first mate

Still dire.

Be warned, the council have a special way of doing CPZ consultations, using a street by street approach because they know that they can better get CPZ started that way. What they are unlikely to do is a whole area consultation. So you'll find some streets say yes and others say no. But streets that say no and that are inevitably affected by displaced parking from the streets that said yes, then start to want CPZ. This way CPZ 'creep' is primed and ready to go. Look out too for sudden imposition of loads of double yellow lines, to further reduce parking spaces, thereby artificially creating parking pressure and the need for CPZ. Oh and you'll find lots of people outside your area get involved in and have a say, for instance Southwark Cyclists and its members from all around the borough will probably be able to get involved in the consultation and they will be very pro CPZ.

I would add, what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Out round Bellenden yesterday, quite a few cyclists but not one using dedicated cycleway..why I don't know, but other than me it was empty.

Massive assumption there Earl and just not the reality.

Now no sign of a missing parcel, posted over a week ago. Customer Services said tracking showed it had arrived at Peckham sorting office 5 days ago. There has been no attempt to deliver. I don't understand how they are getting away with this.

You are not responding to my comments, other than with deflections. I had already said, in an earlier post, that I think most people round here are already reducing car journeys, cycling more, using public transport where possible, walking. Local stats, as cited by Rockets seem to evidence this. Do you think that those with major caring needs, mobility issues and work that requires a vehicle should simply out up and shutup?

Because you are talking in generalities not specifics, what applies in one part of London may not hold elsewhere. Different demographics, different geography, different infrastructure. It is complex but the approach to the issue is overly simplistic and is creating as many problems as it seeks to solve.

I notice you qualify necessary journeys as involving children and travelling longer distances, moving large items. You have totally ignored the issues of the vulnerable, those with mobility issues, those requiring frequent care, either by professionals or family, those who must have a vehicle for their work. When you refer to "all the data", is this ED specific data or crunched from figures UK and even European wide?

Don't you think a lot of people in this area are already doing most of the above? The fact remains that a vehicle is often necessary for certain types of occupation and to service the needs (needs not wants) of the vulnerable or elderly. You know this to be true. We are not talking about transport of items from the UK to our second home in France ( definitely in the want category) but serious, genuine needs.

But Earl, they are using every possible means to extend CPZ, they are not intending to limit it to areas around the station, they want it borough wide.

The fact is many residents are reliant on cars. It is an inconvenient fact. Dictating by force will only work up to a point. The council have not been straight about reducing car use. I still do not believe they genuinely want to, but in a cost of living crisis they have had to come up with some sort of reason to justify hiking parking fees and have greenwashed their true motivation. I think they are charging as much as they think they can away with, knowing that many will be forced to find a way to cough up.

Until recently there was little issue on the majority of residential streets for pedestrians, for cars to park or for vehicles to pass each other on streets. Problems have been artificially and systematically constructed and imposed by the council with a view to extending CPZ boundaries.

They keep changing the narrative around all this stuff. The early rationale for CPZ was to help those living closest to the train station who were unable to park their cars and were being harassed every morning by evil commuters looking for spaces to park. CPZ, they said, was to help these poor residents get a space to park on their own street; now suddenly it is to stop people owning cars? So first they introduced CPZ to empower and enable car ownership for those living closest to transport hubs. Now they claim to want to make CPZ spaces so expensive that car owners will relinquish their cars and this is their big contribution to saving the planet. At the same time, they are turning over swathes of green park for commercial environment polluting events and sections of green MOL for property development. Am I the only one to see a contradiction in all this? The one thing both endeavours have in common is they are making more money for the Council.

It was only a matter of time. Saw this today https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/25/ltn-can-only-work-with-decent-public-transport

Well, first I have heard of this too. How or where has this been publicised? Anyone who is local and uses the park should be considered a stakeholder. That would apply to me, yet I had no warning of this meeting tonight? This sort of approach does not invite confidence. Will there be Council reps at the meeting? If not, it begins to feel like ownership of that section of the park for that time has been passed over to Gala. Note another timely article in Guardian today. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/23/the-guardian-view-on-parks-an-asset-that-should-be-for-everyone

@wordsworth ironic, given your name or chosen moniker. The poet Wordsworth celebrated the power of the natural world, and its central importance for humanity, even in a city like London. See below, explaining why relatively quiet, green spaces are so vital for city dwellers. https://depts.washington.edu/hhwb/Thm_StressPhysiology.html

Don't worry. Within a short time the traffic will evaporate and many of those who had used cars will cycle. Simpulz.

https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/community/gala-festival-set-to-hold-mammoth-six-day-event-on-peckham-rye-park/ My mistake. It does seem that for this year it will be the format used before. However, given the 6 days premises licence, they obviously plan to extend the event for 2024. I agree that we should continue to resist.

Supporting the continuation of the football club while also wishing to preserve MOL and freedom of access for all, should not be mutually exclusive.

I believe they are already advertising a 6 day event, having earlier said it would only be three. This suggests the events licence is a given.

Devastating result. Add this to moves moves to remove protective covenant of MOL at Greendale and we can see the direction of travel. I am assuming that anyone anywhere in the Borough could vote in favour of Gala for 6 days. Cannot believe 56 in favour is made up of people living near the Rye. I imagine objectors were local, so wonder what weight was given to those who are not?

My understanding is that DHFC have promised to give Charter schools free access to the new pitch and facilities, for how long is not clear. This does not address the point that the current astroturf is free for all to use and is therefore a community asset. Making facilities free for Charter school use for an unspecified amount of time is a great bit of spin and will appeal to parents but the fact remains that land currently freely available for public use is being taken away from everyone else.

Tomskip, I don't understand. Are you saying that if you just get the bags your garden waste will be picked up free of charge and you don't have to pay for that service? Why would you have to pay, now, £60 a year if you have a bin but nothing if you use bags? The bin men still have to lug them to the lorry. Or do you take yours to the dump yourself?