Abe_froeman

Many 6 year old diesels won't comply because they didn't have to. But these cars will now be scrapped because they have no value due to targeted road pricing. The environmental harm I'd building and scrapping a car within six years is appalling.

It will cost ?250 a year for a family diesel car if its more than about 5 years old. Presumably the council are hopeful that even more victims in the CPZs will move thier cars to non CPZ areas increasing the clamour for more paid for car parking.

Ah look, one of the Goose Green councillors was out at Easter "delivering for Sadie Khan". Unfortunate positioning of his left middle finger :)...

Can't those people just cycle to Dulwich College? Why not, what's wrong with them?

I wonder if we'll see a bit more of them now that there is an other election on the horizon? Have many local councillors been here at all to see for themselves what the impact of the measures they took during the last twelve months has beem?

For other ex-Labour voters who are also completely disillusioned by James's recent posts and the attitude of the rest of the council to this issue, Sean Bailey has promised to remove all LTNs and review them if he wins the Mayoral election in May. Holding your nose a voting Bailey in and Khan out will now be the fastest way to get rid of LTNs and make the places we live peaceful and clean again.

Isnt it actually a fact that in this borough the council run a surplus from revenue extracted from car owners? I.e. they make more money in charges from motorists than they spend on the roads?

Drain the swamp

They need that car park for selling Xmas trees

Interesting that the timed closures for Alleyn's (presumably meaning the fixed penalty traffic cameras) are now school street closures rather than "our healthy streets" / covid-19 closures

Hi James, thanks for your response on CPZs. Fingers crossed that it won't turn out to be the case that the document you refer to was accurate after all. Back on the Covid-19 road closures, I wonder what you make of the Southwark council consultation leaflets that have been published showing that the only areas being consulted are those inside the closed roads? As a reminder, these were your commitments in October: WHAT DOES SUCCESS LOOK LIKE? In my view, we need to look at the effects across the whole area but also on individual streets. The two key criteria are air pollution and traffic volume. Put simply, if these two measures are not reduced across the whole area then the scheme has failed. It is not enough to displace the traffic - we want to reduce it overall. But even if air pollution and traffic volume decrease across the board, it matters how it is distributed. I want to see a social justice approach to the analysis. No matter what we do there will inevitably be some pollution and traffic. I want this to be shared equitably: protecting schools, nurseries and hospitals above all else; and not allowing the negative effects of air pollution to fall on those least able to bear them. We have a new Leader of the Council, Cllr Kieron Williams, and this approach is already reflected in his leadership team. Instead of creating a post for ?Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?, he appointed Cllr Radha Burgess as Deputy Cabinet Member for ?Low Traffic Southwark?. The shift in emphasis is important: we want to reduce traffic across all of Southwark, not segregate ?low traffic? and ?high traffic? neighbourhoods. (To be clear, this is not the intention of LTN measures, but if they do not work properly this can be the outcome). WHAT NEXT? I have spoken to Cllr Rose and Cllr Burgess (the Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet members with responsibility for this area) to request that these measures be evaluated as soon as we can. I have further requested that the evaluation considers the following factors: - Overall levels of pollution - Overall levels of traffic - The ?social justice? implications of how pollution and traffic are distributed (i.e. who lives on the more polluted streets?).

You should tell the police about this 1) so they can fingerprint the bikes you now have and find the thieves and your own bike, and 2) so that you don't get done for handling / hawking stolen goods.

I have started a campaign for a better use for this 'square' in the event that this road closure is made permanent. It would be a much more socially just outcome to have council housing there instead of tea parties especially given the dearth of affordable homes in that part of the borough. You could maintain an emergency service and bicycle only access at the same time as building a 6 storey block of council owned social housing in that space. So I am going to lobby the council relentlessly until they build these homes.

Was very busy around Goose Green Roundabout / East Dulwich Road and all of the side roads between Lordship Lane and Barry Road this morning.

Hello James I understand that the council intend to implement a CPZ in this and all the other wards in East Dulwich, in spite of the views already expressed by the people who live here. On the basis of what you said below, will you resign if this happens? "Posted by jamesmcash 01 May, 2019 23:33 Before I was elected last year and when I was a Labour candidate, I was frequently asked about controlled parking. Whether the person questioning me was for or against I always said the same thing: a CPZ should only be implemented if local residents want it"

I think some of the smaller nurseries further afield that mop up demand from parents who are still on waiting lists when they need to go back to work post leave would be more threatened by this new business.

From that photo it looks like it must have hit at impressive speed from Lordship Lane and almost mounted the flower bed...

I think some of you are being a bit miserly here. They are using a tiny bit of road that has no utility at all for anyone else to temporarily place items they are removing from their site. There is no space for a skip there and this is the most considerate way they could do their work. They could be less considerate and just pile it against the wall each day while they wait for parking spot to come free so that they can load it into a van.

This seems awfully petty and obnoxious on the part of both the council and your neighbour and I wish you every success in your campaign to keep this shed which seems to provide you with such sanctuary.

I wonder if the Labour party have realised that they have fallen for a massive Trojan Horse gifted by the tories and they are trying to pretend they always owned this. I saw Mr Leeming on twitter complaining about Labour MPs or members criticising the Labour LTN policy . But they seem to have forgotten that the tories granted all the funding for this. It looks to me like they've given the Labour councils some rope to go and hang themselves with and Labour, remarkably, are pulling the noose ever tighter. It seems even more obvious when you look at tory councils abandoning their LTN schemes...

Yep, the cycle hangar has always been completely empty whenever I've walked past. I don't think the council can put them up to the corner because they stick out too far. So they put them about 4/5ths of a car length away so there is no room for a car at the junction side, thus taking up almost three normal spaces.

I don't think it is fly tipping at all - there are builders there every day working on the building next to it. Presumably it is impossible to place a skip there because of the empty cycle hangar taking up three parking spaces in the road.

It's shameful. I don't see how a festival there in the middle of the road can pass a health and safety review either, with hundreds of cyclists passing through that junction every hour. Unless they are actually going to close the road? The MAMILs will hate that. They already get very angry about anyone who says the roads are closed now (ROAD OPEN signs etc...)

I?m against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods because they cause me inconvenience. They cause me inconvenience because it takes much longer to cross the road on Lordship Lane and wait for the bus into town which is delayed, and makes me late, and the pollution the LTNs cause where I live is annoying and inconvenient. They encourage people to drive down my side street because it?s quicker than waiting in the now endless queues on Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove.

That's very odd Sally because the sign in the photograph says "NO THORUGH ROUTE AHEAD". If it's wrong it should come down. It's not the only sign round here that is erroneous if so.