first mate

It will be interesting to see the contortions they resort to. Everyone should try to make a point of watching the monthly Scrutiny sessions on Southwark's YouTube channel. They are really most interesting and to a degree the place where Cabinet Members must report on policy and process.

Post removed as it may have breached posting policy.

Yes, there is something almost grotesque at seeing money pumped into Dulwich Village (turning long-used public highways into 'village squares' etc.) while the genuinely useful and loved physic garden at Dulwich Hospital site has just been junked. What liars our politicians are. All of them.

Malumbu. Confused by your post. Are you saying "anti vaxer nutters" who have posted on your WA street group have also posted on your group against 15 minute cities? What has any of that got to do with CPZ?!

My issue is solely with noise, not partying per se. People can party after 1am all they like, just so long as the noise does not keep me awake. Like you, I live in a noisy area. As you indicate, the law is a about noise volume and is presumably based on what is generally held to be reasonable. In law switch off is much earlier. I think agreeing to stop noise that disturbs the sleep of others after 1pm is entirely reasonable.

But if everyone takes that view, that they are entitled to one night a year of keeping others awake all night in order to enjoy themselves, the overall effect will be more than just one night, won't it. If neighbours take the time to alert others well in advance (weeks, not the day before) they are planning a loud, late party, at least others have options and can arrange to be away. But, to simply expect others to put up and shut up because someone wants their definition of fun is unreasonable. What if your impromptu "fun" coincides with someone feeling ill, shift work, many sleepless nights with a little one? Why do you feel switching off after 1pm is such a big ask?

Not at the expense of others surely. Gone 1pm it is just not reasonable to keep others awake, just because you are enjoying yourself. The compromise is in someone electing to be kept awake up to that time, when they might prefer to sleep earlier.

I think the get from A-Z as fast as I can, taking risks along the way because I think I can get away with it mindset, bleeds over into other road-user issues. I accept cars are a more dangerous tool but human behaviour underpins most of the problems. What struck me was the extent to which the ENSO guy felt human behaviour and road surfaces superseded most other considerations...yet these are not really addressed, that I can see?

Cllr McAsh rounded off the last scrutiny session with his Land Commission Report where they are looking at use of MOL, Parks etc.. for "social good". His parting shot returned to his Streets for People initiative where he said he'd like to see table tennis played on the streets "we just have to get rid of the cars first". I was staggered to find out that there is a waiting list of 7500 for cycle hangars in the borough, at a projected cost of 6.5 million. There were some rather woolly ideas on how this demand could be reduced.

Just listening to presentation by Cllr McAsh in Sept Environment Community Engagement Scrutiny session. He indicates that aside from online consultation on CPZ (which, if I am correct is open to anyone travelling through Southwark, so not resident), the aim is to visit one in every ten households/ per street to "consult". He claims it will be the most extensive consultation exercise ever but does it not give the council the opportunity to cherry pick the household? We already know that they have considerable data on household views, car ownership etc.. For those of you who know much better how consultations work, or should work, is there potential inherent bias in this chosen method? McAsh flagged a moral and legal imperative to consult and mull over the results before taking action- a statement I also found interesting.

I do agree, although I don't want to pressure him to change his mind. I suspect he knows that parking pressure will kick in and residents fold, once everywhere else is CPZ...he's playing the long game.

Fascinating presentation in September Environment Scrutiny session by ENSO rep on developing sustainable tyres. He moves into car territory and says that reducing 30-20mph does not really make a difference to emissions and particulates, it is the acceleration speed and driver behaviour, which is harder to regulate. Hmmm. Cllr Newens looks a bit shifty at this point. Margy also later explains that what Southwark really want in the borough is no tires at all! I'd be interested in a pollutant comparison between a small petrol car with sustainable tyres and the heavier EV. Does such data exist? The other point I found interesting is that, according to the ENSO guy, road surface is also crucial. This adds another dimension. Car users are not directly responsible for road surfaces. Fully accept the correlation between lower speed and fewer deaths from RTAs.

Whatever the global situation, it is evident that Southwark Council will be gunning for you whatever kind of car you own. Listen to the last part of the Environment scrutiny session in July, where Cll Margy Newens monologues about how policy and penalties on tailpipe emissions will likely be superseded by scrutiny of EV emissions ( tires, brake, road dust particulates) " we got it wrong" she says. So think twice before investing in an EV because once the scales are tipped in favour of EV ownership, Southwark will be knocking on your door.

So TW have managed in just a few months to close Lordship Lane and now EDG? We probably need fewer side returns, second and third bathrooms, and more investment in pipe by TW.

I agree about the unplanned bit and alcohol etc may blur judgment of time as well as behaviour. However, I would still maintain that just because it feels good does not make it right or warranted. I agree, 12/1 am is the time audible partying should cease.

You have a point. I guess this is why pubs close at a certain time. It is unreasonable to think it is okay to keep people up late into the night. I cannot see a good reason why any party should be later than 1am, at the maximum.

I beg to differ. In an urban area 5am is totally unacceptable. If everyone took the view that it is only once then, given the size of the population, that could be all night parties every week. What if people are ill or babies trying to sleep? If you want to party so loudly it is keeping others awake then go to a night club.

On the contrary, Legal Alien makes a very balanced and convincing case for overreach of legal powers by this, and possibly other councils. They are moving forward on the assumption that they will get away with it. Let's see.

The issue with this line is the massive assumption that a society and infrastructure that has slowly developed over decades around car use can simply be changed overnight. It can work if you are very wealthy/privileged but for most it increases anxiety and stress at a time many are struggling.

LA and P68, spot on. This requires further examination.

Indeed and it is council indifference to majority opinion and experience that ought to be of concern to many of us. I agree with you LA that this/ our council is so desperate to increase revenue that it may have overstepped its legal powers in choosing punishment of car ownership as the mechanism by which to make up financial shortfall.

Interesting to see. However, also of note is that the council ( Aspire party) is also overriding resident opinion and removing LTNs against their wishes. I was impressed by a piece Legal Alien wrote on another thread suggesting our council is extending its scope to interfere in traffic measures in ways that may not be legal. That aspect deserves greater scrutiny.

The central issue is that many people do need to use a car. The social vice line is simplistic.

Sorry Ex, or should we just call you "Daddy" from now on? I cannot see where Cllr McAsh makes reference to CPZ in the manifesto in the article you link to? There was no mention of CPZ in the manifesto. Borough-wide CPZ was never a given. A 'no' option is perfectly reasonable in a consultation on the matter, in fact I believe that Nunhead residents were told by councillors that they would have the option to say 'no' to CPZ in another consultation, but that CPZ would happen anyway. So explain then why the about turn on including the, as you frame it, irrelevant and "stupid" option to say no to CPZ? Why would the councillors bother?

Spartacus' point stands though. We need a proper consultation where a complete range of options on CPZ are given, including no to CPZ. We also need a council that listens to all its residents. They are not doing either.