peckhamboy

The Big Diesel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone seen all the bottles of brown lumpy > liquid that have been gathering at the bottom of > McDermott Road? I'm not saying they are connected > incidents but something is not right and I, for > one, am not happy. Not happy one bit! I think you should take some pictures and post them here...

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't think that's the case - the road markings > will make explicit what is already illegal but > currently only patchily enforced. > No - it would make illegal what is currently legal (albeit contrary to non-enforceable Highway Code guidance)

Or even at minimal cost to cover the incremental administrative costs of introducing one, rather than claiming it is not revenue-driven whilst deriving huge surpluses from CPZ fees. Other boroughs (not very far from here - like Greenwich) have CPZ fees at around ?65 or less pa. If the council's policy was to set fees at a fair (non-profit making) level, and allow residents an allocation of free visitor permits (say 30 per year) before charging for additional permits, I would be much more likely to support one - assuming, as ever, that the need for one could be demonstrated in the first place.

And a totally different CPZ

This thread is about the proposed CPZ, not the rights or wrongs of owning a car. The fact is that an awful lot of people do own a car (or in some cases more than one). Is the CPZ aimed at curbing and controlling car ownership? If so, the council should be open about that. If not, your arguments should be in the Lounge.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Only 25 years ago 40% of households had no car at > all. However, kids still got an education, > shopping still got done and people still got to > work. > > Now 65% of cars are owned by households with two > or more cars. > > There is no doubt that for some families cars are > a necessity, but these figures also tells you that > there are a huge amount of car owners who got rich > quick off the back of their property and filled > their boots remortgaging to satisfy a greed for > cars. > > There is a great deal of confusion betweenn > 'necessary' and 'convenient'. > > The forces allied against the CPZ are far more > likely to be in the convenience segment rather > than the necessity one - it's just a numbers game. Let's assume that your figures are correct, for the sake of argument. How on earth do you jump from that to a general swipe at people getting rich quick off the back of property? For someone so quick to jump on 'inaccuracies' or 'inconsistencies' in other people's arguments, your own arguments seem somewhat twisted to fit a particular political bias without any justification whatsoever.

bloonoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We just sniffed. The first bottle smelt like off > apple juice. The second bottle smelt like stale > wee. We didn't sniff the third due to the smell of > the second. My favourite post of the day. Thanks :)-D

I can think of at least four places serving better coffee than Nero in ED.

Too many people in public services have this attitude. The clue is in the word "service"...

bloonoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if that's the case then I hate to think where the > number 2s are going... Well, there are a lot of threads about how much dog mess is on our streets, but so far everyone admitting to be a dog owner swears blind that they pick up after their dog. Perhaps the mess has been wrongly identified, and the urine depositor of Crawthew Grove has also been distributing other waste products around the area?

Planning permissions can certainly help on this though - the council could impose any number of conditions on developers that would help to avoid worsening the problem, which would be a start. Such as requiring off-street parking to be provided (including dedicated car club bays perhaps, so that the wider community actually benefits), even requiring a covenant in the freehold that the owner won't own a car (although that one would be difficult to enforce). Bikes might be a partial solution but they're not perfect - not ideal for very small kids, for starters (I certainly wouldn't consider sticking an under-two on the back of a bike in London), and no use if you have heavy loads or need to travel longer distances (unless public transport is available).

jonsuissy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Making roads less attractive to cars is a start - > which brings us back to the cpz. > Just a thought. Which is fine if there is a genuinely viable alternative - it's all a bit chicken and egg. Making roads less attractive to cars won't push people onto public transport if public transport doesn't or can't meet their needs - it just pisses people off. The alternative is to make public transport work first. The upside of living in ED is that it is far less overcrowded than some parts of London because it doesn't have a tube. The downside is that the train service is much less frequent, more expensive and (at weekends at least) very unreliable. And buses are neither reliable nor quick at any time. So more people feel a need to own a car to get about. Edited to add: In fairness to James Barber, one alternative he has been promoting is the use of car clubs. They are not for everyone but may help stem the increase in cars a little. I doubt many people are selling existing cars and relying on clubs though - once you have a car you do become more dependent on it. If I didn't already own a car, however, having car club cars easily available may well persuade me not to buy.

In fairness, people have been asking for a crossing on LL for years - and the plans were publicised on here by James Barber some time ago. Crossing ED Road there is a bit of a lottery, with buses coming from all directions and cars accelerating hard from LL to slip through a small gap in oncoming traffic. Personally, I'm happy with anything that makes LL more pedestrian friendly.

Because councils quickly learnt that by restricting parking to a small number of over-stretched car parks, they can charge a fortune for legit parking and make another fortune out of fines everywhere else?

I've found the details provided by the council (through James Barber) previously re permit take-up and council income. They make for very interesting reading (and are worse than I thought). "Parking income across the borough is broken into three main streams: -permits (15%) -pay and display / car parks (21%) -PCN (64%) Permit take-up, as an average across all CPZs in Southwark, is 11%. With 1159 properties within Grove Vale area, 11% would equate to ?16,000 pa from resident permits." The council response of course states that they can't predict PCN income for the zone. Worth noting that it is 4 times as high as permit income though... The main point however is that the main reason CPZs work is that, according to the council's own figures, 89% of residents within CPZs do not buy a permit. Personally, I find that quite shocking, given that elsewhere James states that average car ownership is 56% in Southwark - higher in ED - and it shows quite dramatically how a CPZ moves a problem rather than addressing the cause. If these figures were extrapolated to ED, and 80% of cars in the zone started parking on neighbouring streets to avoid the permit charge, the whole area would be a disaster apart from a small isolated zone of calm where residents have 4 spaces to every car!

The majority of residents you claim to speak for seem to disagree with you. And you are ignoring the fact that you will be making life worse for those just outside the zone or those who would be included in your proposed larger zone (because the situation would be unchanged for them but they would be ?125 worse off). Maybe ?125 isn't much to you but for many of us that is money we would rather have in our pockets. And if you bother to read the thread before posting, you will see that a number of people have put forward ideas about why there are (limited) problems in very isolated parts of the area, and what could be done to try to address it. Fundamentally, however, the underlying problem is that in some roads the ratio of residents cars to spaces is around 1:1 menaing that the road is permanently oversubscribed. It only takes a couple of so-called "commuters" to disturb the equilibrium. And by "commuters" I mean: local shopkeepers, tradesmen, skips, residents' friends and family, people parking selfishly and blocking two spaces, people putting bins out. So you find that 2 or 3 people parking near the station from further out has a disproportionate effect on your own ability to park in your road - and seek to counter this by campaigning for controlled parking across around 1200 houses, at ?125. Which is a rather disproportionate response. fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > gsirett > > The figures quoted make no sense. Incompenent > Southwark. You should be fighting against the poor > details NOT the whole CPZ. You are fighting the > wrong fight. > > The CPZ will make life better for ME and ALL the > residents within the CPZ see the quality of life > in CPZ Chelsea Fulham Herne Hill etc etc etc > > The misinformation which is being spread is just a > disgrace.

And across Southwark, the take-up of permits is low on average. James Barber gave the figure some time ago - from memory, around 40%. Given that car ownership is around 50% (60% in ED), that leaves a lot of people who are not paying (and therefore must be increasing parking congestion on neighbouring roads). So it's not unreasonable to assume similar issues here. Adam, I don't think there is a lack of empathy here. It is more that another way of looking at it is that those who want a CPZ are effectively saying that they are prepared to pay to have their problems pushed onto someone else. Not particularly community minded either. A CPZ can not be said to address the causes, because nobody has investigated the causes. If train station parking was a big issue, I would expect the streets to be significantly more congested, and to be relatively free at weekends. I have never seen more than two or three spaces on Derwent Grove at any time of day or night, including weekends, which suggests the congestion is somewhat more permanent (ie resident demand exacerbated by some station or shop parking). Frankly, the train service from ED is hardly going to be drawing in the crowds from miles around. The other side of Grove Vale you can park within reasonable walking distance from Peckham Rye and get a significantly better choice of services instead.

garnwba - I didn't say we had parking problems now. We have no problems at all, despite a small number of train station commuters (a small price to pay for living so close to the station). If a CPZ comes in, and the parking becomes a problem, I would want the council to do something about it. My first choice would be to remove the CPZ that caused the issue. My second would be to investigate whether the issue is train commuters or displaced residents. If the problem is displaced residents, the solution is not necessarily to increase the CPZ. It might be to remove the CPZ. It might be to reduce the charge for residents permits. It might be to subsidise the charge for certain types of applicant (eg those on benefits). Of course, as now, the council will only consider one option, so what I want will be irrelevant. I'll end up with a CPZ anyway and, depending on where they draw the boundary, will either pay or park elsewhere. But ultimately, it would simply increase the chances of deciding to move out of London. One of the big attractions of ED for me was the lack of a CPZ. Having lived in one previously (where I didn't own a car but occasionally had use of one) it was an absolute nightmare. Some of which was administrative - such as having to obtain permits in person from an office only open 9-5 during the week, which might be eased by introducing more flexible ways of obtaining a residents permit. And some of which was enforcement - fines for not correctly displaying a permit because the reg number was written in pencil rather than black ink, for example, or because the scratch box was not completely scratched off even though the date underneath was entirely clear and legible.

Penguin68 - exactly. Garnwba - what you seem to be saying is that at present, people outside the zone have little or no trouble parking, and some people inside the zone do have trouble parking. And that, as a result of bringing in a CPZ, "commuters" will stop parking there and so will residents who don't want to pay - all of whom will park just outside the zone. So you will be able to park outside your house and your neighbour will park outside mine. The upshot is that one area (outside the CPZ) ends up with a parking problem that it didn't have before. Another area pays ?125 pa per car to shift their problem onto someone else. So we still have one area with a problem (to some extent), and an area with little or no problem, except that now one of those areas is paying for the privilege. So all that's changed is that you've paid the council to shift (and exacerbate) your problem. But you call the anti-CPZ campaigners selfish? As others have pointed out, the result is that the next zone asks for a CPZ and pays ?125 each to force your neighbour to park further away. Except now he decides he doesn't want to park that far away so he pays up too. And parks outside your house. We're all paying now, but the problem is back to where it started - with you not being able to park by your front door. IF the area was swamped with commuters (from out of town) for the station, a CPZ would probably work - but would have to be much bigger than a couple of streets. The locations of the streets who were marginally in favour, and the anecdotal evidence, suggests that station commuters are not the most significant problem. That's not to deny they exist - we certainly have people parking on our road to use the station - but they are not the primary cause of any issues and we don't know where they are commuting from - it is perfectly feasible that within two CPZ expansions (eg to include the roads off Lordship Lane and the roads north from Grove Vale up towards Goose Green and Peckham Rye) they would be able to get up to their old tricks again. The point is that a CPZ is a solution but nobody has demonstrated that it is a solution to the problems here. And unless that can be demonstrated (or at least a majority of people are persuaded that it has been demonstrated), the council should look at more creative and imaginative solutions - and actually figure out the causes rather than commissioning a 'finger in the air' survey that is seeking only to justify their preferred (and coincidentally lucrative) solution. (Edited to avoid confusion)

I imagine most parents wouldn't care what sort of school it was as long as it was well run, delivered good results and took some of the pressure of other schools in the area.

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > at no point have i stated the results are > irrelevant, i think they are actually very > relevant. > The consultation was just that though, a > consultation - it was not a public vote to decide > the outcome. The results show that the majority of > people asked don't like the idea of the CPZ but > this can't be taken as proof there isn't a parking > problem and a solution shouldn't be found. > > I was disappointed that there doesn't seem to be > any action point which investigates alternative > options, it seems that we are facing a A) > introduce a CPZ (of some sort) or b) do > nothing.... which if it ends up being option b) > doesn't help those of us who are facing daily > issues > > It's sad as those residents who struggle to park > have almost become irrelevant Garnwba, that is exactly what I was saying a couple of days ago (see below). Those of us against the CPZ are not saying there is no problem anywhere, just that the problems are very localised and not necessarily going to be solved by a CPZ (especially a very small one). After all, if you have the option of paying ?125 for the right (but not necessarily a guarantee) of parking in your street, or you can park round the corner for free, you may well choose the latter. The council knows that and relies on it - see earlier comments from james that "take-up" of residents' permits is around 40%. Assuming the other 60% of car drivers don't sell their cars, and that they don't all have off street parking, that must mean a significant number park on streets adjoining the zone. And guess what? Residents there find they can't park anymore and ask to be included in the CPZ - purely because the first CPZ has been introduced. Personally, my feeling is that Tintagel Crescent is a combination of shop parking, school staff parking and school drop-off. None of those should be much of an issue before 8am or after 6pm so outside of those times any pressure is likely to be simply down to there being more cars owned by residents than there is space to park them. The other issues could be resolved a number of ways - eg making it a dead-end or one way so that shop parkers are deterred, and working with the school to encourage staff and parents to lift-share/cycle/walk instead of using cars. Others have pointed out that Derwent Grove has a high proportion of converted houses, and the CPZ area as a whole has around 60% car ownership. If all houses are converted into flats, and each house has space for one car to be parked in front, you reach saturation point at 50%. Not surprising then that there is parking pressure. Obviously there are a lot of variables to that but in my view there is sufficient doubt that a CPZ would provide a solution to justify a more in-depth investigation (and something more scientific than counting cars on two days and sticking a finger in the air to guess how many are 'undesirable'). peckhamboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > So, please, before you blight the area with the > horrors of a CPZ, go back to the drawing board, do > some open-minded investigation into what the real > causes of any parking difficulties are and then > try to address those rather than just bulldozing > through a convenient cash cow that makes our lives > a misery. > > And do it before you lose all of the respect and > goodwill you have built up through the good stuff > you have done for the community here.

James - two (not three) streets said yes. And no streets bordering those ones said yes if a neighbouring street was included. And I would say there's a pretty strong (if not stronger) argument for Option 1 than any of the four you seem to have limited yourself to. It seems from your comments on here that you have convinced yourself that there is a problem and that something must be done. Have you double checked the repsonse to the question "do you have problems parking"? The majority response was "no". So it's not even black and white that there is a problem in the first place yet you're determined to "fix" it. I hope that the remaining councillors are less blinkered than you are because it is clear to me that you will be voting for something to be done even though that goes against two thirds of the responses from people who have to live with your decisions. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi first mate, > The Dulwich Community Council where I need to have > collected my thoughts and reached a conclusion is > 24 January. I'm sure I'll reach a conclusion > before then but the officers report only came out > on 23 December and its now only 5 January and I > did make it clear I was taking a break from non > urgent work for Christmas until the new year. > But as I've stated the consultation asked 22 > streets whether a majority on each of those > streets wanted to be part of a controlled parking > zone. Three of the 10 streets in East Dulwich ward > have said yes bordering ones yes if a neighbouring > street were proposed to proceed with controlled > parking. > So options 2,3,4 and 5 could be argued for but > with so many non residents of those streets > signing petitions etc saying no to any controlled > parking the decision isn't black and white for me. > Hence the lack of a snap knee jerk decision. > > Hi grisett, > I also asked you before Christmas who leaked the > officers report to you and you've completely > silent on that. > When do you think you'll answer that question?

Why? Was Grandpa Fox there as well?

According to the report, three were businesses, and discounting them would give a majority in favour of a CPZ for Melbourne. That conveniently ignores the fact that businesses are still members of the community and stakeholders in that road. If responses from businesses don't count, why include them in the consultation? Or is it just that they can be ignored if they give the 'wrong' answer? buddug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James wrote: "I believe 3 of the no's counted on > Melbourne Grove were commuters and not residents." > > > So James, I suppose the ones who voted against in > the other streets you mentioned where there was a > majority against also included commuters? Are you > saying the consultation was so lax and > unconstitutional that people walking in the > streets were asked how they'd vote? > You've gone too far now, this is shameless.

James My problem is that the consultation document also very clearly presented a large CPZ (22 streets and 1159 properties), complete with detailed plan. Your question did not ask "do you want a CPZ on your street even if no other street has one?". Neither did your question 6 ask "would you want a CPZ on your street if the next street was the only street in the area with a CPZ?". I also repeat that no street neighbouring the two streets that were marginally in favour said they would change their minds, so that question doesn't help your argument anyway. What we are left with is that from an original plan of 20 streets and 1159 properties, you want to implement a zone covering 2 streets, with the support of 27 properties. Or a zone covering a larger number of streets, against the wishes of those streets. However you spin it, that is not what was consulted on. My personal views on the proposals have always been very clear but I would have accepted the proposed CPZ or something very close to it if that had been justified by the consultation response. The proposed options are nothing like the proposal and are not justified - and can only be designed to force a CPZ onto the dissenting areas by the back door. Such a small CPZ can do nothing but push the problem onto the next streets. Please also note that the majority opposing a CPZ has in fact increased since the 2002 consultation, which resulted in the plans being shelved.