fazer71

You can't compare a Cathedral to the Concrete house. If it was such a great monument then I would be happy for it to become a museum to concrete construction at least that would educate on how it shouldn?t be done. But it?s going to become a compromised bit of over priced social housing. Only the repaired exterior visible, it might as well be a plaque on the outside stating. ?On this site stood Drakes mistake.? If it was your money you wouldn?t waste it on this. But it?s tax payer money so that?s ok. Exactly how much is this going to cost us tax payers?

heritagematters that's Very funny .... New material which the Romans used and invented! It's a mistake by Drake a Monument to British housing incompetence. A waste of tax payer money even if we spend ?1 on it.

No not exactly. I think all those who are in the NO camp should be fighting for the details in the proposed CPZ. (As it appears the details are their problem not the concept). If that's not possible (which you imply) objectors should go with NO CPZ and consult with Southwark on the detail changes for another proposal. I think the current CPZ proposal will work for the residents but IMO it?s too small an area (so will impact the fringes more than necessary) it should cover all roads or parts of a roads which are less than 4mins walk to the station. A thought. When Southwark gave Sainsbury?s planning permission for the supermarket why didn?t they insist on another floor either below or above ground for station parking as part of the permission? Poor planning decisions, locals could have campaigned for that? And we?d probably have got it too. Zero foresight and poor decisions which result in future problems. Often due to well meaning locals who just caue fudged decisions. Are we are going to see the same thing with the Dulwich hospital plot. It could include station parking. Though I no idea of what is planned / proposed there.

More flawed Logic ?a badly managed CPZ = do not to have a CPZ? If the rules when CPZ are implemented said that incompetent management meant that the victims would be given 5 years fee free parking then management (Southwark parking) would make sure they were correctly removing cars. As it is there?s no accountability or financial cost to the council for any mistakes they make it?s the victim who pays in time stress and cash. If it?s well implemented and well managed then the problems above would not happen. Get the balance right (make it cost Southwark if they manage it badly) and it?ll work. This is why the focus needs to be on the details of the CPZ so cost blame and errors are managed fairly with balance for the benefit of residents.

James Cars are here now and there will be even more in the future there will always be cars either electric hydrogen of oil gas driven. Public transport is not capable of providing a complete solution just look at all the empty busses driving round and round in the UK it?s a joke. We?re better of looking at the long term solution finding more parking places and organising who will to get those places. I'm sure there are some bright sparks who can work it out. I?m a simpleton and I can see double yellow lines so far down streets ?for safety? its ridiculous taking up 3 or 4 car spaces where there is no risk. Lordship lane is a joke. Would we really miss a strip either side of Peckham rye and a strip on one side of Goose Green. I don?t think so. It?s inevitable that ?Half Southwark households exist without cars? they will at some point be buying a car. Car ownership is still going up we need to call you King James Canuute (holding back the cars)

Maybe But there is a NIMBY force at work too. I remember an article about the locals of Weston not wanting parking on the seafront because it would spoil the view. We need to use the Force against the evil NIMBY Empire... but... there's never a Jedi around when you need one though... Sorry I'm between contracts and chilling out watching the trilogy....

On balance I think James does want to help. How about cutting him some slack?

You'll still have a parking space for you kiddy 4x4 only 1 bed flats (owned by young fit childless people) would be restriced. It's all doom doom doom, fear of change and progress. I still think goose green would make the ideal underground car park. Or the Dulwich hospital plot as a multistory car park for the shop keepers and their staff and the commuters Or turn 1/50 of Peckham rye into an open air car park that?d miss it just the dogs for their dumping activities. Here in London and much of the UK we have the most bizarre aproach to parking for cars. There?s plenty of available land for parking look at Peckham Rye impossible to park anywhere near it? It?s the same with our seaside resorts no parking anywhere. WHY ?

Tightening the UDP would result in building out into the green belt don?t start that argument. Not viable if anything the UDP needs relaxing to allow for more high-rise development as currently we have very poor use of land for a metropolitan area. I looked at a flat in Clapham and it had no right to a parking permit in the CPZ so that?s how parking is controlled there we could do the same for new developments in ED. But if there is no CPZ then that type of restriction can?t be implemented. Anyone must be able to see that. Cars can not stand in the way of housing, homes for people are more important than parking spaces for cars. Besides East Dulwich has a very good transport infrastructure. Dulwich is an area of London not a Village we live in the metropolis.

I?ve got several solutions. 1. Build an underground car park under goose green 2. Build an underground car park under peckham rye. 3. On the demolished site of the Dulwich Hospital build an underground carpark or a multistorey. There?s plenty of available land It?s just a matter of looking long term rather that being tight and thinking about the next election. Only there is no long term planning. Just Jobs for the Boys (Southwark council staff) and a fudge here and a fudge there. Any all you Objectors to the CPZ are playing right into their hands by not working towards a complete CPZ system you are goint to get us a lovely expensive Fudge. Cheers

Carrie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Adam > > It really is not ridiculous to suggest that people > within a cpz would choose not to pay. The figures > for Derwent Grove show that there are 82 > properties which were consulted. Only 31 forms > were returned - a response rate of only 38%. Of > those returned 19 were in favour of the CPZ and 12 > were against. That means that only 23% of the > residents of Derwent Grove are in favour of a CPZ > - the rest (77%) are either against is or could > not be bothered to respond. It is not ridiculous > to suppose that some of those who voted against or > did not respond are not willing to pay ?125 for > the privilege of parking on the road on which > their propery is located and would rather park on > a neighbouring road for free! Using that logic You could then say 85% were either FOR or could not be bothered to vote for the CPZ ... Utter Twaddle Is this is what we all have to put up with twisted numbers percentages which mean nothing. Why. The edumaction system is to blame. Both the residents and the council employees haev been failed by the education system! Bad edumacation = Parking problems .... Obviously .... that together with the right to vote ..... = parking hell.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > fazer71 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Carrie Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Adam > > > > > > - the rest (77%) are either against is or > could > > > not be bothered to respond. > > > > Carrie what kind of logic is that ?. Biased > logic. > > You can make no assumtions from those figures > that the (77%) were Against. > > For all we know thay could well be For. > > > > Maybe remove / edit your post ? > > Carrie made so such assumption. '(77%) are either > against is or could not be bothered to respond' is > a correct reading. You misquoted. > > So maybe remove / edit your post, fazer71? We > wouldn't want misinformation being spread, would > we? OR they are FOR IT and didn't respond..... read it again....... If this is the logic we have to put up with. No wonder we're struggling with a CPZ. Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Edit I'm removing my post later today because it's interfering with the main thread which is not ?how clever we all are ? but if we should have a CPZ??

first mate nothing directed a you or any individual. This is.. Reinventing the wheel treading a road which has been trod by many thousands before. Isn?t it about time this CPZ nonsense was given a LAW which stopped the local authority from milking it and stopped there being flawed CPZ systems? Time for an M25 blueprint until then it's going to be a nonsense. With us all wasting our time with phoney consultations and botched figures consultations. Time for a practical solution look at Tokyo we'll end up that way is it so bad? This is a prime example of what is wrong with local democracy people don?t always know what's best for them or they are selfishly biased put thier heads in the sand or are just not clever enough to grasp the issue. I must be thick too because I can't see an alternative.

gsirett The figures quoted make no sense. Incompenent Southwark. You should be fighting against the poor details NOT the whole CPZ. You are fighting the wrong fight. The CPZ will make life better for ME and ALL the residents within the CPZ see the quality of life in CPZ Chelsea Fulham Herne Hill etc etc etc The misinformation which is being spread is just a disgrace.

The misinformation which is being spread is just a disgrace.

Amelie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @fazer71 > > I think you should write out a detailed account of > exactly what has happened regarding maintenance of > your flat by Southwark over the years, this will > take some time. You should send this to > Southwark's CEO, the Head of Legal Services, the > District Auditor and the Local Government > Ombudsman making clear that you require a no holds > barred investigation to be carried out, a full > explanation provided along with an unreserved > apology and that you be compensated for > maladministration. > > Venting on the forum is indeed therapeutic but you > need to take this up with the relevant > authorities. Thanks for the advice in a perfect world that would be a route, but I?ve spent more than enough time money and effort on this. Even if I did follow your advice I?m sure I would get nowhere. Even if I did and I won damages how much would I get? ?200 ?2,000 It would never make up for being overcharged by ?6,000 - ?7,000 + and the stress it caused what price does one put on that? In the UK 20p. There are employees of Southwark who are not doing their job correctly / legally and if by venting my anger and experiences on here for others ?James et all? to read then in time that may work to the benefit of others. Besides I?m selling up now so it?s not going to be my problem soon.

Sorry no that is not quite my sentiment. My view is that well implemented CPZ will get rid of commuter parking and clear many unused cars from the CPZ area. As for the impact on other streets there is never going to be a way of stopping that but if the CPZ is large there will be less of an impact because both locals and commuters will not want to walk great distances. The fringes of the CPZ zone will always suffer that?s one of the few downsides but the further the fringe is away from the heart of the problem area the lower the impact. I?m 100% behind AdamTait the current system does not work for the residents. The misinformation which is being spread is just a disgrace. The current system does not work! Objectors bleat on and on about being against it but have no alternative! Unless objectors can think up a better system please STOP objecting to something which (if correctly implemented) is going to be better for the great majority of locals.

Carrie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Adam > > - the rest (77%) are either against is or could > not be bothered to respond. Carrie what kind of logic is that ?. Biased logic. You can make no assumtions from those figures that the (77%) were Against. For all we know thay could well be For. Maybe remove / edit your post ?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > net parking will be less. How it that possible? It makes no sense. Unless they shorten the roads. If the bays maintain the same curb side parking meter for meter then mathamatically it impossible for there to be less parking. Can someone clarify this? As it makes no sense... I wonder what the view would be if there was no ?125 pa fee? At a guess 99% would want the 1 hr CPZ everywhere? Is the major objection that it is a stealth tax?

Carrie is 100% correct. I own 1 of 2 flats in a period Victorian conversion. Southwark own the other flat and so I don't have more than 50% I have just 50% not enough to force Southwark to sell the freehold. It's a no go. I'm selling up. It's been a costly nightmare. It's been great being able to vent my frustration on this forum I just hope it doesn't impact my selling the flat when the buyer discovers Southwark are the freeholder. Woops maybe I should have kept quite like all the other leaseholders... it could impact the value of my lease!!!!!!! A conspiracy of silence... well I've just had enough!! James there's so much more to this Southwark freehold ... leaseholder problem ... it's a can of worms I can?t help but feel there is a large amount of underhandedness along with all the incompetence, laziness and compliance at the Southwark housing unit responsible for ?looking after? leaseholders ?.

The CPZ will only work if 1. The same amount of parking is available 2. It?s a 1 hr CPZ 3. It covers ALL streets within a 3 or 4 min walk of the Station If parking place numbers are reduced, through making bays which are smaller than pre bay curb side parking then it will fail. If it?s not a 1hr CPZ then we will end up with a no go zone and the shops will die. If it only covers a few streets then the commuter parking will fill the streets which aren?t in the CPZ. Commuters are lazy and unlikely to want to walk for more than 4 mins from their cars to the station. If it?s done right it?ll work. If those against force it to be a Fudge they will only make things worst for all of us?

All Looks pretty flimsey to me..... Reading between the lines consult and make a show of it .... then do what you like ....

On a legal point did they really need to consult ? Southwark own the roads couldn't they just go ahead and do what they want ? Is it just political face / game ? Even the politicians don't know what the laws are and they just play games keeping themselves busy chasing the vote.... rather than doing the right thing .... I just think Dartford crossing .... ! There is no confidence in the Process ... Are you all being strung along ? Probably .....

Is the meeting about a Flawed Consultation or about the merits of the CPZ ?

tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > fazer71 the thing is, you won't get your > guaranteed parking. look at the streets involved - > lots of divided houses into two properties + 2 > cars. you are just going to have to fork out ?100 > and upwards to chase your neighbours for the > limited parking. (all the white lines and extended > yellow lines will mean fewer spaces) and quids in > for all the traffic wardens who will be patrolling > your streets looking for minor parking > infringements, plus of course those extra ?? for > any chaps who come to work at your place...... The CPZ is inevitable at some stage this century may as well get it done right! Argue the points you mention above to stop any restrictions on available meterage of curb side parking through extended yellow lines etc. It would be far better to push for a fair CPZ as it is inevitable rather than waste your efforts fighting against it completely. It does look like Southwark have unreasonable restricted the available street parking in some areas that is what we should be fighting against ??. The problem with fighting for a fair quality CPZ is that it?s less sexy than fighting 100% against the CPZ?. So when you have your meeting think about what will happen after / if it?s introduced and get agreement with Southwark that locals will be able to work with the CPZ implementation staff to see how much parking will be restricted and that it?s fairly implemented.