gm99

Are you 100% sure they relate to you and your car? Is it possible that someone has cloned your number plate and is racking up fines that are coming to you?

This guy (white guy, bike with trailer - unmistakeable) was over in SE5 a month or so ago with a friend who was also on a bike. I caught him in my front garden helping himself to our (damaged and not in use) front gate, to add to the collected scrap on the trailer. Words were exchanged... and the gate left alone. I also mentioned them to the police.

Looks like things are on track (no pun intended) for the ELL opening - saw an ELL/London Overground train on Platform 2 at Peckham Rye on Tuesday evening.

I have been getting quotes for new windows for the front of our typical Victorian terraced house and would say that it is very difficult to get directly comparable quotes. For 7 windows (2 quite tall bays of 3 and a further single window), wood throughout, double glazed, I have had quotes ranging from ?12k to 17k - the two more expensive from big names, the third (cheapest) from a smaller independent window fitter specialist that source their windows from Bulgaria. None are hardwood, but all use engineered softwood (notably larch) and one uses a wood called Accoya (basically a softwood that has been impregnanted with vinegar to make it rot and movement proof). There is a world of difference between qualities of wood - even within e.g. 'redwood'. The key is a wood that is structurally sound so that you don't get structural movement, typically manifested as joints opening up. As soon as that happens there is a risk of moisture penetrating. Generally, engineered woods will be more resistant to movement than single pieces of timber - and be more expensive. Accoya is evidently about the same price as oak. I recently saw some appalling carpentry on a neighbour's windows, cracking all over the place. I bet they looked great when first installed... There are different qualities of double glazing, and the way it is mounted in the frame can make a huge difference to longevity (seems to be to do with the edge seals on double glazed units, which can fail). The quality of paint finish can similarly be very important. Look at guarantees/warranties. Typically window companies offer 5 years (not enough for me - suggests they don't back their products), some 10, Mumford and Wood (quite pricey) offer 30 years. You can cut costs by e.g. choosing to have the side windows in a bay not opening. I have been told that the lead for each of these windows costs around ?200. If you are thinking about ultra slim double glazing have a read through this thread and think again: http://forum.expertexpert.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=42 If you go for refurbished boxes and new sashes, you can get any draught proofing work costed with a VAT rate of 5% and save a few quid. Hope that's helpful.

The deputation has been accepted and will be heard by the Camberwell Community Council. The agenda is now on line here. Unfortunately, Cllr Hargrove is now unable to attend - apparently he is speaking at a conference that day.

If anyone is interested I have attached a paper (minus the signatories) submitted to the Council to request a deputation at the Camberwell Community Council on the 25th of April, which will be attended by Cllr Barry Hargrove. This was drafted in conjunction with other residents from Shenley and Linnell Roads. If you live on one of the streets affected by the Lucas Gardens CPZ and would be interested in adding your support to the attached request for action please get in touch. Many thanks, Gavin

I have been told that the next Camberwell Community Council meeting will be on the 25th of April at 7.00pm at Lettsom Tenants Hall, 114 Vestry Road, London SE5. http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=175&MId=3884&Ver=4 (the agenda will be posted at least a week in advance). I am considering requesting a deputation to ask for a formal review of the implementation of the Lucas Gardens CPZ, with a view to moderating its impact on surrounding non-CPZ streets. If anyone has any experience of this process, any advice would be gratefully received. On the specific subject of CPZs I wonder if this - Community Council - process would offer any advantages over, for example, a direct approach to Barry Hargrove? I note that the Community Council could choose to refuse to hear the deputation, or refer it to 'the most appropriate committee/sub-committee'. I guess I don't know enough about the functioning of local democracy. If you are a resident of one of the roads affected - whether inside or outside the CPZ - and would like to get involved in lobbying the Council, please post below or get in touch by PM. Likewise if you disagree with me. One final thing: I would be interested in any views on whether the Council should be obliged to minimise the displacement of residential parking out of CPZ's? I have spotted that the Council's analysis suggested that 26% of parking pre-CPZ was 'commuter parking'. Given that parking occupancy in the CPZ area has fallen from 115% to 40% (of post-implementation 'safe levels'), it seems reasonable to assume that lots of residents living inside the CPZ now park outside it. Many thanks, Gavin

I hope people don't mind me advertising the fact that I have started a thread in The Lounge on the recently introduced Lucas Gardens CPZ. [Please don't post replies here - thanks]

Hello all, I know the subject of CPZs has been done to near death on the EDF, but I am hoping to engage readers who live in/just outside the Lucas Gardens CPZ that was introduced in January, to discuss the way it has been implemented and the impact this has had on surrounding areas. It operates Monday to Friday 0830 to 1830. I live just outside the Lucas Gardens CPZ on Shenley Road and have been lobbying the Council to moderate the operation and coverage of the LG CPZ, which seems to have been over-engineered and has displaced parking pressure into surrounding areas. The consultation and design took no account of displacement (by design - Southwark's approach to parking entirely lacks a strategic appreciation of wider local context). For those who may be interested, the Council's own data show that: 1. Permit takeup has been 26% (#permits/#households) Apparently this is higher than the borough average for CPZs of only 10%. [ONS data for Brunswick Park ward indicate that 50% of households have access to a car, which suggests lots of residential parking has been displaced out of the CPZ.] 2. Assuming an average car parking space, the number of permits issued equates to 56% of available parking space inside the CPZ. This is lower than the borough average of 67%. [Taking 1 and 2 together suggests that the LG CPZ has a relatively large amount of parking space per household] 3. Daytime weekday CPZ area parking occupancy, measured by 'spot survey' for the Council, has fallen from 115% of 'safe occupancy' in Nov 11, to 50% in Jan 12 (after 1 week) and just under 40% in Feb 12 (after 6 weeks). The same analysis suggests that parking occupancy outside of the CPZ has gone from 92% to 105% to 90%. [My personal view is that parking pressures outside the CPZ are still significantly higher than pre-CPZ.] I have tried arguing that the hours of operation should be reduced, and have been told by the council officer responsible that his professional opinion is that this would not make a difference to those of us outside of the CPZ. I have argued that, for example, the eastern (park) side of Vestry Road, where there are no houses and now almost no parked cars, should be removed from the CPZ. The officer told me this was not consistent with 'best practice'. My final pitch will be to suggest that selected parts of the CPZ without houses fronting the road could be changed to 'permit holders only or [e.g.] four hours', to continue to deter all day commuter parking but allow some flexibility for shorter stay visitors, trades etc. If anyone has any constructive ideas they would be greatly appreciated. If anyone wants to also take any of this up, Cllr Ian Wingfield (Brunswick Park and Deputy Council Leader) has been quite receptive and has indicated that he is keen to hear from local residents. The Senior Engineer responsible for designing the CPZ is Tim Walker. Both are [email protected] For the record, I am opposed to any extension of the CPZ if possible, and believe that a more equitable distribution of parking pressure across the wider area is a reasonable objective, while recognising how bad the situation was pre-CPZ for car owners living in the zone. I understand from Ian Wingfield that the Lucas Gardens CPZ will be discussed at the next Camberwell Community Council meeting (11th April I think). Cheers, Gavin

Re the 'cycle hub' I would be concerned about the possible impact on Paul's Custom Cycles on Bellenden Road.

SE5/SE15 borders, my impression is that asking prices for family houses are way higher than a couple of years ago (like 20%+). I wonder if there is a Foxton's effect going on? Someone I know currently looking for a 2-bed flat mentioned one on at 260 that fell through under offer at something like 245 and then went on with Foxtons at 299k... Talking to someone else I know who is an estate agent he described the way that agents will inflate prices simply to win instructions, and then try and 'manage vendors' expectations' down once offers come in. If you are a local agent valuing at 260k and someone comes along and says they'll get 299 for it, what are you going to do...? On houses, my impression is that there is a shortage coming onto the market and lots of demand - plus mortgage debt is very cheap if you have a good chunk of equity/cash, so while prices may be up, costs are probably not up as much.

Sounds like someone has an end-of-year underspend that needs shifting. What do people suggest the ?50k could be used for if not the roundabout? (On which my personal view as driver, cyclist and pedestrian is that the congestion clearly slows traffic, but also leads to driver frustration and blocked sightlines making using the pedestrian crossings a little iffy at times, esp the one on E Dulwich Road.)

Is the idea of some kind of on-street parking controls dead in the water? As I understand it, there are a number of main points of contention with the CPZ proposal, including: cost, impact on businesses, displacement, and more generally the consultation and decision making process. What if there was an alternative to conventional CPZ that nevertheless used permits to regulate parking but had fewer negative consequences, and a much more transparent approval process? What I have in mind is something along the lines of the following: A dual system of (i) annual permits for residents and businesses, available for a notional admin fee - say ?50/100 (residents/businesses) - and limited to max 2 per household, and (ii) clock dial type badge for others (something like this) available for a one-off fee of something like 'cost plus ?1' from local shops, libraries and the Council (the small profit would provide a modest incentive for retailers etc to stock them). The clock badge could apply to a single calendar year if ongoing shop turnover was desirable to maintain supply for new visitors etc. Holders of the residents/businesses permits could park wherever and for as long as they want on roads covered by the scheme (non-A-roads / side roads only; some zoning would be required). Everyone else parking on a road covered by the scheme would have to put a clock badge in their windscreen showing the time that they parked.* Free non-residents' parking could be limited to 2 or 3 hours at a time, with no return within 2 hours. Residents could be given a number of all-day temporary residents permits for longer-staying visitors/trades, or perhaps these could be sold at cost plus e.g. ?1 per day (scratch card type). [* - in practice there could be something like a 15-min grace period, e.g. to allow new visitors to get a clock badge] The scheme could operate something like Mon-Fri 0800 ? 1900 (ideally this would be fixed and uniform across all roads covered by the scheme). Ideally there would be no need for lines on the roads to mark out parking bays, just signs on the entry to the area (i.e. at road junctions) showing something like 'Timed/permit parking in operation', with periodic roadside signs showing basic information on how the scheme operates. Maybe curbs could be marked with something like white dots. Parking controls would need to be enforced, but that could probably be funded from tickets issued for overstaying etc. and any small surplus revenue generated by issuing permits (and potentially the savings made on the current consultation/implementation process). A phone number could allow residents to anonymously report over-staying cars outside their houses to parking enforcement. Any (non-A) roads could request inclusion in (or removal from) the scheme as long as 50.1% of addresses on that road signed up and statutory bodies (fire, ambulance etc) did not object (they would have a veto). Anyone could organise such a referendum, but the Council would offer an on-line toolkit/format to ensure it was watertight - e.g. with respect to documenting full name and address details of signatories, completing within an appropriate timescale, and consulting as required by law. Implementation of new roads (or removal of existing ones) could happen every 6 months to minimise disruption and streamline the statutory consultation process, but also to allow emerging problems to be addressed in a timely manner if residents so wished. This approach could potentially achieve a number of things: - reduce the impact of all-day non-residents parking for those living close to the station - reduce the impact of displacement (only all-day commuter parking would be displaced, but affected roads could quickly respond if the need arose) - ensure virtually no-cost but reasonably time-limited parking for shoppers etc (to allay the concerns of businesses) - keep some turnover of visitor parking so that spaces get freed up - keep implementation costs and street clutter to a minimum - make the scheme adoption process completely transparent and responsive to local need I'm sure this is riddled with holes (the economics might not work, for one thing). Any thoughts?

@SteveUK1978 - you need to factor in the combination of: - delays getting on to public transport and through interchanges (see the TFL projections) - delays getting into venues, through search areas etc (could easily be an hour) Which mean spectators are going to have to set out early for morning sessions. I travel to Stratford a lot, and go Peckham Rye to London Bridge, then 20 min walk to Liverpool St where there are (virtually empty) trains every 10 mins to Stratford that only take 5 mins. It's about 5-10 mins slower than changing onto the Jubilee Line at London Bridge, slightly more expensive (using pre-pay it counts as 2 journeys), but about 10% as stressful. Personally, I would avoid the Jubilee Line during Games time if at all possible.

@ first mate Because Southwark Council views the CPZ impact only in the narrow context of the zone itself. E.g. from the Lucas Gardens and Southamton Way CPZ report, the 'community impact statement' does not mention displacement, but rather claims "The implementation and operation of the CPZ contributes to an improved environment through the elimination of on-street commuter parking and the associated reduction of local and borough-wide traffic levels." (para 27) Not for those of us just outside the CPZ it doesn't.

@DJKQ The council's position is that a 20% response rate is significant: "The PEP [Parking and Enforcement Plan] sets out that the council will give significant weight to the consultation return when it exceeds a 20% threshold... In accordance with the PEP, other local information sources (such as quantitative parking studies, future development, likely impact of surrounding parking controls and community council opinion) should be given greater weighting where the threshold is not reached." E.g. http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=22397 p. 11 (relates to Lucas Gardens and Southampton Way consultation) This appears to be a pragmatic measure on the part of the council and not a claim to statistical significance. It sounds like a 51% response rate is unheard of. The document linked above claims that a 15% response rate is "an average response rate, consistent with similar consultation elsewhere in the borough" (p. 11). As alluded to before, this suggests to me that the consultation methodology is flawed and at best gives only a vague indication of overall local views. This leaves a question about cost/benefit: how much more would it cost to achieve genuinely valid and robust consultation results, and would the additional expense be worth it?

The language is clearly inconsistent and therefore problematic. E.g. the early part of the CPZ study document talks about a/the CPZ (singular), while the consultation asked respondents whether they 'would you change their minds' if a neighbouring street wanted a CPZ, which suggests something more piecemeal (you wouldn't ask that if the CPZ was all or nothing). More broadly, it seems to me that some people want to have their cake and eat it, claiming that the consultation was not a referendum, but then using the results of individual streets to indicate that they should get a CPZ - which sounds a lot like a street-by-street referendum. [Why not go the whole hog and simply allow residents to pay for a dedicated parking space outside their house if they want one? (Yes I know, what about flats, big/small houses etc... this is a straw man not a serious suggestion).] Fundamentally, the methodology used to elicit the views of residents was not sufficiently robust to draw any valid (in the technical statistical sense) conclusions as to what the residents of individual streets and/or the whole area collectively want. A c.20% response rate and (acknowledged) non-random self-selection bias clearly demonstrate that. For me, this is why the process is a consultation not a referendum, and ultimately someone has to weigh up *all* of the evidence and make a decision - and why haggling over alternative options after the fact is, in my opinion, wholly inappropriate (not least because you can't know how such alternative options might have changed respondents' opinions if offered upfront). What a mess.

Lucas Gardens CPZ update at 2145 tonight: Parking occupancy inside the CPZ roughly 60% Parking occupancy outside the CPZ roughly 95% (significantly higher than pre-CPZ) Even outside the 0830 to 1830 hours of operation the CPZ appears to have displaced parking.

You get charged a ?0.20 'convenience fee' for paying by phone.

@MsB I'll second that. I had to clear up what I think was a smashed water glass from the road outside our house last week after the recycling men had been.

Conceivably a survey of parking could cross-reference number plates of parked cars with DVLA data about where the cars are registered to establish what proportion of cars are visiting/commuters rather than local/residents/businesses.

It is early days and these things must be quite context specific. It seems reasonable to think that in the particular case of the Lucas Gardens area a mix of commuters and residents have been displaced. In terms of the former, the Town Hall and other council offices are down the road, King's College/Maudsley are a 12 min walk away and Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill stations 10mins. As to the residents, I could easily imagine many not getting round to buying their permit in time for day 1 - especially with parking available nearby. We'll see how things bed in. Where context is less of an issue is that displacement was forseeable, those of us just outside the CPZ were not consulted, and we are now apparently accommodating a moving problem. Meanwhile it appears that the CPZ has gone overboard leaving empty roads. Surely a reasonable objective of CPZs would be to even out the impact of parking? I just hope the council agree to at least revisit the hours of operation if things remain like this.

Update on the Lucas Garden CPZ (0830-1830 Mon-Fri): Day 1: parking occupancy inside the CPZ at 4pm roughly 50%. Some roads more like 30%. Parking occupancy outside (South and East of) the CPZ now effectively at 100%. It will be interesting to see how this changes over time, e.g. if people have decided not to pay for permits because they reckon they can simply park a bit further away, or haven't yet got round to buying one. But my first impression is that a decision made on the basis of a consultation with a response rate of 21% of local residents appears to have overshot. Unfortunately, according to someone I spoke to at Southwark involved in implementation, there is no budget to review and the CPZ was not introduced under experimental laws.

The Lucas Gardens CPZ comes into force today in SE5 and we live just outside it and have at a stroke been swamped by displaced parking. One problem apparently solved. Problem moved. New problem created. Lack of joined up thinking wins again. Incidentally, in case any one had any doubt about the agenda of Southwark: Para 5, p. 1. My emphasis. One final thing, I can't see where the hours of operation were proposed and formally approved in the decision details, which makes me wonder whether the decision is valid and enforceable.

@Fazer71 Not sure if you have been to either Peckham or Camberwell recently, but my daily experience is that both are pretty busy and very much alive.