fazer71

Yes you caught me out... The channel tunnel story was that real true? I don?t think so?. But happy to be proved wrong by the real undisputedtruth?. I doubt Surrey Quays attracts many locals from the areas I list most of them probably go to Bromley or Bluewater etc. Rye Lane may as well be in the Channel Tunnel for all is visibility; my guess is more of the Locals from the areas I?ve listed have seen the inside of that tunnel than the store fronts of Rye Lane. Haw can making an area inaccessible benefit anyone especially the locals it?s stunts growth and restricts investment, fine if that is the aim. Maybe it was a political decision by old Labour Southwark to keep the area poor to keep the Labour vote.??

OK I C now it works in Exeter and cars can (in a round the world way) drive down parts of Rye Lane?. Of Corse it needs the car diversion because just like the Walworth Road and the Old Kent Rd it?s a Major Road Artery into and Out of central London. Rye Lane is perfect for attracting a Waitrose, I bet White Stuff, Next John Lewis, and M&S are desperately fighting each other to get the next big available unit on Rye Lane I?m sure they will pay top dollar and a large premium. I?m just thinking about all the wealthy shoppers who are going to pour down the Lane from Forest Hill, Dulwich Village, Herne Hill and Camberwell spending money to employ the locals in the bijou boutiques and high end retailers which will setup shop. Yes Rye Lane is just brilliant just as it is; Yes no change will be great for Peckham. The way it was before the car ban with all those things meant nothing. They will just return it?s been 30 years and not much sign of it yet so fingers crossed ?. Ummmm

Pedestrianised town centres ARE dying a death Peckham unlike Oxford Street hardly appeals to tourists from all over the world. ?Hey buddy let?s fly to the UK go to the Theeattta and go Shopping on Peckham Rye? Fact is Rye Lanes demise began the day cars were excluded. It?s viewed as a no go zone for most that?ve got the money to buy from Waitrose or other high end retailers which is why they?ll never open up there. If it was made one way for buses and cars, in such a way that cars wouldn?t use it as a short cut maybe making it a route to the Morrisons then that might help, but the complete car ban is has and will be the death of Rye Lane, it?ll remain a dirty low end no go shopping zone for most with the money to spend and make a difference. You?re talking nonsense. Imagin Lordship Lane without cars just buses... It would be dead! Oxford St's we don't have.

A friend HAD one, it was expensive to install and expensive to remove and replace too. If it's on a roof attached to the house / flat then it could be a potential problem when you come to sell. It?s for looks only if you want to be environmental then just put in more solid insulation. Imho for garden sheds only ..

Girl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How about a Waitrose or an M&S on RYE Lane? Now > that would be amazing! The day Southwark made Rye Lane a Bus only road, is the day Rye Lane died. No quality business would ever consider or want to invest in a store which would never be able to attract shoppers from a wide area, if shoppers can?t drive past and see the stores from their cars they either won?t know they?re there or won?t feel comfortable enough to go there. M&S Waitrose very unlikely on Rye Lane they don?t aspire to serve bus users they want the 4x4 driving set. Until Southwark allow cars back down Rye Lane it?ll continue being viewed as a no go (dump) zone for 99% of the locals who don?t live in Peckham.

When you get your growing patch back, try growing some sensi de humour it's quite good for you. Maybe you'll end up a happy old couple. Realise that at some time even the best neighbours, will drive you mad.

Mabel2001 *back pedal back pedal pedal back pedal* I've had another look at the photos and it's not been concreted over, it's been slabbed technically quite different. Do you know what,,,, the more I look at the pics the more I like it,,,, it?s got a new century edge about it that makes for a certain south london charm. I know it?s not conctete (concrete house) but it does have that typical south london look about it. Who?s for getting this garden listed with english heritage?

Make sure the coffin is empty? I'm starting to get into this thread in a kind of dark ozzy osbourne way paint a cross on the coffin. http://gossip.whyfame.com/files/2010/12/ozzy_osbourne1.jpg http://cdn.mos.musicradar.com/images/Product%20News/epiphone-zakk-wylde-graveyard-disciple-460-100-460-70.jpg

How about a Park and Ride on Peckham Rye using methane powered or horse drawn carts to ferry the parkers back and forth to Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Station? Environmentally great only we'd need to get Southwark to section off an area for the parking.

I just heard the used the swat team pictured below.. http://www.leehurstswan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/pic-211.jpg

MI5 they're after a bandit this is the guy. >:D< http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/images/localpeople/ugc-images/275783/Article/images/14259988/3437248.png

Cheapest options get a skip ?150 + club hammer ?10 and do it yourself. Yea the coffin doesn?t look great; I guess she wants to use it as a seat? All the locals ganging up against an old woman and ripping apart something she has spent money on is not a great idea. The other option would be to buy a ton of pebbles and cover the slabs with them which would look a lot better and then paint the coffin a nice colour. Would save upsetting the old woman. That would cost less than ?160 too. And it would be low maintenance look a lot better. I you have the money you could even put a big pot in the middle with a nice miniature cherry blossom growing out of it. She?s trying to make life nicer she just doesn?t know how. I?m sure if you discuss it with her you?ll come to an amicable solution and have a lovely relationship with your neighbour. If not then. See what it looks like in a few years when it?s weathered in a little you could cover it with yogurt to help speed up the weathering process ?? cost a few pots of yog..

http://www.thelocal.de/articleImages/27125.jpg They Sh6T on everything too. Filthy animals there are (nutters) neighbours feeding them too! Vermin. Watch the Barbie too. http://www.tcnj.edu/~hofmann/humor/Misc/animals/fox_stealing.jpeg

It?s been very interesting reading through this thread. In the long term amazing technology, disease or a large asteroid collision with the earth may be the one final solution to parking in East Dulwich. Meanwhile whilst we are living and thriving. My guess is a C*Z as you put it, is the only realistic short and medium term solution and once everyone has looked thoroughly through this thread they will see that a C*Z is the only affordable workable option. If it wasn?t then someone would have thought of an alternative. Why and how. It?s a way to log and monitor all the cars owned by the residents. Even if other ideas were invented the framework of a C*Z would still be needed to manage the cars and that would cost. The talk of over population and more homes. Parking can?t be used as a reason to restrict new homes for people. A C*Z would be an excellent way of restricting the parking rights of the new properties ie any new development would have no rights to a permit this happens in other areas. I almost bought a flat in Clapham and it had not right to a permit. 1hr C*Z. Shoppers would have the option to pay for a ticket to cover the 1hr time slot. The environment A C*Z would allow for high pricing for gas guzzling cars ie a car emitting over 255g/km could be required to pay twice or three times or more than a car under 255g/km Cars producing less than 100g/km co2 could be offered free permits. Second Third or Fourth Cars A limit of one two or three cars per household could be set. These are all things a CPZ can do it?s just a matter of selecting the things that would work for the residents of East Dulwich. Edit to add Maybe we could call it a EPZ environmental parking zone...

Thanks for the link. xx

The solution is in here somewhere --------------------------- Sent from a specialist

http://gtalfaromeo.co.uk/fts_703.jpghttp://gtalfaromeo.co.uk/die.jpg or http://gtalfaromeo.co.uk/Thread-Crap-Die.jpg

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but it seems that nothing I said has > registered, which is a bit worrying. Nope that's the norm around East Dulwich the local know it all. They're very a clever bunch. Infact they?re so clever one of them is going to come up with a parking fix which is not a CPZ. I can?t wait! Bunch of T???$?$

What on earth are you talking about? And why are you Spouting your political views on here? One decision by the LD you don?t agree with and now you?re voting Labour or the Monster Raving Loony party. Do get a grip??. The final decision has not been made yet. Yes the assumption is that it?s going to be a No. ASS out of U and ME ? all you like but I won?t .

zak can you see my maths mistake?

zak Me JB haha Thanks for more proof that the majority of the population are not very bright. Exactly how many were against the CPZ? Biased numbers to suit your views and those biased numbers are based on a miniscule response rate. Just 2 out of ten people gave a response and out of those yes just 0.7 out of 10 were in favour. You are wrong the decision could still be to implement the CPZ, though as has been mentioned it?s unlikely given the apparent opposition to the CPZ. Assuming you?re an adult re-read my post or get some help from Here Help for zak

I never said it was a vote! I never mention turnout! If the results are used and the percentages quoted then they need to be put in context. Which ever way you look at it vote or consultation. The numbers show the views of just 21% of those who were asked. One can't honestly expect to rely/use/quote or believe that such a pathetic % of those questioned should provide a basis for making any decision. So they should be put in the bin. You are correct the ultimate decision is down to the judgement of the locally elected politicians. Who could still go with implementing the CPZ. But you wouldn't know that after reading all this B?&?&?s .

As I understand it they had not choice but to have the consultation. Wasn't that part of the process? It's a pity there wasn't a rule saying if there is less than a certain % response rate then the councillors make the decision the response rate was just 21%! If there was such a rule I guess there would have been a much "edit spelling" bigger response rate. And there would have been a clear democratic result. Rather than ?85,000 wasted because 79% of the locals couldn?t be bothered to reply.

Zak It?s all been discussed at great length on the CPZ thread. James is entitled to his view and it?s fairly obvious that he decided to take the argument of those who were for the CPZ rather than those against. Why because he either personally or politically agrees with having a CPZ or he promised residents early on to fight for them to get a CPZ. It?s not about the supposed general view that a majority of local don?t want a CPZ. You only have to look a the low response rate to see that in fact the result of the consultation did not show anything like a ?majority? view in I for one believe the consultation results meaningless. ?and that?s not because I?m for the CPZ it?s common sense?. James stood by his views and his promises and made his voted count (rather than abstain on a difficult issue) to me that tells the measure of the man. This is how things work in a democracy. If you don?t get it then go and live in Saudi? and see the difference. Edit to add (21 % who respnded to the consultation is NOT the majority!)

Yes that's true.