peterstorm1985

There doesn't seem to be enough of a gap between the number of spaces and number of resident permits (with the addition of business permits) to give any increased likelihood of a space in the street of choice. It would be interesting to have the DVLA* figures of resident vehicles compared to available spaces on a street by street basis. *I'm assuming that the DVLA figures are lower than recorded vehicles at 6am as they won't include any company owned fleet cars not registered to private addresses (typically vehicles with company logos).

Since the new recycling scheme was introduced we have noticed a certain amount of bin rage. The bins are all lined up just inside our gate but when the first team comes along and empties one bin, they shove it back through the gate but don't return it to its permanent location. This then blocks the access for the second bin (and the postman). The second crew then bash everything about in annoyance. Previously, they just used to leave all the bins on the pavement, which we would return later, but perhaps they've been told not to do that anymore.

It's such a shame that the survey doesn't include certainty of those commuters/non-residents. I'm guessing they didn't check all the registrations with the DVLA. Somewhere in this thread it was suggested that assumptions were made on the basis of when the cars arrived and left. I wonder if there are any night-shift workers living down by the station? Perhaps doctors, nurses, firemen, youth workers, care-workers. I do just hope that none of them used their car on the night before those surveys and came home after 6 in the morning, and perhaps handed over the keys for their other half to use during the day. It would be so ironic if some of the 'commuters' turned out to be residents all along.

Penguin68, you've just jogged my brain into a bit of realisation. There are a number of homes near me that have had the proverbial loft extension. In a number of cases that extension is now home to an adult child, with or without partner. Living in the same house as parents allows car ownership to become much more affordable (insurance costs can be dramatically reduced by having a much older named driver added to the policy as it is seen to dilute the risk), and the reduction/removal of renting costs makes such luxuries more attainable. All of this is leading me to think that the residents of Derwent Grove should be trying to negotiate with those neighbours, who don't use their cars during the week, to get them to park further away. I suspect that some, faced with the prospect of having to pay ?125 per year for the privilege of parking the other side of Lordship Lane, may be persuaded that if they did so by their own volition, the whole thing could be avoided.

Damian H Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let me ask you a question, Otta. If you owned a > cafe wich made its greatest revenues during the > lunch hour by serving the local community and you > saw about thirty per cent of your capacity taken > up during that time by two mothers stretching out > a long lunch while their toddlers sat eating tiny > portions, and you watched other potential paying > customers walking out the door because they > couldnt get a seat, how would you feel? I believe you mentioned earlier that the problem was of pushchairs taking up space. If the cafe owner considered this a problem he/she could just put up a notice saying "No pushchairs in cafe between 12 and 2 without express permission", or something similar. They don't have to suffer it as perhaps someone in charge of a publicly funded enterprise might. So, if the owner's happy, why worry about it? Anyone being turned away just has to accept that the owner prefers someone else's custom to theirs.

BB100 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If a child is screaming in Sainsbury's I just go > up to them and ask them what the matter is. It > guarantees perfect silence and usually a very > brief chat with a parent relieved that someone is > being sympathetic. I've tried this a few times. Along the lines of "Oi, what's that noise?" When it works the thanks come tumbling out from the distressed parent. When it doesn't, you get some very odd looks and a few people tapping in 999 on their phone. Not sure I'd advise it.

sairahpillai Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also it may well be several residents > dont need their cars in the weekday so dont need a > permit. So where will they put their car without a permit? In the adjacent streets of course, which works brilliantly for those in the proposed CPZ, until....... the zone gets extended because the problem in the adjacent streets has gone from simply bad to acute and those non-permit holders resident in the original CPZ area decide it's just too far to leave their cars outside the new zone, and so admit defeat and pay for a permit, taking their cars back to the area around the station. A quick look at the map of the proposed CPZ shows the particularly limited options for where non-permit holders will park their cars in the future. Many of the streets that are in what Southwark probably already views as the second phase of the CPZ (where many commuters already park), connect with Lordship Lane. These streets have high levels of shoppers and delivery vans parking during the day but, also, all the cars of the shop workers and small businesses that cannot park in LL due to the restricted parking introduced some years ago. This creates a barrier to the dispersal of additional cars caused by those who don't want to pay for a permit in the proposed CPZ. Neverthless, I don't blame Mr Barber for his championing of the CPZ (if that's what he's perceived to be doing). Southwark want to make the residential streets safer (which does of course mean reducing available parking spaces) but don't want to plunder restricted budgets to do so. It costs money to put double yellow lines at the ends of every road but, without them, selfish drivers park across the corner drop-kerb that allows pedestrians, particularly those with buggies and wheelchair users, to get from one pavement to the next in a safe manner. The CPZ provides a perfect opportunity to make car drivers pay for enhancements. It's just such a shame that the benefits of the CPZ may only be short term, and for only a small group of the community, when ultimately so many of us will end up paying for it.

Damian H Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >..... some of us have bigger > brains that produce ideas and opinions that can't > fit on the back of a postage stamp. But not big enough to realise just how easy you were to wind up - which is just too tempting for some....

There's been a thread in the Lounge on this. Halloween is on Monday. Any kids going out early (or knocking on a door without a pumpkin in the window) will be disappointed by the sound of it.

I think JB's summation is fair as the actual outcome is uncertain. The critical factor will be how many residents choose not to pay and move their cars somewhere else. This hasn't been assessed to date. If sufficient residents are on low incomes ("residents lifestyle") such that they can't pay, and so simply move their cars to adjacent streets, the remainder, wealthier, residents should find that it works very well. Social apartheid at its very best. Of course, there will be some who initially choose not to pay but then later sign up (after a few weeks of wet weather perhaps). This could lead to an impression that the CPZ was a success but that car ownership had then increased. I'd love to see Southwark use that in their stats.

prickle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Also someone talked about in-coming commuters - a > lot of people working in the Grove Vale shops park > on Elsie - Rupert from the music shop, the man > from the takeaway amongst others. Ah, don't worry about them. I'm sure Rupert and the man from the Takeway shop won't be able to afford the business parking permit rate so you'll save a couple of spaces there. Great to see the life and blood of the community being treated so well by Southwark.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't understand why everyone is bluring what is > a simple decision for residents. Do they mind the > current parking stress. If they do are they > willing to pay the price for controlled parking - > heavy version or 2 hour lite version. > Mm, excuse me but could everyone just look at those really helpful numbers that Mr Barber kindly provided in the second of his attached files. In particular, the numbers that say that max occupancy in Elsie Road was 134% and max commuter/non-resident was 18%. So, when they have a CPZ there should be 18% more spaces due to lack of commuters etc but 34% less spaces due to clearer certainty of what is/is not a legal space. That means that some of the cars defined as residents will have to move to another street (and how will that affect the figures in that street?). Not quite what you might hope when you pay your ?125 per year.

Take a walk around those streets where there is substantial off-road parking and you will see cars parked on gaps between the drop kerbs that aren't a full car length. When the CPZ is introduced those gaps will be clearly off limits. They may be 'illegal' spaces at present but a blind eye and drivers' ignorance means there are more available spaces. No blind eyes and double yellow lines and where will those cars go? I would be very interested to see the figures for those streets with more than 100% parking and the potential change. I don't want to see that a street is reported as having a potential 95% (say) post CPZ availability - such that it looks as if there is only a 5% reduction - when the truth is that it currently takes 110% so the reduction is significantly greater in real terms.

atria Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I live on Derwent Grove and FULLY support this > long overdue CPZ proposal. I have completed my > support of the survey along with several other > residents on Derwent Grove. The reasons are that > from Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm it is impossible > to park on our road. This is due to commuter > parking for East Dulwich station and the situation > is untenable. My wife will often have to double > park to unload shopping or circle streets for up > to 20 minutes or more for a space. My parents no > longer visit their grandchildren during week as no > space available to transfer my dad who cannot walk > far. A two hour limit to address commuter parking > during Monday to Friday is all that is required. > This will solve problem for those with younger > families or based at home during week. If you > commute by train Monday to Friday I suspect not a > problem but do appreciate others when considering > proposal. What I don't understand about this is that if you have a young family at home and your car is at home for them then, unless you move your car at the time that commuters are arriving, you should leave a space that in theory you could come back to. Obviously, someone else must be filling the space while you are out. So, the question is who and how many of them are there? I have this suspicion that if the CPZ goes ahead, any residents using their car during the day will need to time their return from any trips out to be exactly in the 2 hour 'no-parking without a permit' time. That may not be as convenient as you may hope. And then the ?125 per year you pay (+visitors permits) won't seem such a bargain.

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but a good thing is you will cut down on your > external decorating costs. ;-) Mmmm, is that because there is no point polishing a *urd. If you want double glazing, for goodness sake make sure that it's hardwood timber framed, otherwise you could knock ?40K+ off the value of the typical ED Victorian semi.

James Barber Wrote: ----------------------------------------------------- > > One of unhappy consequences if it proceeds is > likely to be a few more front gardens being turned > over to car parking. Good point James. Financially, for anyone unfortunate enough to end up in a CPZ this would by far be the cheapest solution in the long term ,and it adds to the house value. But, guess what? It means that anyone who installs off road parking but who normally drives to work - thereby leaving a space for others to use, will then be leaving a double yellow line that no one else can park across - even less spaces for the CPZ paying residents. (You still didn't say if you mentioned the costs when you did your straw poll in Melbourne Grove etc)

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Perhaps not a representative sample - people in on > a Saturday afternoon. Melbourne Grove (1-63, > 2-44)and Derwent Grove overwhelmingly in favour. > Elsie Road 50:50. Grove vale in favour. > Did you fully explain how much they would have to pay for the CPZ?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > residents being asked whether they agree with the > 40+ who have complained and asked for this. Just out of interest James, are you able to elaborate on exactly what the 40 people said, ie was it 'please, please can you do something about the parking problem' or was it, 'Dear Southwark, I would love to hand over a huge chunk of cash in the vague hope that my chances of parking outside my house might improve by a minimum percentage'? Thanks

Jaws Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > maybe put your dog a lead as not > all are dog lovers - I am as I have a dog, but > there are some that get quite scared and I would > definately not like my child around a dog that is > off the lead and that I don't know...this would > also help with people feeling that they could pop > over to chat rather than being put off/a tad > scared because of a dog. I'd echo this; even the most lovable of dogs - actual as well as perceived - can be a worry for the very young and the very old/infirm. Delightful as they are, dogs off leads can jump up and even that (white middle class?) labrador can knock you off your feet and cause real damage if you're not fit enough to fend it off. Your dog may not do that, but only your family/friends will know that for certain, so it can be upsetting for some to come across an unleashed dog in the street.

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RIS2011 - getting signatures from roads near the > CPZ makes sense, but seriously gowlett, Keston.... > i mean why don't you drum up some opinions in > Nunhead, Forest Hill area as well. Once we have a CPZ in the roads proposed it will massively increase pressure on the adjacent roads to the point that some - or enough for Southwark to leap at the opportunity - are persuaded, and then it will be rolled out across the whole of ED, so asking people in Nunhead and Forest Hill may become relevant sooner than you think.

That's shocking. If nothing else you should be compensated for the damage caused to your property - the plants. Put in a claim for damage (I'm assuming that you were allowed to plant them). But the issue of planning permission is significant - there should have been an opportunity for your landlady to object prior to the works being done. You should be able to look up the grant of permission on Southwark's website and see if they claim to have notified neighbours.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "The poor just ate cheaper cuts of meat, or ate > less meat. And they were healthier for it too" > > I'd like to see some evidence for that - life > expectancy has never been higher in the UK, and is > substantially higher than in countries with > significantly lower incomes. Some of that is due > to advances in medical science, but not all. The > truth is that until a couple of generations ago > the genuinely poor often went hungry. Post (2nd World) war Britain relied heavily on fats (mostly saturated) for calorific intake but the lifestyle compensated - ie highly active. Food culture slowly moved away from fats alongside a decrease in domestic drudgery (exercise) and manual labour employment. There was a heart stopping (literally) period in the 70/80s - depicted on health campaigns of the day - when the lack of exercise preceded changes in diet. But we now have the case that large swathes of society are getting even less exercise but eating a much higher percentage fat content than their post war counterparts. Some of that comes from fat laden meat eg quick grown chickens, but more perhaps in the oil laden batter that so often surrounds it. Obesity kills in so many ways, more than irregular hunger, but perhaps it's perceived as a more pleasant way to die. I would suggest that better sanitation and general living standards (eg Decent homes) have contributed as much as medical advances to increased life expectancy, particularly amongst the poorest. For detail of life expectancy elsewhere Life line

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > peterstorm1985 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > When I was a child most households ate a > fraction > > of the meat that they do today > > xxxxxxx > > Really? Do you have evidence for that? > > When I was a child (in the fifties) we hardly ever > had a meal without meat, and now I hardly ever > have a meal WITH meat (I'm not a vegetarian) > unless I'm eating out. > > There were very few options for meals without meat > in those days - all I can remember is things like > Cauliflower Cheese. I'm a little younger* but I don't think that's the difference. I wasn't suggesting that we had meatless meals, simply that the amount at each meal was less. Meat was 'bulked out' with other ingredients eg suet crust, pastry, stews full of vegetables. Look up recipe books of the sixties and seventies and see the quantities of meat per person. And meat always came with at least two veg, not just a plate of chips. If you ever went to a restaurant (which was very rare in our household) you'd always get a huge dish of veg whereas now it often seems like an afterthought - and you have to pay extra. *Rationing didn't finish until 1954 but when it did those who could afford it may have gone a bit mad on anything previously denied to them, so perhaps your best memories are of a reactionary time.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What factory farming has done is to feed a very > large number of people more cheaply than was ever > thought possible. Most people buy cheap food > because that's what they can afford. I'm afraid that most people who buy cheap food do so because they think they need huge quantities of protein but prefer to prioritise other things in their family budget. If I had to choose between buying free-range eggs or having a mobile phone*, the phone would go. But I realise that I am unusual. *For mobile phone you can also read: television, ipod, new clothes. Although, if it came to giving up my laptop, I'd just stop eating eggs. When I was a child most households ate a fraction of the meat that they do today but what they did eat was of much better quality. Half the portion size but of better quality (so equal overall cost) leads to a much healthier lifestyle for everyone, and is affordable to most people. And quality doesn't mean prime fillet; simply better farmed. I'm shocked at how few people buy offal, or cuts that need slow cooking, although my own family's budget benefits as it keeps the prices so low for those of us who do.

DJKQ - why not just stick to wild game? Anything that's been shot in the field has had a natural life and as quick a death as possible. William Rose stocks a wide range of game including wild venison. (Even farmed venison is worth considering - some of the farms have their own abbatoirs on site to reduce stress) James: I thought human flesh tasted like pork. Considering how long we are all living, the likely strain on the NHS and the benefits system in the years to come and, as you mention it, the waste of valuable protein when we're buried/cremated, it may be discussed in more detail soon. A 90yr old may take a few hours of slow roasting though so perhaps we should set the time of death a little earlier.