer71, I'm sorry, but for the majority of ED residents the current system does work. That is why the majority have said no to CPZ. The notion that parking is a problem is in part one of perception. Many of us do not mind having to walk a couple of minutes to the car. Those who are disabled are allocated a space.

Gsirett, Good news last night, but I imagine ED councillors may be more favourably inclined to CPZ. I will be attending the Dulwich CC meeting on 24th and I hope other against CPZ will too.

Poor little mite. Did the vet sheck to see if the pup was chipped? You could post on doglost, just in case someone is looking. But well done Colin for taking the time to get this poor dog some help- iot sounds as though she was very distressed and not in great shape.

garnwba, Only I never used the word 'problem' because I do not perceive not being able to park right outside my house every day as a problem. Sometimes it is a minor inconvenience but, as I said, manageable, and infintely preferable to your solution, for all the reasons stated already. Please do not think that I do not sympathise with your plight- I do, but I am completely unconvinced that even 1 hour CPZ, in this case, is going to work or benefit ED long term. Moreover, the fact that James Barber said here that even 1 hour CPZ might not have the "desired affect" persuades me it is not the solution it is being projected as.

fazer71 If one could believe that the sole motivation was to solve the problem on a couple of streets, then you might have a point. I don't think anyone really believes that is the primary or only motivation. As Gsirett says, he swent through the figures with the council officer and net parking will be less.

Garnbwa, I have lived in ED for many years and I have never ever been able to park outside my house on a consistent basis. Often I have to park right at the other end of my road or in the next street, occasionally it is further. But it has never been unmanageable. I would far rather have that than a system over which we will have little control and where the parameters, regulations and fee structure all become an open-ended, moveable council feast and where, ultimately the parking situation is highly unlikely to improve. Even James has said on here that there is no guarantee, that even 1 hour CPZ will have "the desired affect".

fazer71, Eaxctly. There is a lack of trust in the same way you have little if any confidence in the shenanigans to do with your property. If you can bear to, come along to the CC meetings. It is our futures that are being decided by one man who appears to have a rather slim grasp of what a majority means.

fazer1, The purpose is for councillors to give their recommendations and for locals to make their views known, present petitions etc.. Although all of this has already been done at the consultation phase- it does need to be repeated if the majority voice is to be properly taken into account when Councillor Barrie Hargrave reaches his 'key' decision in February. Essentially it is to ensure that the majority of voices that said no to CPZ at the consultation are properly weighed in decision making. As we know, the definition of majority has been shifted of late to seemingly mean the only two streets in the zone that indicated they want some form of CPZ. In others words, within the zone, the majority said no to CPZ but that is being ignored for now, rendering the consultation pretty meaningless. On the other hand a majority on two streets is trumpeted as a fair result and the basis on which CPZ is still being driven through... In Southwark council parlance sometimes a majority means majority and sometimes it does not. Southwark have an investment in ensuring that CPZ is always viewed on a street by street basis because they know that is the only way to get CPZ underway. Remember the consultation shows that the majority in the zone are against CPZ. They also know that even if only two streets have CPZ for one hour that the inevitable displacment will, at some point,(they are playing the long game) result in CPZ creep. Once in place permits go up, one hour CPZ is extended. Parameters can change- they have shown that they will use a minority voice to drive through changes.

fazer71, what a nightmare, your experience suggests something fishy or woeful incompetence. It also suggests that the council is intent on squeezing money out of leaseholders any way they can.

Y, precisely- it is the long game and one hopes that as many people as possible turn up at the community council meeting to try to halt the proposed inception of the 'game'. CPZ was defeated in Bermondsey, it can be stopped in East Dulwich if enough people make their objections known at the Community Council.

See an example of CPZ creep at Ladywell http://brockleycentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/consultation-begins-on-further.html

I hr CPZ is the thin end of the wedge. It opens the door for CPZ to creep and expand.

trizza, Thanks for that fair and balanced analysis of the situation. I think if we had an assurance that the status quo would not really change overall, that the parking situation near the station was improved without a knock on effect on other streets, then we'd be okay with the proposals. However, everything seems to point to the development of CPZ creep and little improvement in parking over time, as well as permit bills that gradually increase too. Even councillors like James Barber, who are on principle probably more for than against CPZ, (apologies James if that is not the case)appear to be saying there are no guarantees, and that introduction of even a limited CPZ scheme may not have the desired effect.

On the 8th November Zak posted: When I visited the exhibition at Southwark libary the Southwark Officer told us that the Bermondsey proposed CPZ was "defeated" by virtue of the number of people who signed petetions opposing it. It seems that if we want to defeat this proposal it''s going to be about mobilising a majority of the people affected -by the way I was told that they would take into account opposition expressed by people outside of the proposed CPZ who feel they would be adversely affected.

James Barber has stated that Councillor Barrie Hargrove will make the decision on CPZ after the various Community Council meetings.