first mate

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.

No mention in the manifesto on developing lots of CPZ', no mandate for them, however you try to spin it. Whatever said in 2023 not in manifesto, not mandated. Anyway, there is currently no pressing need for CPZ in the area the council so desperately want it in ED. The fact that they are so concerned about the 'rights' of visiting shoppers in cars is hilarious and a complete u-turn from their earlier position, but illustrates well how they leap from one narrative to another to 'make' CPZ happen. As Fred Ricketts said, when the Council allowed M&S to build over the Iceland car park, it was maintained by them that this parking was not necessary for shoppers, not only was there plenty of parking for everyone, but they anticipated most shopper would walk or use public transport. Funny that.

The consultation should really be limited to the streets it affects. If the initial rationale is we need to consult because we have had 16 people from that area complain, then surely it should only be the streets within the area, together with adjacent/ contiguous streets that are consulted. As Penguin said, these consultations are political tools, designed to maximise the result the council wants but with deniability if it goes the other way. Finally, they are required to do them as a preliminary to 'proving' parking controls are needed. I would not worry about costs- in this case a red herring. Don't they have those millions upon millions in parking funds to dip into?

Not mandated. That is the point. They were not voted in to develop more and more CPZs because this was not addressed n their manifesto. Do we think the words of the Council spokesperson at the first meeting can be trusted? That is, if the majority of consultees is against CPZ it will not happen? The problem with even that, is, as Kalamity Kel identified, the consultation process seems wide open to abuse, if anyone, anywhere can 'vote'.

Yes, that is certainly another possibility. I am sure a number of residents probably feel ground down by consultation after consultation, especially when you know that even when a majority response is against, the parking controls are put in anyway.

Thanks Fred. Are you able to name who from the Council stated this? Also, are they doing it as overall majority or as a street by street exercise? Are responses from anyone, whether they live in the area or not, included?

I suspect the meetings will have a fair share of LCC borough-wide CPZ supporters in attendance and they may give the impression of local support.

Apparently, one of the wider 'benefits' now is to balance the needs of local residents with cars against visitors using cars. This is based on a new proposition that visitors cannot park because residents are blocking the side roads. This is patent nonsense, plenty of shoppers already visit and park their cars on side roads to shop. However, this new narrative gives the council a reason to put in lots of pay per hour parking slots on side roads, simultaneously reducing resident parking even further (along with displaced parking from the first ED CPZ, more extended double yellow lines and more bays for Lime bikes) so then residents will ask for CPZs. Then the other side of Lordship Lane will feel the heat and will be next. Meantime, the council will claim they are supporting businesses by leaving parking on Lordship Lane, but think how many on here have complained about parking on LL and thereby blocking buses (the same people arguing for wall to wall CPZ). I imagine they hope that long-term this manufactured problem will further increase anger against car use. Cllr McAsh said he would like to see no cars on our streets.

I don't think local residents need tutoring on how to respond. I assume the event you attended, if CPZ related, was in another borough, where you live.

Case in point, the new East Dulwich CPZ questionnaire, currently out to residents on Melbourne Grove South and roads off it. That questionnaire forces you to give a preference response for CPZ timings, but you cannot answer that you do not want CPZ at all,not in that bit. So they are skewing the results. You are also told that if you refuse to answer that bit your whole questionnaire response will be invalidated. In other words, they need your response, because it helps them construct their preferred narrative. The CPZ narrative is now being reframed as balancing the needs of visitors using cars with those of residents who use cars. They are also now trumpeting that they will be leaving plenty of parking on Lordship Lane. But, won't that just increase pressure on buses? When CPZ was first proposed in the area, it was all about discouraging visitors in cars, because, allegedly, these car-using visitors were placing huge pressure on local residents. Funny how things change. Now the Council is seemingly falling over itself to accommodate visiting car-users... First CPZ was anti visitor -'we must protect local residents and keep car-using visitors out'; Then it was anti any cars- 'we must green our streets and tax all car users so hard the pips squeak, and to make this happen we will force through a combination of LTNs, CPZ and double yellow lines and soon there will be borough wide CPZ and (if Cllr McAsh has his way) no cars at all'. The latest narrative it is all about protecting the rights of car- using visitors and shoppers. 'We must ensure there is enough parking for visitors, because the evil and greedy, car- using residents are all clogging up the local streets where they live. We will helpfully put in lots of paid parking bays and ensure cars can park along Lordship Lane (creating even more chaos and congestion). For the council all these conflicting narratives are great fun and so lucrative, with more opportunities to charge everyone.

First session is tomorrow. People should try to attend. If this CPZ goes ahead it will have major consequences and not in a good way.