peckhamboy

easytiger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anybody know about the unofficial meeting > tonight in Grove Vale? > > ETA. Thanks Admin for making this a sticky much > appreciated. Do you mean the council exhibition thing? It's at Grove Vale library, until 8pm. I'm planning to pop along.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just for perspective, I know of a global bank > moving outside zone 1 in London > > Roughly 80% of the workforce appear to view this > as a reason to leave > > Several people on 3 figure salaries expect someone > else to pick up the extra tube costs or else they > will leave for that reason alone > > I know who I have more sympathy with To be fair, if I was on a 3 figure salary, I think I'd struggle to pay for travel myself. Or rent, food, clothing...

sairah pillai - that's all very well but I don't recall seeing that as an option on the consultation so realistically how do you think "enough residents" will request it? If this comes in, it's here to stay.

James As I understand it, this is a petition AGAINST the CPZ. I'm not sure why it should need to resemble a consultation in order to have any validity? That kind of defeats the point of a petition. Or do you think that those who live (immediately) outside the proposed CPZ should be trying to carry out a consultation in order to be able to have a say on this? Because, frankly, I have found the time to write to my councillors and complete the consultation to voice my objection. If others living outisde the zone feel equally strongly that they want a CPZ, they are free to do the same but I don't believe that my 'no' vote should be ignored if they can't be bothered or don't exist - which is what you seem to suggest.

mastershake Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > I've never said that and i don't think many in > favour of the CPZ have either. What a 10-12 > exclusion would do is stop people leaving cars all > dat for the station - as the facts, and as the > experience of many, on here suggest, it is this > commuter traffic that pushes things so they're > unmanageable. Without commuter cars - and there > are a lot of them - there would be enough space > for both people shopping on LL, community workers, > and residents and visitors. > > As long as none of those people wanted to park between 10 and 12. I'm sure the community workers would have no trouble with that. The point is, the CPZ is a very blunt tool for a very complex situation. Also worth noting that, when the inevitable extension happens, it will bring in different zones, so that means when you can't park in your own street (and if you can't now, chances are you won't when the CPZ comes in) you won't be able to park in those convenient streets just outside the zone anymore. And you won't be able to park just off Lordship Lane when you're in a rush and need something from the shops. Or in fact, anywhere at all, because there's no space in your zone and you can't park in the other zones. Don't blame us if we say "told you so" in a couple of years when you come back on here to ask James Barber if the CPZ can be removed.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > But what solutions do you propose for all the > other streets apart from East Dulwich Road that > claim and the parking surveys concur have parking > pressures that you don't think should have > controleld parking? James. You may have missed my last post. I would disagree that the surveys show a number of other streets that have parking pressures. There are two streets with parking pressures, which pressure can already be alleviated by using unused space on other streets. The CPZ will not change that.

No you don't have to crush everything. But someone suggested that if you have trouble fitting everything in, crushing plastic bottles and cans can make quite a lot of difference. As far as I know the only rules are about what you can put in there in the first place. Details on Southwark website if you're not sure.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I cant find any reference to crushing on the > Southwark website. Are the Elderly expected to do > this ? Since the elderly don't tend to live in houses of 5 or more people, one bin is probably sufficient notwithstanding the uncrushed nature of their recycling. But then, I think you probably knew that already.

Train to London Bridge and then bus (48 or 149) from LB to Liverpool Street station. The bus normally takes between 15 and 20 minutes depending on traffic and time of day. Edited to add: obviously it depends where in ED you're starting from. 5imon's routes are both good alternatives, although the 40 might take longer than that in rush hour?

James Thank you for obtaining answers to previous questions. I have said it before and repeat here, that I appreciate your efforts to engage. I live in South Camberwell Ward and have written formally to my own councillors to express my views, but have not had so much as an acknowledgement from them let alone an answer to my questions. So thank you. The response that you received, and passed on via this forum, shows that, according to the council, the most appropriate figures to use are the figures showing occupancy rates at 11.00 am on a Thursday, since that would be during the hours of operation of a CPZ. That seems reasonable. The figures provided show that there are 564 "safe" spaces, including a stretch of single yellow line on Melbourne Grove which presumably accounts for 8 spaces, giving the figure you have quoted previously of 558 parking bays. They also show that 503 cars were parked in the zone at that time. In my view, having 61 empty "safe" spaces at 11.00am on a weekday within 5 minutes walk of a Zone 2 mainline station does not constitute a parking problem. That is a "problem" that an awful lot of people living in Zone 2 would give their right arm for. These figures also don't take into account the number of "unsafe" but legal spaces that will be lost to time-restricted bays, double yellows etc. That suggests the current spare capacity is probably closer to 80 or more spaces. It also doesn't take into account that roads directly adjoining the zone (including my own) are also within a 5 minute walk of the same station and provide significant additional capacity. I realise that your role is to represent all of your constituents, and you have to present both sides of the story, but I do think that it is dangerous to simply accept the council's interpretation of its results without challenge. Given that the figures above are taken from the council's own data, i would welcome your thoughts on how much of a problem there really is. In my view, which I think is borne out by the council's figures, only two roads appear to have over-capacity. Disregarding percentages, which are horribly misleading when we are talking about such low numbers, those two raods are over-subscribed to the tune of 14 cars, whilst no other road is currently over-subscribed. Is a CPZ across 11 streets, involving costs of ?60k to households within the zone (assuming full take-up), really a proportionate response? And of course, without the CPZ, those 14 cars could still park there...

James as far as I could tell from the information we were sent about the cycle works, it simply involves sticking up a few "Except cycles" signs and painting a cycle lane on the road, together with a cycle lane from Oglander to Grove Vale that cuts across the large pavement there. It's frustrating that it can't be more joined up because it means blocking the road twice but I'm not sure what they would be undoing from the present works. Have I missed something?

They seem to have built out the corners of the junction (so if you're travelling from the station end of the road, you need to swing out onto the other side of the road in order to turn), and replaced the exiting "raised table" with an identical one that is made from different coloured bricks. The whole thing seems designed to reduce traffic to a standstill.

No, it's not a permanent closure. It's all part of the massive waste of money involving narrowing Grove Vale and installing table mountain next to that junction. James Barber posted details on his thread - I'm pretty sure it was only meant to be closed for a week though...

James, please don't take it personally, and sorry if you feel this is a case of shooting the messenger - it certainly wasn't intended that way. It's more a question of wanting to ensure accuracy in the interests of a fair debate. Perhaps, like most of your constituents, you should stop taking at face value anything passed on by council officials! For the record, whilst I don't always agree with your position on things (eg the CPZ) I appreciate your engagement and availability through the forum and wish that more local councillors were as responsive and active. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blimey peckhamboy, Apologies I passed on > informaton in good faith council officials gave > me. Let me track down this information myself and > come back to you. This will take up to 7 days due > to commitments.

An hour is a period of 60 minutes. I think the OP means 48 of them (or 96 if you call on a Friday) may pass before the offending item is removed from the pavement. Thomas Micklewright Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > im confused, what do you mean 48 hours?

In fact, it's even more than that, because James has used ?2.30 instead of ?2.40 in his calculation. 2.40 x twice a week x 52 weeks a year + ?50.10 axess card = ?299.70 or ?24.98 pcm So a potential increase of ?109.70 by buying the 'discounted' card rather than a swimming only card. Another good deal for residents.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MPC? I wondered that too. I think it must be Mon Petit Chou. To be fair, there's not much space anywhere in there to put prams elsewhere but I'm sure if the staff were bothered they would have perhaps asked to put the prams out the back (unless it was raining?)

Likewise, I am waiting for answers to the following questions: 1. how many resident only parking spaces will be available in the zone after implementation? 2. how many cars belong to households within the zone? 3. what is the cost to the council (I seem to recall an earlier comment that TfL were funding this?) of (a) implementing and (b) enforcing annually? 4. what is the forecast annual income from the zone? I cannot see how an informed debate (or an informed consultation) can be had without answers to these and other questions that are being asked on here. The council's consultation question is effectively "do you want to be able to park more easily and closer to your home". Naturally the answer is likely to be yes. The proposed solution, however, does not appear to achieve this for anyone within the zone or outside the zone, but I suspect that the answers to questions 3 and 4 above may indicate why the council is pushing this. Again. Based on analysis of the "facts" provided by the council, I can't see why anyone would want this, but I suspect many will be taken in by the promises of a parking nirvana. Given the proximity of Christmas, a comparison with the electoral behaviour of turkeys seems inevitable.

Trizza, I suspect you're wasting your time. The answer is that no "safe" spaces will be lost, with the exception of a handful of loading bays etc. What you won't get is how many spaces currently used for parking will be lost to the yellow lines, "amenity improvements" (see references to building out from the pavement to plant trees) and so on. Some more interesting background here(see item 15) - I'm slightly confused by the officer's report that suggests a consultation on "the principle" of a CPZ has already been carried out. Perhaps James Barber can enlighten us? I note that the report suggests 1159 dwellings are within the CPZ and that the consulattion and implementation cost is estimated at ?80,000, with funding already allocated. For the sake of argument, if we assume that 80% of dwellings own a car, that makes 927 cars, at ?125 pa, amounting to council income of ?116k pa before taking into account pay and display income. Anyone else think we're being taken for a ride when we're told that the permit fee is just to cover costs and not to provide an income? From the initial design, it looks as if circa 20 spaces will become pay and display/shared use. At ?2.60 per hour, for 2 hours a day, 5 days a week, that's a potential additional income of ?27k pa. Elsie Rd and Tintagel Crescent both appear to be gaining 10 pay and display spaces, Derwent Grove is gaining 3 time limited spaces. In the absence of detailed information, (and therefore apologies for the 'finger in the air' figures, but if anyone can provide accurate figures I'm happy to re-work the maths) my best guess from the plans is that Elsie Rd has approx 55 parking places deemed "safe" - this is Councillor Barber's "100%" figure. Max occupancy at present is 134% (74 cars). Ave commuter/non-res is 18% (10 cars), meaning that residents' cars account for 116% of available parking spaces (64 cars) so currently 9 residents have to park on another street or in unsafe spaces (which presumably includes people parking across their own dropped kerbs). Post CPZ, 64 residents' cars will fight for 45 resident only spaces (or 142% of available parking spaces). So 19 of you will be parking on another street. Sounds like a good plan.

James Forgive me if I'm being dense, but I'm struggling to see how maximum occupancy of less than 100% is "stress". By my reckoning, that amounts to occasional or intermittent or potential future stress. But not actual stress justifying the introduction of a CPZ. For the record, I live about 20m outside the proposed zone. According to your earlier comments, I realise that means my comments carry very little weight. Given that my street is likely to be one of the worst affected under the proposals I hope that those making the final decision will not take the same view.

So, only Oxonian Street and Elsie Road have significant over-occupancy according to those stats. Funny places for commuters to park, and very weak justification for a fairly sizable CPZ to be imposed. I also note that none of these stats give any indication as to how much parking space is required for residents, and therefore cannot possibly be used to justify the claims that the CPZ would make parking easier.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- It will make it plainly clear where parking > taking place against the highway code is > definately not allowed. Hence why some streets > have seen more than 100% parking. Stopping such > inconsiderate parking is partly where the safety > argument comes from. > Presumably it would do this by adding double yellow lines where there are none at present? Thereby reducing the number of places available to residents. Without the "attraction" of banning non-residents' cars, I wonder what the reaction of people in the CPZ would be if the council were simply consulting on the double yellows? Don't get me wrong, I think there are a number of places where some double yellows would be quite useful. But let's not pretend that this is going to somehow mean that residents will magically have more parking spaces. I think it likely that 2 or 3 roads closest to the station will see an overall increase in spaces available to residents of the CPZ of maybe 2-3 spaces per street. Other streets still in the CPZ will however see an overall reduction of spaces available (since the parking pressure is not caused by commuters and the double yellows and marked bays will reduce the overall space). And guess what happens? They park in those spaces that appear near the station and hey presto - residents in those streets will complain in 6 months time that the CPZ has done nothing but made their lives a misery. How about providing some actual cold hard facts like: 1. how many resident only parking spaces will be available in the zone after implementation? 2. how many cars belong to households wihtin the zone? 3. what is the cost to the council (I seem to recall an earlier comment that TfL were funding this?) of (a) implementing and (b) enforcing annually? 4. what is the forecast annual income from the zone?

James According to my calculations, twice a week at peak times, including the cost of the Axess card, works out at ?24.98 pcm. So you're paying extra to get a discount that leaves you still paying more overall. But I agree that this probably explains why officers have changed things.

Perhaps we shouldn't all expect to be able to park right outside our houses, as well as living right next to a station in zone 2? I think a bit of realism is needed here. Parking is an issue primarily because in some streets there are more residents' cars than there are parking spaces, due to the tendency for houses to be split into flats, and the increasing prosperity of the area meaning that more dwellings have a car and indeed that more dwellings have 2 cars. In a very small number of streets this parking issue is also exacerbated by parking for shops or for the station. A CPZ would prevent parking for the station (but not for the shops unless it were an all day controlled zone, which no-one seems to support), but still does nothing to address the underlying issues. Except that you're now paying to park in someone else's street because you still can't park outside your own house. Oh, but at least you've shoved the commuters onto someone else's street, so now the parking issue affects twice as many streets but hasn't improved anywhere.

And of course, looking at the Ondine Rd statistics, it is perfectly feasible (indeed likely) that the 10% attributable to commuters - given that the 96% occupancy figure features at 7.30pm - is down to people who live on Ondine Rd and commute away from the area by car, so actually triggering a reduction in average daytime parking. But of course that's not a story that sells a money-making CPZ. Is the consultation disingenuous? Yes. Is it downright dishonest? That's a question to ask our local councillors.