peterstorm1985

peckhamboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only advantage > for residents within the zone therefore is that it > forces those who can't or won't find the money for > a permit to park outside the zone, freeing up > spaces for those who can and will. > > And that, in a nutshell, is why I am so opposed to > this particular CPZ. Me too. I thought James Barber was against individuals being able to 'buy' a personal space to the detriment of others but the CPZ as proposed (in any of its forms) will do exactly that.

UPVC windows are a quick way to tell a potential purchaser that you've cut corners with building maintenance (they always look cheap). fazer71 is making a lot of sense

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > If Southwark were to allow partial notices it > would be legally required to ensure balance. > Mmmm, not a lot of balance in the documentation advising of the proposed CPZ though was there.

I think there may be a few unemployed who could suggest more appropriate ways of using the money - bonuses are something you give out when times are good

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And finally the new waste collections regime. I > doubt that's making it worse as either a blue > wheelie bin that gets tipped into the rubbish > truck of a blue box/bag that gets empties. The old > process of hand picking in theory should have been > more prone to breakages. Unfortunately they don't always tip the bins into the truck. As has happened for some time with the green bins*, they now look into all of them and if there isn't very much they pull it out by hand and put it into another bin which is tipped on the truck. By doing this they can keep the truck moving faster. Unfortunately they find it harder to reach into the blue bins than the boxes and bottles sometimes get caught up with papers which means they're more likely to get dropped, leading to more glass. *Because we live on a street just off Lordship Lane we get passers by using our bins on the way home at night so there are always loose items in our green bin which remain in there for weeks on end as the binmen never empty our bin by tipping - they always just pull out the bags.

Senor Chevalier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting thought about equalizing the impact of > parking - setting the tariff at a low enough rate > (or free) should ensure that the displaced cars > were those of people who do not reside in the > streets where the CPZ was brought in. That would > be a more interesting experiment. The simplest way of proving whether the parking problem around ED station is a matter of too many residents having cars (which is my interpretation of the stats) or of commuters (which is the perception of some residents) would be to introduce the CPZ with free permits for residents and immediately adjacent businesses. I would have no objection to this idea at all as it would not discriminate against those who cannot afford it. Then, once that argument was settled, a very different discussion could be had. What a shame that Southwark would not entertain such an idea for a trial period.

peckhamboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. If you look at gm99's post above you'll see that they are indeed open about it.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > If people can?t afford it they that?s tough, it > shouldn?t impact those who can! > Nice! Good sense of community spirit.

I think that's just a lazy fox using the box as a jumping off point. Most of them can easily scale a 6ft+ fence if they put their minds to it. The only fences they have trouble with are solid metal ones - they need some sort of grip.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks to genius of some of the last few posts. > I?ve decided to completely change my life. > I?m selling my car and I?m going to move closer to > where I work. > I work in different places every few months so > it?s going to cost me a few quid in agents fees > and stamp duty every 6 to 12 months but it?ll be > worth it for the environment and will help my > neighbours as they won?t have to put up with me > having a car so freeing up parking for people who > want to use the station near my home and the > people who work locally. > Yes the thanks to those posts on this thread which > show the ideal solution I just didn?t see it > before. > Some of you may think this crazy but just look at > the logic it?s a no brainer. > It will benefit many who don?t live anywhere near > me. > > Pure Genius. fazer71 - if you move your work on such a regular basis and always use the car, why do you live where you do in ED? If you look around there are plenty of streets in ED that have ample parking at all times of day, so you'd only need to move once to get a certain parking space. And, if you moved away from the station you'd find the reduction in house prices would allow you to have a house with off street parking.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is somewhat ironic that a community should be > willing to protect a minority working unsociable > hours when its convenient to them, but not to > support a minority of families and elderly people > who need to park close to their houses when it's > inconvenient ;-) > > Double standards that perhaps reveal a more > selfish motivation? I really don't understand where you get this from Huguenot. Some of those 'families and elderly people' are of reduced means so a CPZ that they cannot afford to pay for would force them to park a much greater distance away from their house making it much more inconvenient than it is at present. A CPZ makes it most convenient for those with the most money and, more importantly, it only has a temporary benefit (for reasons I'm too bored to repeat yet again) so there is a wish to save a fool from being parted from his money. I don't see a double standard. (But, as I have already said, I have off-street parking so this won't affect me - I just don't like to see the potential suffering that will be created for a much greater number than will have a net gain)

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > 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. Not convinced of this Huguenot. Those who work unsociable hours (or those who carry tools to work) - where there may be a real need as public transport is not available/suitable - are most likely to be in the lower income brackets. To them a CPZ just means another bill that they can do without. If there is no CPZ, the pressure of too many cars for the spaces will be most likely to make car ownership less appealing to those who don't actually need a car. There is a natural balance to be achieved. A CPZ may reduce the parking pressure for a short term but availability of spaces will only encourage more of those who 'want' rather than 'need' a car to go out and buy one.

The legislation allows local authorities to vary the rules to suit local requirements. There have been some long threads on the forum previously but if you're not familiar with the legislation in full (more than just a measurement in one direction) you're likely to end up more confused than less so. Probably best to sketch out on paper (words and pictures) what it is that you actually want to do then ring up the planning department and have a chat with someone. They are very amenable.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a motoring forum I think pistonheads there was > a thread about VED / Road Tax > > Someone posted "It's about time Top Gear told > everyone there's been no Road Tax since the 30's" > Reply was "nobody believes what's said on Top Gear > except that Hammond bleached his teeth" > > We brits are treated like mushrooms, especially by > the politicians and the press. I guess they don't think to tell us anymore because the news was out in the 1930s. (Is anyone in any doubt that the Great war is over?) I've never thought that stamp duty on houses paid for new houses to be built so why would road tax be anything more than another tax?

Cow parsley (Cowslips are primrose type flowers - wrong time of year) does have an odd smell - some like it, some don't.

jonsuissy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm with fazer71 on this one. > We need to build a better world. Build a future > for our kids, grandkids etc where they can have a > world free from pollution. > Lets get everyone onto their bikes or walking - > anything sustainable for the kids. > As fazer71 implies, all we need some imagination. > Lets do it, lets build that world. > You and me fazer71, we can do it! Perhaps instead of a CPZ we could rip up all the road surfaces of the streets near the station and turn it into an urban forest with a cycle track running through.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's more likely to be a reflection of the > builder's current workload. > Totally agree. Don't forget that a builder who's desperate for work may cut prices a little too close to the bone in the hope of getting the work. If he then gets something more lucrative you could find your job sidelined so be wary of the lowest quote.

fredricketts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is from a Politian mouth: ?The predictions > for east Dulwich are an extra 6,000 people on top > of the current 33,000. God knows where they'll all > go. Also all the political parties are avoiding > the population problem of a predicted extra 1 > million people living in London within the next 10 > years needing an extra 500,000 homes. This > prediction is mostly from immigration of other > Europeans. Actually Fred, if you look around you, you'll see that East Dulwich residents are doing an awful lot of breeding, and have been doing so for some time, which may explain a lot of the increase. Add to that the excellent medical facilities in the area and a reluctance of the older generation to retire to the seaside (as they might once have done) and it's going to get ever so crowded round here even if not one 'immigrant' moves here.

bil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I on the other hand have become obsessed by mine. > So much so that I now turn my kitchen lights on > when absolutely necessary e.g. when I am cooking > or washing up(4x halogen bulbs) or use the light > from the next room to allow me to see! I can do > quite a bit in the dark! It would be interesting to know if there are any statistics on accidents in the home for those with the meters and those without.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > To my eternal shame, I've had mine sitting on a > shelf since Dennis came, and haven't even checked > out any readings yet :-$ > > Sorry Dennis, but in my defence I do try to turn > lights and stuff off when they're not in use :-$ We got one of these meters and had great fun for the first few days - proving that everything we know uses lots of power really does. The trouble is it doesn't actually make anything use less power so once you're got over the novelty it's a bit redundant, at which point you wonder how much energy it cost to produce and how much landfill will be taken up with all these bits of plastic. It might be better if they just let you have it for a few days - to realise how much those spotlights are really costing you - and then pass it on to someone else.

Journalist, Private Investigator on a divorce case; lots of options. Or it could be a homeless person who has found a place to crash but doesn't want to mess that up.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I have racked my brain for years about the amounts > I have been charged and the reaction I?ve had from > the council surveyor?s contractors and workmen > regarding the quality of the work and the > necessity and my discussions and experiences with > them have led me to the conclusion than something > untoward is going on. > I can see no other explanation. > 'Led me to the conclusion' isn't the same as 'know'. Do you have up to date knowledge of the normal costs of construction/maintenance work and framework contracts? There may be widespread incompetence within the Southwark Housing department but that's not the same as fraud. I don't know what the churn of employees is in that department but it's probably high; not the first place anyone competent would choose to work (the work must be pretty repetitive) so any experience gained by individual staff is not a lesson learnt as they leave before it can do any good. You say that you don't have time to investigate, and have no proof, but if anyone can provide the proof it would be you. For there to be any chance of an investigation it needs evidence. I do hope that you have kept a file of all the relevant documents that you have received (and additional supporting documents that I hope you've asked for), with records of dates worked and photographs of incomplete or bad workmanship. If you haven't done so up until now then do try and start. Without that no one will ever be able to investigate and prove one way or other if there is a criminal matter.

I wouldn't expect Southwark to be able to 'give' away the freeholds because of the potential for ongoing liability, and the precedent it sets, but why can't they sell them for a nominal amount, eg ?1, where there is a clear economic benefit to the council to get rid of them for next to nothing. If there is a business case, and there are leaseholders prepared to purchase, surely there must be a means to achieve it.

Why wouldn't they want a free school Mr Barber? I would have thought that would suit the Waitrose hopefuls down to the ground.

paulc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > In outline it says "we want to see a GP service > with extras remain on site. We also believe that > if the latest primary schools forecasts are right > that we need another Primary School and this could > provide the necessary site. Oh God, a primary school. I'm thinking school run and impact on local parking. They'll be needing a CPZ if that happens...... Whereas old people often give up the car when they get a free bus pass, so my vote's for a retirement home.