Charles Martel

Of course I am biased. I am biased in favour of democracy and the rule of law. Am I wrong to think that elected councillors should follow the law? You were not at the meeting in 2019 were you? Many other people were. If any them want to dispute my account they can do so. You can read McAsh’s own account below. At the meeting a man from Southwark Cyclists stood at the front of the room waving his arms and bellowing out a rant against “walls of metal” lining the streets. He was clearly trying to use his emotional state, real or pretended, to make his point. This was extreme and out of place at a meeting where other people were using their experience, reason and logic to make their points. Other normal people spoke in favour of having a CPZ in their area, but none for his reasons or in his hysterical manner. Southwark Cyclists wrote a blog post about the CPZ prior to the meeting. https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/getting-parking-under-control-in-east-dulwich/ If you read this you will see that it is so similar to Southwark Council’s current policy it could have been paraphrased from the Southwark Cyclists website. There are fewer people in Southwark Cyclists than there are living on Landells Road, or any road in the area. Why should this totally unrepresentative pressure group be setting policy which is then dictated by the council to the rest of the entire borough? Why? Because they, like you, are useful idiots who allow Southwark council to green wash their plans to use controlled parking to raise revenue. Southwark Cyclists are part of a small, but well organised and vociferous minority who think councils should use resident parking fees as a deterrent to car ownership. One such group argue that the current cost of a parking permit is below what they consider to be the market rate. For Southwark they suggest the fee be raised to £1333. https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/26052023-central-london-councils-missing-out-on-millions-in-parking-revenue The problem with this of course is that the relevant law specifically prohibits the use of controlled parking for the raising of revenue. A point McAsh understood and clearly stated in June 2019. According to 2019 McAsh “Controlled parking should only be implemented with the consent of residents in any zone.” This is in line with what the relevant law states. 2023 McAsh seems to believe he can just put a CPZ wherever he likes and watch the fines and permit charges roll in. People who disagree should read and sign the petition. https://opposethecpz.org/2023/07/27/southwark-wide-petition/

No, that is not what happened. The meeting at the library in April 2019 happened after the council consultation had been done and the results on a road by road basis were known. Rockets is correct that the majority of people who attended this meeting were against the East Dulwich CPZ, but that was reflective of the consultation result which everyone attending was aware of. The meeting was only a shambles in that many more people attended than could fit into the venue so half had to wait outside for a second sitting. Other than that it was well conducted and as I remember it good natured. People got to have their say, from the Lordship Lane traders to Southwark Cyclists on the extreme. The councillors listened and the boundary of the CPZ was redrawn to reflect the consultation results. A point Councillor McAsh made again only last November. “In a democratic society, we all have a right to influence the world around us.” There were people at the meeting who were in favour of the CPZ, but these were mainly from the well organised campaign group based around the East Dulwich station / Melbourne Grove area where there was clearly a problem with commuter parking. I spoke to some of them at length while we were waiting outside the library and it was clear that they had problems parking their cars during the day due to non-residents parking in the area. Obviously they did not share the hysterical anti-car views of Southwark Cyclists. Unfortunately these hysterical anti-car views now seem to have become Southwark Council policy despite the fact that McAsh and the other councillors at the meeting know full well they have no support whatsoever among residents. Residents now no longer have a say in whether or not a borough wide CPZ is imposed upon them. People should read the petition opposing this and, if they agree that democracy and the rule of law should be followed, sign it. https://opposethecpz.org/2023/07/27/southwark-wide-petition/

The article is poorly written. A CPZ that comes into force after a proper consultation in an area with high traffic density like Camberwell or Walworth is obviously very different to imposing a CPZ on quiet residential areas with no parking pressure at all. That should have been clearly stated as lack of consultation is the reason that people are protesting. It is not about the general idea of a CPZ. “Up until the CPZ was introduced, it used to be really chaotic to the west of the Walworth Road,” he explained, “with lots of drivers coming in every day to park and head off to the tube station or to catch the buses on the Walworth Road. “The CPZ pretty much stopped this overnight with far fewer cars driving around the area and parking wherever they could. Having all of the bays marked out also made things far safer, especially for people who are disabled as the dropped kerbs were protected with yellow lines and were much less likely to be parked over.” Does anyone really think the situation is the same in East Dulwich? Please read the letter opposing the introduction of a borough wide CPZ. It states the legal requirement for consultation and simply requests that this be followed in all areas now as it has been before. https://opposethecpz.org/2023/07/27/southwark-wide-petition/

Do you want to live in a democracy or a dictatorship? Unfortunately it seems that the only way you can get what you want is if the rest of us have no choice in the matter. There was a proposal for a CPZ across a wide area in East Dulwich in 2019. Most residents rejected the proposal and that was respected. As recently as November 2022 writing in the SE22 magazine councillor McAsh reiterated this democratic principle. "As you may remember, the zone was conceived in response to demand from local residents and its boundaries were drawn to offer controlled parking to the highest possible number of people who wanted it, whilst imposing it on the smallest possible number of those who did not." Now, mere months later, it seems he has changed his mind. Now everyone gets a CPZ with no say in the matter, whether they want one or not. The abandoning of the previously established democratic process is clearly due to the fact that allowing people a say would give the wrong result. Now McAsh simply has to dictate how much ordinary families will have to pay him for parking their family cars outside their family homes.

The residential roads in this area were laid out in the mid 1800s, before cars or bicycles were invented. What do you think they were intended for if not for vehicles? Public roads are for public use. It just so happens that we have moved on from the type of vehicles we had in the 1800s to the ones we have now. Repeating this nonsense about "the public realm" or whatever as if people who own cars were less entitled to use use the public roads after more than a century of precedent is pointless.

Unfortunately there is a small, but well organised and vociferous minority who want councils to use resident parking fees as a deterrent to car ownership. One such group argue that the current cost of a parking permit is below what they consider to be the market rate. For Southwark they suggest the fee be raised to £1333. https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/26052023-central-london-councils-missing-out-on-millions-in-parking-revenue Southwark council's stated policy is to "force a reduction in vehicles", by which they mean our family cars, not through traffic. So expect more rises and expansion of CPZs in the future, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12027415/Labour-council-wages-war-drivers-increasing-cost-permits-368.html

It is very good to see people getting organised against these CPZ proposals. Southwark council is relying on apathy and very deceitful green washing to foist a poll tax onto people who simply own family cars parked outside their family homes on quiet residential streets. Despite the fact that the CPZ was rejected in most of East Dulwich in 2019 the council's stated aim is a borough wide CPZ, regardless of the opinion of local residents. Therefore opposing this now in Nunhead is important.

In 2019 the council proposed two CPZ areas at the same time, East Dulwich and Peckham West. Peckham West was successfully imposed, East Dulwich only partially. One key factor in the success of the resistance in East Dulwich was the grass roots campaign by the shop keepers along Lordship Lane. They had posters in their windows and collected signatures for a petition against the CPZ extending beyond the area around East Dulwich station. As the proposed CPZ area was very much larger than needed to deter commuters parking near the station the argument against it was easy to make and could be understood by most residents. Thanks to the shop keepers campaign the public meetings about the CPZ were well attended and the arguments against the CPZ were well made by articulate people. There is an obvious argument for a CPZ in areas where there are problems caused by people coming from outside the area wanting to park, however this was obviously not the case in most of East Dulwich. Is it likely that people will think it is in Nunhead? As residents will just buy permits the CPZ will do nothing to reduce resident parking. Despite the fact that 70% of Southwark is supposedly covered by CPZs already that 70% has not become the car free utopia that some seem ideologically fixated on creating. It is therefore important not to fall into the trap of car owners vs. the rest of society that the council wants to lay. All of my neighbours who cycle to work also own cars, as do most of the ones who use public transport or walk. Whereas the stated rationale given by the council for the Nunhead CPZ is to “prioritize parking for residents and their visitors” elsewhere the council publicly states that “The parking fees and charges have been set to encourage a reduction in overall vehicle numbers and a reduction in polluting vehicles.” This is despite the obvious fact that most vehicles in Southwark are through traffic which the council has no control over. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12027415/Labour-council-wages-war-drivers-increasing-cost-permits-368.html A Southwark News journo is looking to speak to Nunhead residents about the Controlled Parking Zone proposals. https://twitter.com/isabelreporter/status/1658412129790177282

Michael Palaeologus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have to agree with Foxy. It is ridiculous Sadiq > Khan demanding compulsory face masks for the > public when such masks are generally not available > to the public. > > Any such regulation would put extra pressure on > suppliers and allow opportunists to push prices up > even more. If there was a clear policy that encouraged the wearing of homemade cotton face masks it would have the opposite effect. Since most people have the materials at hand to make a perfectly adequate face mask the need for them to purchase masks would be eliminated. Obviously this would require that the information, which has been freely available online for weeks, be actually accepted and acted on by our lazy, incompetent government and their oh so clever scientific advisers. Unfortunately they seem to have used up all their brain power on thinking up excuses for the laziness and incompetence of their political masters. The rationale for using home made masks: https://masks4all.co/ Disposable: Sewn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpNmJGClKKI Effect of various materials as filters: https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/best-materials-make-diy-face-mask-virus/

Sadiq Khan says wearing face masks in London should be ?compulsory? https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/16/sadiq-khan-calls-compulsory-face-mask-12568515/

seenbeen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The death toll has jumped again- it's the builders > using public transport travelling in from poorer > areas- a lot of them are probably paid cash in > hand and will have nothing as they are not on any > system to receive aid.... This is not how COVID-19 works. It generally takes 2 - 14 days for symptoms to develop from the time you are infected. Then 7 - 10 days where you have the symptoms while your immune system fights the virus. Then you either stabilise or get worse with the development of viral pneumonia. This is the point that people are admitted to hospital where they are treated with oxygen, then if they get worse, are put onto a ventilator or ECMO machine. Therefore the period from COVID-19 infection to death can be 3 - 4 weeks. Any jump in deaths today will be reflecting a jump in infections 3 - 4 weeks ago. Today's death toll has nothing to do with anything that has happened in the last two weeks with the "lockdown" or social distancing. Today's death toll reflects the period where the government was just telling us to wash our hands. COVID-19 is a highly contagious respiratory virus spread via droplets coming from the mouth and nose of infected people. You can wash your hands as much as you like, cut your hands off even, it will not help you to avoid breathing in these droplets from your fellow passengers on the plane, bus, train or tube. You may recall Sidiq Khan telling us the tube was safe: ?No risk? of catching coronavirus on the Tube, says Sadiq Khan 3rd March 2020 https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/03/coronavirus-london-tube-sadiq-khan-12339239/ This is just one of many examples of the false information that was being put out 3 - 4 weeks ago while the people who are dying now were being infected. Nothing about our knowledge of COVID-19 has changed in this period. You were as likely to catch the virus from someone within 2m 3 - 4 weeks ago as you are now. Despite knowing that COVID-19 is a disease that causes mass death, the government, in its paternalistic wisdom, chose not to take effective measures to control either the spread of the virus into the country or to stop the spread once it had arrived. The simple maths of exponential growth showed that we needed to restrict movement weeks ago when cases were lower to have the most effect on the peak numbers. It is keeping the exponent of the exponential growth of the infected as low as possible that is the key to controlling the epidemic. https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca The UK government choose not to aggressively test, contact trace and quarantine like Korea, Hong Kong etc., so have lost control. Now our "peak" will be where Italy is now, if we are lucky. Thousands more are going to die in the next few weeks.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I need to send an important document to China and > want to make sure it gets to its intended > recipient. Anyone know what courier company I > could trust to do this? I can't remember who I > used previously but the documents in that instance > were lost. I use FedEx, booked via Interparcel.com, when shipping to China. Their service has always been reliable.

natty01295 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Make your Own Mask; > On YOUTUBE Disposable: Sewn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpNmJGClKKI Effect of various materials as filters: https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/best-materials-make-diy-face-mask-virus/

Apollo astronaut Al Worden has died at the age of 88. Worden served as command module pilot for Apollo 15 with Dave Scott and Jim Irwin. During the mission Worden became the first human to carry out a deep space walk. He logged 38 minutes in extravehicular activity outside the command module, "Endeavour."

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think as a general rule anything that raises > climate change awareness has to be a positive, > whether it's "anarchists and old farts", or rather > precocious teenagers. The gravity of the issue > outweighs any personal dislike. Extinction Rebellion is not about raising awareness. Their stated aim is to seize control of the British state and then to use state power to enforce their hysterical agenda on the rest of us. For our own good of course. Fortunately there are far more intelligent, rational and humane people concerned with dealing with the reality of how an industrial civilization can progress. I would suggest listening to this interesting podcast in which Peter Fiekowsky, the Founder and President of the Healthy Climate Alliance, discusses his ideas for reversing climate change. https://player.fm/series/reversing-climate-change/ep-39-peter-fiekowsky-founder-of-healthy-climate-alliance It is not surprising that while Greta Thunberg's hysterical theatrics at the UN were broadcast worldwide, the first Annual Global Climate Restoration Forum at the UN had no attention. See it for yourself http://webtv.un.org/search/annual-global-climate-restoration-forum/6087196359001/?term=2019-09-17&sort=date The more that you look into the issues around climate change and the very many good ideas that are being put forward as credible solutions, the less sympathy you will have with Extinction Rebellion and their aims. Economic progress is the key to slowing and stabilising the world's population as Hans Rosling explains in this TED talk. The sooner we get to grips with decarbonizing our own economy the sooner we will have the solutions to solve these problems for the rest of the world. Or we can just superglue ourselves to the roads and let the Chinese take over. As the attached graph shows the EU and US are starting to reduce emissions, but the current problem is caused by everyone's cumulative emissions since the start of industrialisation. Population growth in areas without industry like India and Africa has added very little cumulatively. They won't be a factor if we have zero carbon solutions for power generation.

Bob Buzzard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve really loved season 3 of Top Boy on Netflix - > their activities of selling food seemed quite > lucrative so I wondered if I could join one of the > local crews to sell food with them? I did go down > to Peckham and tried to fist bump some likely > looking people standing around in the market areas > and greeted them with ?Wah Gwaan?, but they just > either looked at me weirdly or told me to go away > (using an expletive). Why not try importing? Two vacancies have just opened up. Fancy a nice Caribbean cruise? 'Jesus Christ, I wasn't expecting more than four years!': Stunned British cocaine-smuggling pensioners are jailed for eight years in Portugal for trying to bring ?1m of coke into Europe on a Caribbean cruise https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7508345/British-pensioners-jailed-eight-years-Portugal-trying-smuggle-1million-drugs.html You only have to look at them really don't you.

rollflick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > [...] > > After road/congestion charging, parking controls > and charges are the most effective means to cut > motor traffic, and with it air pollution and CO2 > emissions. Over 3/4 of those surveyed in > Southwark's biggest consultation exercises > supported cutting traffic and concern about > climate change is at record levels. So the borough > has compelling grounds to take action. The mayor's > policy requires Southwark to ensure "London?s > streets will be used more efficiently and have > less traffic on them", so Southwark has adopted > policies to "Introduce a borough wide CPZ & Review > parking charges to charge most polluting vehicles > more." The time limit for challenging that is > over and any CPZ decision taken on the basis of > that policy will be robust. None of this has any relevance to a small CPZ covering a few streets around East Dulwich station. If the residents of that area are happy then good for them. However the CPZ will do precisely nothing to cut the volume of through traffic on any of the routes through this area. It really is absurd to suggest that it will when we have virtually stationary queues of traffic which we can all see every morning and evening on these routes. Southwark council cannot dictate the number of cars allowed to drive along the South Circular, the Old Kent Road or anywhere else in the borough. So instead of solving the problem, they try and use the problem to charge residents who own cars a poll tax. How can any rational person think that just giving Southwark council an extra ?125 will solve anything, much less climate change? In the 80s Southwark was declared a nuclear free zone. That did not end the Cold War. Now Southwark has declared a climate emergency. Perhaps this will have more impact, but I doubt it. > > The suggestion that parking policies are about > favouring driving residents over driving commuters > is not true and not reflected in any borough > policy. This statement is totally ridiculous. The whole argument made in the council's CPZ consultation proposal was that residents were asking for a CPZ because they wanted to be able to park their cars. This was restated by local councillors at a meeting I attended in April. Now if you are saying that what the council says is a lie and that they have a hidden agenda, then many would agree with you. > > That's not of course to say everyone will or > should agree with parking controls, at least those > who don't could suggest alternatives to cut > emissions to respect the desires of the majority > for a healthier, greener borough. No. The people who are in favour of new policies should be the ones explaining how their proposals will actually achieve their desired outcomes. How exactly does a CPZ cut through traffic? How exactly does charging residents a fee for parking their cars outside their houses cut air pollution? Why would a charge of ?125 change the behaviour of someone who can afford to keep a car on the road in any case? To cut traffic effectively we would need to introduce a national road pricing scheme, but the people running this country would regard that as too difficult. To cut CO2 emissions we need to build all the nuclear power stations we should have built in the 70s and 80s, but didn't because of superstitious idiots. All the people who were against nuclear power then should take their share of responsibility for the carbon emissions they opted for instead. With a nuclear reactor you can even make jet fuel out of sea water https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/fuel-seawater-whats-catch-180953623/#YLDSdRRsTxzzwUFH.99

binkylilyput Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?The problem with trying to weaponize female > hysteria is that female hysteria is not a very > good weapon? > Interesting that you quote that line. That was was my summation of something that was said by Roger Hallam, the co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, in an interview. It was a youtube video so I did not take notes, but reproduced the sense of what he said from memory. He uses the analogy of a husband who ignores his wife's complaints until she starts screaming at him, suggesting that the environmental movement has been too rational and now needs to become more emotional. He states that he wants people to become upset and emotionally animated, i.e. play the role of the hysterical wife.

peckman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've been to Cambodia. Please do not compare pol > pot to any climate change agenda . Whatever your > thoughts on Greta she is doing a hell lot more > than us to raise the agenda and talk about it . > Fair play Pol Pot was a fantasist before he was a genocidal. Extinction Rebellion may be cuddly, fuddy duddies, but they are still fantasists. The reality is our society depends on fossil fuels. We are phasing these out, but we are not going to just turn off 45.8% of our electricity generation capacity because some people lie down in the road and tell us that we should because they say so. We need to continue increasing renewables in our energy mix as fast as we can with nuclear. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/812626/Press_Notice_June_19.pdf What exactly has anyone learned about climate change from Greta Thunberg that they did not already know? Nothing, because she only repeats what others have already said. Still she is obviously having fun on her gap year. Good luck to her. Greta Thunberg joins hundreds of teenagers in climate protest https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7412097/Greta-Thunberg-16-given-rock-star-welcome-New-York.html Climate change, global warming, the greenhouse effect has been discussed and debated at the highest levels, nationally and internationally, for more than 30 years. Al Gore championed the issue before and after he was vice president. He wrote a best selling book, made an oscar winning documentary, staged a pop concert and helped broker the 1997?Kyoto Protocol. I think that most people would agree that Al Gore has done more to ?raise awareness? or ?raise the agenda? than Greta Thunberg has. However I had exactly the same criticism then of Al Gore's ?An Inconvenient Truth? as I have now of Greta and Extinction Rebellion. Presenting your version of the problem really well, but without a credible solution, gets you nowhere. Or even worse you get green washed so-called carbon taxes which do nothing to address the problem, but produce a very negative reaction in the general population.

Greta Thunberg's triumphant arrival in New York. The landing is about 30 minutes from the end. cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you're really not just trolling what > suggestions have you for any of these issues? No I am not trolling. Being critical of an obviously poorly thought through publicity stunt is not trolling. There are legitimate criticisms of the way that climate change is being discussed by Greta, Extinction Rebellion, George Monbiot et al. When faced with a very complex set of scientific, technical, economic and social problems I do not think " I vant you to panic" is a worthwhile thing to say. It is hysterical nonsense. Problems need solutions. Solutions that will come from people who actual work to solve the problems. Not from people who want to use the problems to push their Pol Pot year zero fantasy of a return to some kind of pre-industrial idyll.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Means to an end, doesn't matter about her flaws. > Loads of pampered middle class children marched > past my office. Middle class pampered kids. > Means to an end. Bump it up the agenda, raise the > profile. Who cares about their flaws. What end is this supposed to be a means to? Do you really want to live in the society proposed by Extinction Rebellion? Sincere though they may be they have no solution except to collapse the economy. The problem with trying to weaponize female hysteria is that female hysteria is not a very good weapon. The world needs complicated scientific and technical solutions to a vast range of problems to solve climate change. Nothing is going to come from PR stunts featuring a teenage girl and a sail boat. > Net zero is written into our statute. CCC will > bring it forward. Parties will fight general > elections over it. We will have to change. Bring > it on. Really? If you empower our politicians their only answer is green taxes. How well has that gone for Macron in France? How stupid do you have to be to believe any of our politicians can solve any real problem? Southwark council declared a climate emergency. LOL!! Southwark council cannot empty my dustbin reliably, but I am supposed to take what they say on climate change seriously? Why? What relevant expertise does anyone working for Southwark council have? > Chinese and Indians are 2nd and 6th largest > economies in the world. Improving the standard of > living is nothing to do with burning coal (by all Do your own research. Both China and India currently still rely heavily on coal for electrical generation. However because renewables are an actual solution, both countries are increasing their use, but are nowhere near being able to stop using carbon overnight just because Greta thinks it would be a good idea. > means have a pop at Germany and Poland). Sod the > anti-green wash. Sod Trump. Sod Bolsonaro Trump and Bolsonaro are both reactions to the failure of those that oppose them to provide credible alternatives. The fact that they are in power shows the danger of not having actual solutions to real problems.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can follow Greta in her boat here > Greta Thunberg?s ?zero-carbon? yacht trip won?t save ANY emissions as a crew have to fly to New York to sail it back https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9739595/greta-thunbergs-carbon-free-yacht-trip-flights/ Greta's boat is in fact a carbon fibre racing yacht which cost 3.7 million pounds to build, owned by a member of the Monaco royal family. This spoiled, pampered, hysterical European child is sailing to New York in a rich man's toy, rather than appearing by satellite or Skype, presumably to lecture the Indians and the Chinese on why they should not burn coal to give their people a basic standard of living. Somehow I think they will less interested in her views than our politicians with their agenda of green washed taxes. In reality to address the problem of decarbonising the world economy to avert climate change we will need an intellectual effort on the same scale as putting a man on the moon or building the atom bomb. Nothing is going to change because a few hysterical people think we are all going to die in 10 years, because we all won't. The Green Movement?s Pigtailed Prophet of Doom https://libertytoday.uk/2019/05/02/the-green-movements-pigtailed-prophet-of-doom/ THE MANUFACTURING OF GRETA THUNBERG http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

Decision details from the council. The new outline of the zone and the bays on individual roads are in appendix 1. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=6916

bloodoranges Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But they're free from the council?! people are > bizarre ha Unfortunately our council cares more about charging for a service than it does about providing that service. My large brown bin was taken away and no smaller replacement was provided. This is despite requesting the smaller food waste bin twice online. If others are in the same position it may be they are tempted to help themselves to their neighbour's food waste bins. If the aim of this whole scheme is to separate food and garden waste, then everybody will need to have a food waste bin, regardless of whether they were also using the garden waste collection service, paid for or not. It should have been obvious to any competent person that there needed to be a number of food waste bins equal to or greater than the existing brown bins for this to work.

eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As per the posted JPEG from Charles Martel, these > roads are included in the CPZ which is what the > original consultation results also confirmed. I'm > unsure as to why they would have changed and on > what basis.. Sorry if it was confusing. That map is a screen grab from the initial consultation results document where the streets inside the revised boundary are highlighted in yellow. The boundaries were redrawn after the councillors meeting at the end of April to only include the area north of Ashbourne Grove. I do not believe this boundary has changed. The point is that the number of parking spaces available to residents in the zone is going to be decreased by the increase in double yellow lines, particularly on Elsie Road. Even more so were Ashbourne Grove were to be included. As it is the zone is small enough that the number of cars displaced by it will be relatively small. The surrounding streets are hardly empty of cars at present anyway which obviously limits the amount of additional parking that is possible in any one place. With a large area around a small CPZ the displacement problem should be self limiting, as it is now. The CPZ proposal was made by the council on the basis of making it easier for residents to park their cars, not the abolition of resident parking. seenbeen wrote: >This is going to increase pollution around the other side of LL as people drive round and round to find a space. Almost all of the pollution in this area is from through traffic on Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Dog Kennel Hill and East Dulwich Road where you regularly see queues of stationary traffic in the morning and evening. A CPZ is going to do precisely nothing to change this. Catford has a CPZ which did nothing to prevent the pollution that is supposed to have played a role in the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah. Why? Because a CPZ does nothing to reduce through traffic and therefore nothing to reduce the pollution it creates. People are still going to drive down Dog Kennel Hill and East Dulwich Grove then turn into Melbourne Grove as a shortcut between these two main roads and, CPZ or no CPZ, they are still going to get stuck trying to pass each other.