first mate

And for those of us that absolutely do need a car for vital journeys where neither walking, cycling or public transport is a viable or remotely realistic option, where do residents park their cars, as you now seem to be suggesting space on side streets also needs to be given up for queuing shoppers?

Oh dear.

So will it be that central bit with a small bell tower above and the two square towers either end?

Really, what is your evidence for that suggestion? How do you distinguish between deliberate disablement and vandalism? Could it be an attempt by others to frame and discredit One dulwich, or does that seem a bit far-feteched?

Is it possible to keep two cockerels in close proximity. Won?t they fight?

Yes, agree with this, so long as not keeping people awake and clear up any rubbish afterwards seems fair enough. Lemming Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have observed these gathering also, but have > instead attempted to use some empathy and common > sense. > > Let's say, you're 23. You live in shared > accommodation with limited space, and perhaps with > no outside space. All the places you used to go to > socialise (if you could even afford it back then, > from time to time) - bars, pubs, clubs - are shut, > or make less sense than a trip to the park in > terms of safety. And let's face it - socialising > when you're younger is basically 'it'. You're > general future is looking pretty bleak. the > weather is however, for once, looking great. > > You and your friends have the organisation and > enthusiasm to carry food, a table, drinks and a > little boom box deep into a relatively unpopulated > park, where you can avoid going stir crazy but for > a few hours - by doing something relatively normal > without impinging upon anyone else's life to any > great degree - and only mildly impinging upon a > series of convoluted, senseless and ever-changing > rules unenforced by a shambolic government who > doesn't seem to know their arse from their elbow. > > > Fine by me.

Is there really a pressing need for this at the moment? roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi James, > > Has a date been set for introduction for the East > Dulwich CPZ or has the project been abandoned? > There doesn?t seem to be any work taken since > lockdown to complete the road markings or signage.

James Barber, the driving force behind change of use of hospital to school, always said the Chateau front would be saved. I agree, it would be a real shame if it was bulldozed. In terms of the much smaller, modern health centre site ( half of which is now a GP practice) does anyone know when the hospital/community health element of this will actually be operational? One would have thought that in the middle of a pandemic this service would be rather important. It seems a number of promised services are not yet up and working.

Sounds like you have got in the way of a big landowner agenda in some way. More power to you.

RedstarGreen, Perhaps Pugwash could give a steer? RedstarGreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was passing through Dawson Hill on my bike and > noticed some large sofas and various chairs that > are positioned on the grass area, no doubt this > contributed to the noisy crowds hanging around > late last night. > > Does anyone know of a number/contact at the > Council or Parks team to arrange their collection, > as this dumping of furniture is only going to > encourage people to camp out all night, adding to > an already horrible situation for local residents. > > > As a Neighbourhood watch, be really useful to > keep an eye if we see any persons brining unwanted > furniture to the park and report it straight away.

Get your local councillor involved; they should be very interested and want to help.

One wonders how fair the issue of meeting criteria is? Certainly those companies contracted to assess for PIP on behalf of DWP are seriously dodgy and deliberately skew or even lie at assessment in order to fail people. It is known that having gone through the horrendous process of PIP assessment and then being failed, a proportion of applicants will be too ?beaten? and scared to appeal. The hope is that the council is not going the same route. Sally Eva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blue badges are cancelled automatically if a > person loses entitlement to Personal Independence > Payment. The test for PIP is the ability to walk > 20m safely, reliably, repeatedly and in a > reasonable time. A reasonable time in this context > means not taking more than twice as long as a > non-disabled person. > > If your wife has lost PIP but should be entitled > to it under these rules, she should appeal or (if > she is out of time to appeal) should re-apply and > appeal any refusal. These decisions are overturned > more often than not and 70% are overturned with > assistance such as that provided by the CAB. > > Southwark will give a blue badge even if PIP is > refused, if she fulfills certain criteria. If you > feel that she fulfills the criteria but has been > wrongly refused, then you can appeal Southwark's > decision. You will need to provide evidence but > your wife's GP should be able to provide this.

Time to get a catapult!

The flatness of NL compared to UK is a major consideration and really makes comparison almost pointless. Also think people who are talking about 200km rides are showing how invested they are in cycling as a lifestyle and hobby they have chosen because they love it. This is very different from forcing people into something that feels not only alien and difficult but may also present real physical obstacles. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please please please stop using the Netherlands as > a great example. It is a great example of how > cycling can be integrated with other forms of road > use but it is also very, very different to the UK. > Fundamentally different. > > For a start Amsterdam, the biggest city has only > 800,000 people living in it and is very very > small.It is not a mega city, like London. > > The Netherlands is very very flat. So flat that > they were able to develop significant canal > networks that came with tow paths - you may have > noticed Amsterdam is famous for it's canals! Tow > paths lend themselves very nicely to cycle lanes. > > Much of the Netherlands was reclaimed in the 1920s > so is relatively new and don't rely on Victorian > infrastructure. > > Due to the flat nature of the country and tow > paths cycling has always been a big part of the > culture there. > > So please, show me a mega city that developed > significantly during Victorian times and built > along railways lines and tube lines and then I > might pay attention. But please, don't cite The > Netherlands as a comparable model to what could > happen here. It won't.

KK I agree, I am all for cycling if people are able to, but weary of the ?holier than thou? tone adopted by some dispensing their advice and wisdom on the subject. And you are absolutely right about the perceived suggestion that any car user is some kind of wilful, low level criminal, only continuing to drive a car because they are lazy and ill informed.

Pugwash, the cyclists should have dismounted and walked. Pedestrians and disabled must have priority at all times.

Actually I do think this is a useful service for those who want to cycle but are not confident.

Get a folding bike.

Ah, here we go again...the just move line. It?s is just so simple folks. And why is the council simultaneously pushing this and funding anti-car lobby groups while at the same time supporting massive and deeply unpopular planning applications that include a hike in car ownership and use? James_C Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is the entire point of these plans. Stop > driving in such a built up city ! If you want to > drive your car around then move somewhere car > friendly otherwise you're going to have to deal > with traffic. The vast majority of us do not drive > so why should such large amounts of our public > space (roads are public space) to geared towards > those who do ?

The cost in vet bills for a dog that cuts a paw on broken glass will vastly outweigh any ?50 fine for littering. The risks to children are also serious. People need to get a grip. It is not always someone else?s responsibility to do your dirty work. Take your rubbish home if the bins are full. Simple and as it should be. dontbesilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Surely it's quite simple - if you bring stuff > into > > a park, you should take it away with you, or, > if > > you're lucky, dispose of it in rubbish bins > > provided. If they are't, or they're full, then > > whatever you brought your 'not yet rubbish' in, > > can be used to take your, 'now it's rubbish' > away > > with you. At a time when public space is > > particularly vital (for those otherwise > sheltering > > in their homes) messing it up for other people > is > > unforgivable. I wonder if 'spot' ?50 or ?100 > fines > > might help sharpen minds? > > > > Enjoy public parks of course, eat or drink > there, > > of course; but only if you're prepared to treat > > them properly and with respect. > > > I have once been given a fine by some kind of > civil enforcement officer for taking a piss in a > park in Hackney. > > > The park was on route to another park that was > hosting a music festival, and there were no > provided toilets anywhere, so after a long tube > journey i found a discreet spot in a park to do my > business. Some fluro jacketed loser comes riding > up to me on a mountain bike and dishes out a > ticket- i'd have told them to do one had this > brave person not worn a body camera, and i was > carrying shall we say 'medication' to take at the > festival, so did not want the Police getting > involved. > > Hackney must be very pleased with themselves that > day as no doubt they milked plenty of people for > ?50 on account of them not being able to provide > public toilets. I wonder did these wardens dish > out fines every time a dog took a piss in that > park? > > I'd be very annoyed if Southwark or our > neighbouring boroughs started behaving in this > manner, whether its due to littering or public > urination.

I second this point and question. In light of the decision on the Alleyn?s planning application this is not a good look for a Labour council pursuing an anti pollution, green, lower car use agenda. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > An overseas property company who treated the areas > with absolute disdain when they tried to trade > mark the name Dulwich Hamlet Football in order to > stop the club using it. They've behaved so, so > badly. And yet they're allowed to put up tower > blocks on metropolitan open land. > > @James - can you clarify how many extra cars are > being added please.

Shocking decision especially when considered in context of Southwark?s oh so green Healthy Streets and anti pollution stance.

Couldn?t agree more. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suspect the residents who feel they have been > ignored by the council are pulling out all the > stops to get as much support as possible for their > group (which is not pro-car they just want a more > balanced approach to council decision making that > impact all residents in Dulwich). > > One Dulwich have been very public in their request > for people with relevant skills to offer their > services to them so I suspect they have been > deploying those skills when people volunteer their > services. > > One Dulwich are now heading up towards 1,000 > registered - the momentum is gathering pace, just > look at the map of Dulwich where people have > registered - it's pretty compelling. > https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters > > By the looks of the amount of active One Dulwich > de-positioning going on those who have had the > exclusive ear of the council for so long are > getting worried that the playing field is getting > levelled.......