bels123

MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bels123, > how do you prevent those paid bays being blocked > by an all day parker paying by phone, or any > resident permit holder? Valid concerns, great points to include in the consultation - maybe request paid only bays near this business. Looking at the plans these spaces are at the very end of the road, not likely to be prime resident spots. In relation to spaces being blocked by parkers phoning to pay for the two hours, I?ve raised this concern to Southwark and was reassured by their response - ?we have found that there are no problems with the systematic abuse of the Pay by Phone system to park within the HH controlled parking zone, nor in the P zone (North Dulwich and Denmark Hill).? This is consistent with what a Dulwich Village councillor said at a recent meeting discussing a CPZ in Dulwich Village (both residents & businesses complain about commuters blocking spaces there). She said they had looked at the data and saw no evidence of it happening.

Deadline extended one week to 7 Feb due to postal delays

This is inaccurate I?m afraid - the consultation includes options for respondents to choose. The options are all day (eg 8.30am-6.30pm), two hours during the day (eg 11am-1pm), part day (eg 10am-2pm) or other (please specify). Worth noting nearby CPZs are two hours long. Parking would be free outside of the controlled hours and the nearest st parking outside of the zone would be 5 mins walk on Goodrich Road after crossing Barry Rd. I can see shared use parking bays within a short walk of no.277 however, on Jenning Road and Thompson Rd, where users get the first half hour free and can extend for ?2.75 an hour if needing to park within the operating hours of the zone. I would suggest feeding back your concerns re patient mobility, perhaps the council would put paid bays closer/more of them.

TheCropolite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Get rid of your cars, pick up a bike, a scooter, a > broomstick, whatever. There are also plenty of > buses to get around ED (if you hadn?t noticed > already). > > There is absolutely 0 yes zero reason to use a car > in this area. Stop polluting our air and killing > our children enough is enough. > > If you can?t drive your 4x4 to buy a coffee, or > pick up some organic free range milk from M&S, or > drive little Theodore to school then > boo-bloody-hoo. > > If we continue making these endlessly pointless > car trips we are hurtling towards an unavoidable > and inevitable carmaggedon. Well said, couldn?t agree more. Unfortunately we?re all caught up with our busy busy lives trying to cram in as much as possible and the car is currently an easy first choice for those who aren?t aware of the impacts of air pollution. Research released at the end of 2018 shows that for children, living in an area with NO2 above 40.7ugm3 is equivalent to a reduction in lung volume of 5%. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30202-0/fulltext Much worse levels have been recorded than this in East Dulwich! If a CPZ makes drivers think twice about using their cars for short journeys and reduces the amount of cars circling trying find the last remaining space that?s worth paying ?125 (?2.40 equiv per week) for our children to breath less toxic air.

tommyboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Any idea why Townley Road isn?t included in the > proposed CPZ plans? The traffic, including school > buses during term times is terrible and vehicles > are often parked on double yellow lines. Have also > seen vehicles parked across driveways on this and > Dovercourt Road. Dulwich Village are starting early discussions re CPZ so I?m guessing it makes sense for Townley Rd to be included within that one. East Dulwich consultation mainly follows the Goose Green ward boundary I think.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?125 cost has been frozen for years and it last 10 > years has gone up a total of ?5 > > I am going to sound harsh too and say that if you > can afford to run, maintain and unsure 3 cars in > london, theb you should be able to find an extra > ?125 each. And the families with 3 cars in one household must be few and far between.

kford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Herne Hill is Lambeth. Southwark's LL's 'could' be > a full-day system. Your Melbourne Grove driver > will still be able to pop to the Lane and park, > BTW, as their permit will be for the whole area. > As will everyone. Fair points but that?s assuming the one area being consulted on in the ?East Dulwich parking study and healthier streets? consultation would all result in one same zone, not necessarily. Cllr James McAsh has previously stated it won?t necessarily be the whole zone implemented, but it?s all being consulted on and the roads where there is demand will be considered. Herne Hill is both Lambeth and Southwark btw. Yes it could end up being full-day but only if that?s what the majority want.

Scare tactics and interesting first posts dulwichresident01. If a zone was to be implemented around Lordship Lane, it could end up being just a 2hr restriction like Herne Hill?s. Talking to a cafe owner there today she said it?s had no impact. Only 22% come to Lordship Lane by car, 90% of those are local so a big opportunity for many to switch to walking and potentially spend more ?s. Those that truly can?t could instead come outside of the restricted hours eg not 12-2pm or simply pay. Saw someone I know getting into her car on Lordship Lane recently, lives on Melbourne Grove and I?m sure there are many other locals who park up to get the shops quickly on the way back from a longer trip - it doesn?t mean they won?t continue to shop or go elsewhere, just that they plan ahead a bit more effectively to walk. The price of the current ?convenience? is illegally polluted air. Lots of change is needed when you read reports like this https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/09/toxic-fumes-children-health-air-pollution-emissions?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other. Our local schools are having to put up green screens, air filtration systems in classrooms and run no-idling action days to try and mitigate against the toxic air.

Businesses need not fear parking restrictions - they currently exist along a lot of Lordship Lane where customers can park for free for upto 30 mins. Recent evidence shows shoppers who travel by more active methods (eg walk or cycle) actually spend more. ?The study found that people walking, cycling and using public transport spend the most in their local shops, spending 40 per cent more each month than car drivers.? https://road.cc/content/news/251992-more-shoppers-more-shops-tfl-stats-show-benefits-designing-streets-around In Southwark?s 2015 high street study on Lordship Lane 22% travelled by car (with the exception of the Walworth Rd the highest % across the borough) yet 90% considered themselves to be local. ?The picture is one of a local population using the centre because it is convenient and easy to access, but with rather more than expected choosing to use a car to get there and back.? With the illegal levels of air pollution in the area I?m pleased the council is taking action which will encourage people to consider walking instead of driving.

Thanks for raising and pursuing pinkladybird. Whilst it might be tempting to have an open fire or another log on the wood burner at this time of year, unfortunately it?s significantly contributing to the poor air quality locally. ?Domestic wood burning is the largest single source of PM2.5. According to one analysis of government data, it produces more than twice as much as all road traffic. While concerns about diesel vehicles focus largely on the nitrogen dioxide they produce, the evidence tying particulates to death and disease is even more powerful.? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/22/wood-diesel-indoor-stoves-cities-pollution

.

.

Passiflora Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just wondering what was wrong with the original > Grove Vale library? High rent costs. No public toilet.

Think it's reduced it by just 2 spaces, 1 each side. I've been told that this is to allow a fire engine to be able to turn into the new entrance, so essential. I don't know, but assume the council doesn't have to consult for those kind of safety changes.

.

.

I notice they?re on Twitter, a complaint there might draw it to the owners attention

Discount? Each household can get max of 3 permits but only for cars registered to that property with DVLA. Only discounts I can see are for disabled badges, motorbikes and electric vehicles.

Pretty sure this is a private road and the cars have always parked outside the properties the owners live in. The road has been significantly narrowed at the corner, used to be much wider and now the lorries are having issues. Seem to remember the plans showed space for disabled parking further up the road - no surprises they haven?t been able to squeeze this in.

In case you've missed the lamppost poster, please see below link to consultation on the planning website. Location is the garden behind 68 East Dulwich Grove (corner of Melbourne Grove northern section). Consultation end 25th October. Worth noting the site already has permission granted for a smaller 2 bed property. https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9578377

Call Southwark?s noise team, they work til 2.30am and should be able to send someone https://www.southwark.gov.uk/noise-and-antisocial-behaviour/how-to-report-a-noise-problem

.

I?ll ask James about the lorry control scheme on the councillor thread

Brilliant. Thank you

Please report to 101, any intel you can provide helps the Police do their job.