first mate

The event had no impact on me but I think you should be a little more understanding of the major, negative effects unwelcome, high level noise can have, especially bass noise. Residents living close by have no choice in the matter, unless of course you feel that in order for you to have a good time they should be forced to vacate their properties for the whole of the bank holiday and pay up to stay somewhere else? The organisers have to come up with a way to protect residents from excessive noise and perhaps those attending should accept they cannot expect club volumes at an outdoor event, at least not at this one. Humdinger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Went yesterday and saw a diverse spectrum of South > East London coming together and having a great > time. > > No attitude, trouble or bad vibes. Events like > this should be embraced and supported, i actually > feel sorry for people who disagree on the basis > that there was a bit of noise coming from a music > festival. Get over it!

malleymoo, I love music but feel sorry for residents who have had to endure what might be termed noise pollution to the extent that some have been forced to leave their homes for the duration. I think it is one of those cases where the council and its supporters are so convinced they are 'right' that they try to persuade us square is round.

That's fine so long as there are real benefits to locals and to the long term future of the park, given that no profits from the event are ploughed back into the upkeep of the park,nothere than to allegedly repair damage from the event, which strikes me as bizarre. Let's also see what the state of the park is like after the event this year, given the damage that was done last year. The park is a place where locals go to enjoy nature and, often, a bit of peace, alongside community sports and leisure activities, largely free of charge. Any money made from these festival events, apart from lining the pockets of private companies, will be going towards mounting similar events in future, sounding like it is intended to privatise this public space more and more frequently. The occasional festival, open to locals and benefitting tbe park is fine but the park is not a space for festivals and increasing private use. There are also many local venues where music can be showcased to those willing to pay.

This also occurred to me!

Ask Cllr Renata Hamvas

Cllr Renata Hamvas will be able to answer all these questions.

The site is adjacent to the Japanese garden and pavilion which many people use for quiet time. Mini golf may, as you say, be reasonably quiet- I guess I keep thinking crazy golf. There is also the matter of aesthetics, as per Ed Oldies post.

I didn't say it annoyed me I was making the point that while some people, quite rightly, will want to use the park for activities, some of which are noisy, others may want to visit the park to enjoy some quiet and 'commune' with nature. The hope is that both needs can be met.

A message from Southwark Cyclists google group to Cllr Richard Livingstone: "Dear Richard cc Charlie Smith, Victoria Olisa, James McCash. We have seen the backlash against the controlled parking zone in East Dulwich area and wanted to express our support and hope that you will stand firm on the implementation." It should be noted that SC are pushing for all day CPZ in as large an area as possible.

A message from Southwark Cyclists google group to Cllr Richard Livingstone: "Dear Richard cc Charlie Smith, Victoria Olisa, James McCash. We have seen the backlash against the controlled parking zone in East Dulwich area and wanted to express our support and hope that you will stand firm on the implementation."

>This is purely anecdotal and was not a factor in determining whether there should be a CPZ around the station. That decision was based on the consultation responses. Best wishes James< Hi James, In terms of your chats with residents at the Heber Road end of ED, you say the vast majority accept the need for CPZ around the station but surely many will have expressed a preference to you for just a few hours to deter communter parking, instead of an all day CPZ? It is clear that the highly influential organisation Southwark Cyclists are pressing for all day CPZ in as many places as possible, although the majority of ED residents participating in the consultation probably prefer just a few hours to deter commuters. Which option do you support?

>The vast majority of people who I've spoken to at the Heber Road end of East Dulwich accept that if people living around the station want controlled parking then they should get it, so long as they do not have to have it on their street too!> James, And is it the wish of the vast majority of people at the Heber Road end of ED to support an all day CPZ in the area around the station or just a few hours? It is interesting that in terms of pro arguments you are suddenly able to look at majority views across various streets instead of on a street by street basis.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They did privatise the house in the Southwest > corner of the park though, so there is precedent. I suspect small-scale measures, whether the music festival, park car parking, mini golf- all begin to create precedents for privatisation. What is initially intermittent use is slowly increased until the balance is tipped and then you have serious precedent.

I think a lot of us feel the same Penguin and there was lengthy discussion about this when Harris Boy's was first built and James Barber was Cllr. I was just wondering if Lee had more concrete information or some sort of inside knowledge? Use of land to promote community health for all is one thing, privatising and limiting public access for profit- as per the imminent music festival- another.

Lee Scoresby wrote. Lee, do you have evidence that there are plans long-term to hand over chunks of park to Harris or is this a hunch? This is a genuine question and not intended to undermine your point - just curious?

When does Cllr Livingstone make his decisions on CPZ known?

That section of the park has always been a lovely, tranquil spot. Lawn bowls tends to be a quiet activity but not sure about mini golf and a cafe. Surely it is good to have a few quieter spots in the park where quiet and nature can prevail? At a weekend most of the park's open spaces are used for sport which entails lots of shouting and the popular park run means many of the paths are taken up by runners thudding and panting as they go round. Obviously it is great for collective health but it would also be nice to preserve some quiet spots, especially in a loud and noisy city.

I have no idea if the individuals who did this to me had sore hands or feet for that matter- part of me hopes they did as it was unpleasant to be on the receiving end of. My point is, it does and can happen and that is down to human nature and the individual's ability to cope with frustration in a social manner, whether in a car or on a bike. Sadly, there are a lot of aggressive people in a hurry - that's life.

.

Just because you don't have a ready solution should not mean you are not entitled to point out a problem!

There are good and bad drivers and the same goes for cyclists. I've had cars driving right up behind me revving loudly, the driver gesticulating and cursing, when I have adhered to 20mph- which I always try to do. However, I have also had cyclists kick the side of my car and others bang the roof as they passed me, for no other reason than I was in a car. I reckon aggressive car drivers will behave in similar fashion on a bike. Let's not make it an us and them.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin, I've taken a leaf out of the book of that > southwark cyclists special interest group page on > the other thread and am flooding this consultation > with comments that reflect my personal preferences > and self interest. > > So far I have expressed my grave concerns that > removing all cars parked on the kerbside 1) > increases the speed of traffic making the roads > physically more dangerous for cyclists and > pedestrians, and 2) encourages people to pave over > their front gardens to use as car parks, thus > increasing pollution a de-greening the area, which > are causing yet more lung and brain damage to > cyclists Do follow the example set and try to call friends, even friends living out of the area and get them to participate in future plans for ED streets.

Cllr McAsh wrote Ed_pete -" I emphasised that the consultation asked people if they wanted a CPZ on their road because there is some misinformation being circulated to say that 68% of people in East Dulwich do not want a CPZ in East Dulwich. We do not know how many people in East Dulwich want a CPZ on Derwent Grove (for example) because only the people on Derwent Grove were asked this. I suspect that the majority of people on streets like Heber Road (for example) have no strong feeling on this subject, despite being quite opposed to there being a CPZ on their own road. However, what we do know is that the majority of people on Derwent Grove do want a CPZ on Derwent Grove. And the majority of people in the area I have proposed above want a CPZ on their road too." In general, if a resident does not want controlled parking in their own street it is unlikely they will want CPZ anywhere close because of the risk of displacement. Southwark Council know this and it is precisely the reason why we were not asked about CPZ for the whole area but on a street by street basis, because the answer would have been a resounding 'no thanks', just as it was at the last CPZ consultation- which was not so long ago. So unlike Cllr McAsh, I suspect residents on Heber Road may be very interested in CPZ on other roads in ED, just as the majority of residents who participated in the consultation probably are.

Southwark cyclists are actively pushing for reduced parking and all day CPZ in ED - see https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!forum/southwarkcyclists "I've just filled in both consultations. They use Southwark's new standard format for CPZ consultations, which is a little awkward in places to fill in if you're not a resident, but definitely is not designed to exclude non-residents. You just need to: Say you are "Visitor to the area" Select "Other" as your street And skip one or two non required questions about "your street" I would encourage Southwark Cyclists to fill these in. They're quick, and we can help reduce car traffic to these areas by saying that we're in favour of the CPZ, and it operating all day Mon-Sat, instead of a more limited scheme. There's also some questions about exactly where new bike parking should be installed which some of you may be better placed to make intelligent critique of the council's choices and/or propose alternative locations. Finally, there's a question about extending the bus lane hours of operation on Lordship Lane (in the East Dulwich consultation). Obviously bus lanes aren't the best way of keeping cyclists safe, but I''d suggest nevertheless that we push for that to be extended as much as possible, as it's still some protection."

Thanks Rollflick, I am trying to marry your revelations with the following assertions made by Cllr McAsh: "Over the summer discussion about a potential consultation began on here. I made it clear in September that the CPZ consultation was not all-or-nothing and that if it were supported in one section of the area but not in others then it could be implemented in just that section. - This winter the consultation launched, and the key question asked residents if they want a CPZ on their road. It was not an all-or-nothing referendum on whether to implement a CPZ across the whole area, it was a consultation to identify whether or not there are streets which want one. - In January I pledged on here, and with the support of the leader of the Council, Cllr Peter John, that there were three potential outcomes: full implementation across the consultation area, full rejection across the consultation area, or partial implementation in just a subsection of the consultation area where there is majority support. - In April the interim reports of the consultations were released, each with a recommendation from officers for how to proceed."