first mate

Yes, in that respect, bulk buying seems an incredibly selfish thing to do.

I am sorry you are having such a bad time. Given Southwark has been pushing this for years now you?d have thought they would have a system for permits that works? I?d speak to your Councillor asap. Also concerning this has been farmed out a third party who seem to want lots of personal data? I am now wondering if monitoring of parks parking will go to a third party too?

But this is exactly the outcome S?Wark want. Increase pressure on those outside the ?non car? areas so they too beg for CPZ. Remember too that there is a view that if you cannot cope without a car that really you should move, you have no business living here.

My understanding is, the council insisted on consulting on a street by street basis other than when this approach defeated their objective to get CPZ. For instance, Melbourne Grove taken as whole road was against CPZ, so the council decided to treat it as two separate roads with a north and south end, so it could get a majority in favour of CPZ from those living closest to the station. The aim was to get a domino effect where those streets closest to the station roads would vote in favour of CPZ and so on. The station roads were the catalyst the council needed to get CPZ started. Had ED being consulted as an area CPZ would not happen.

Is this pay be phone only or can people use coins? If by phone is there a requirement to have an ap and therefore a smart phone. What if you don?t own a smart phone. Presumably pay by phone means you have to have an account with details of your car and debit/credit card details? What happens to all the lovely data the council will collect?

This is the dilemma. We all want healthier streets with less pollution but the demands of getting kids to school, looking after elderly or sick relatives and myriad ? essential? journeys weighted against increasingly crazy working hours and demands on time, mean car journeys may also be essential. It?s not people being lazy or indifferent. However, those on the more extreme end of council thinking will not be swayed or engage in the complexities. It is all black and white thinking and solutions. One of the S?wark cycling reps even suggested that unless you can cycle to work ( presumably that also involves school runs) then you had no business living round here and should move!

James, do you know if SELDOC is being moved into the new Dulwich Hospital medical centre and if not what will be happening to this valuable service?

srisky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If we are talking about the need for cycle storage for children going to school why can't that be made on school premises? posted too soon > > ...etc and the general reduction in traffic during > school holdiays across the board shows it's not > just restricted to the private schools. > Either all parents and children are lazy or the > majority are just trying to manage the school run > and commute in the most efficient way possible, > although not the most environmentally friendly. > Some are just lazy. > Of course, there is a large concentration of > schools in under a square mile in Dulwich, which > compounds the problem. > > There needs to be a lot of secure bike storage > facilities at Herne Hill and North Dulwich to > encourage public transport use, > perhaps a "walking bus" to take pupils from > schools to stations, > better police/community officer visibility to > encourage parents to allow children to walk > without the fear of muggings. > I don't know where the funding for all this will > come from, though.

There is a contradiction here. If one of the primary reasons for reducing cars/ CPZ/ etc.. is to protect the health of children then how can any parent in all conscience drive their child into school or worse, allow their child to drive themselves?

If private schools are wanting to use local,residential streets as dedicated coach parking I'd have thought the very least they can do is discourage pupils from driving in to school (pupils creating more congestion and pollution)? For local residents to be told they must not drive or access roads in order to protect the lungs of children (who may also be driven to school by their parents) it is bordering on offensive to discover that school children are also driving themselves into school- presumably they are driving because they live out of Southwark?

Why on earth are 6th formers being allowed to drive to school? Surely they should be using public transport/ cycling/ walking?

But it?s not suggested there should be free parking for everyone, and the selfishness of those who drive to the park without genuinely needing to should mot be used to penalise those with genuine need. As you now seem to acknowledge, many with genuine need are being refused BBs by the Council, who are responsible for that decision; the same Council that will further penalise them by charging them to park. There is a genuine issue here that should be properly addressed. The option of free parking on roads nearby is almost certainly short-lived as CPZ creep intensifies.

I think manoeuvring a folding scooter or bike as well as a dog onto public transport may be asking too much?! The point is that there will be people with genuine disability issues who are not quite disabled enough, at least in the eyes of the currently highly punitive assessment system, to qualify for a BB. The Council needs to find a way to better accommodate their needs. As someone else has suggested, some of these Council projects seem to be quite divisive, pitching various community sections against each other.

Is that your response to Spider69?s dilemma?

Rupert James, you are absolutely correct. Just like PIP, assessment for BB are becoming ever more onerous and those in genuine need are being refused, not because they are ?lazy? but to save money in any way possible. I find it hard to believe that anyone with relatives who have been through these assessments in recent years views all those who fail assessment as merely undeserving and ?lazy?.

Oh well, that's okay then. Clearly those numbers who are complaining that the lighting is way too bright need to try much harder to adjust their perceptions so they align with council policy and guidelines. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > be operating off some guidelines which suggest > they are acceptable. These would be the guidelines > which suggest that they should happily ignore the > needs or wishes of residents. The apparat are > always right, we are always wrong. Live with it. > It turns out our 'representatives' represent > Tooley St. - their job is to tell us why the > apparat is right.

Our latest councillor has said he's had problems with emails from here going into spam (think that is what he said) and also that he is very busy. The way to contact him apparently is by emailing him direct- presumably those emails don't go into spam. If you go to the Councillor thread he has his contact details under his name.

If that were really the case CPZ for a couple of hours a day would have done the job, yet the council insisted on all day? The necessity of locals closest to the station to be able to park was stated many times as the reason why CPZ had to be implemented. 73jem Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely the main purpose of a parking scheme near , > for example, the East Dulwich rail station, is to > prevent people from outside the area driving in > and parking for the day then taking the train, > rather then travelling into London by public > transport from where-ever they live. The ability > to park near one's house is an incidental benefit, > not the purpose of the scheme.

You have to go to the councillor website or sign up for their email delivery, that way they tell you what they are doing. Of course, not much room for open discussion.

And then you remember that the first phase of CPZ involved our scrupulously fair council deciding that residents around the railway station should have all day CPZ so they can park their cars. The council eager to get people out of their cars privileges those living closest to a transport hub.

I think they prefer to convey or receive information through their preferred channels like their newsletter and email direct to them.

Romnarz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did the Dulwich Society ask it?s 1000 plus > members before responding ? Someone else commented on this and suggested members were not consulted.

Get the local councillor involved. Very bright white lights are effectively light pollution and a contradiction of Southwark?s alleged commitment to the environment and making the area a greener, healthier place to live.

At that age no. Maybe see the vet?

To add to the above, cats will gravitate to high spots to rest, they feel safer. Trying to move any creature from a point of safety and security can rile them. Because she had no access to outside in her home before, indoor space is probably much more important to her. Cats can be very territorial and unwillingness to share space can apply to humans as well as other cats. It is not clear how old this cat is but the constant hunger seems a bit odd. Presumably early signs of hyperthyroidism has been ruled out? If a young cat that would not be relevant but wonder what vet says about feeding and diet? Might be worth a chat about Sheba- your crack cocaine description may be more accurate than you think.