henryb

They are always eating my plum cherries!

The green chain walk path should take to you to One tree hill then it is just down the hill to the station. http://www.greenchain.com/walks/section-11.php It is fantastic in spring. Ideally there would be a path through Camberwell New cemetery straight to the station but it is all fenced off.

I think the junction is great as it is. It gets the balance between different road user about right. The pedestrian crossing makes drivers slow down and be more aware of other road users which probably explains the very low accident rate. Feeding the traffic optimises the through rate for traffic. It is slow but steady most times. I doubt making the roundabout smaller will improve the through rate as that is not the limiting factor - and it if it does it will mean faster cars which will inevitably mean accidents. That could be a terrible tragedy so near a school and a play ground. If the council are going to spend money improving junctions they should put in something similar at the crossing between Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Rd. That one is dangerous, frustrating and inefficient. The queues are longer even though it must a have similar traffic volume and accident rates are a lot higher. It is terrible if you are a pedestrian. The cost argument is persuasive but if bad lorry drivers are regularly trashing the roundabout then shouldn?t a camera be put up to catch them. Start fining these people not pandering to them.

You can laugh but in the 1950s Notting Hill was considered one of the worst slums in London. Houses were cheap.

To be fair it probably has more in common with Stoke Newington or Tufnell Park. Minus the tube obviously. Although "a bit like Stokey" probably doesn't shift that many houses.

Elephant and Castle used to be a vibrate shopping area full of entertainment venues - "Piccadilly circus of the south" . Then after the war rather than rebuilding it they turned it into a roundabout and shopping centre. Now I can't imagine anyone wanting to go there. Lordship lane should be a shared space imo.

Rye lane is very accessible by multiple means of transport. Cars make streets dangerous, noisy and polluted and discourages people from using them for other purposes like shopping or living. Just look at Elephant and Castle - that is what happens when cars are given priority over pedestrians and people - it kills the area. It is good that car access is restricted along Rye Lane and will improve the area no end.

A very eloquent post there gsirett. For what it is worth it has me swayed.

What about? - "The consultation suggested that the majority of people on the neighbouring streets don't mind you using spaces on their streets when there is no space left on yours. What a nice bunch."

Prehaps he was looking for somewhere to park?

> Use online delivery for all bulky items and use > streetcar/streetvan for those times when you just > need a car. Perhaps that's an answer then - put in a load of car club parking places on the problem streets. Then poor old James will have something to say to the people who complain about parking pressure on their street - "Join a car club".

I don't live in the CPZ. The CPZ would inconvenience me if I ever wanted to park around there just as much as anyone else outside the zone. It will not benefit me in anyway. That doesn't change my view that it should primarily up the people who live on the street where there is a problem. The people who actually have the problem. If other streets have problems with non residence parking there then they should consider trying a CPZ as well.

"Southwark should be told in no uncertain terms that the people have spoken clearly in this consultation, and that no CPZ of any sort should be implemented" What about the majority of people who live on Derwent and Tintagel who do want a CPZ? Why are you ignoring their views? When you say "the people" do you actually mean "the people - except the ones who disagree with me"? Or the ?the people - who don?t have a problem parking but would like to carry on parking where ever they like regardless of how difficult that makes other people?s lives?? Being able to park near your home should take precedence over the parking convenience of shoppers/commuters; it should be up to the people who live on the street that has the problem whether it should be a CPZ or not.

I've was smelling strange solvent smell outside on Shelbury Rd last week. It was quite faint. Next time I notice I'll take a note of the wind direction. We might be able to triangulate it.

> Happy to: in a post that directly responded to > mine, you wrote: "It seems people are very quick > to criticize the council for with-holding > information are themselves very quick to ignore > facts that don?t suit their argument." The "people" I was referring to were the people who were doing that on this thread. Not you. If I had meant you I would have said "you". I apologize for any confusion. > No, that's wrong. Putting in a CPZ is equivalent > to painting your own private parking space outside > your home, then parking your wife's car outside > mine. The issue with CPZ is that it fences off x > number of spaces - but unfortunately for a group > of people owning 2x cars. And guess where those > extra cars are going to go? > No it is not like like that at all. It is letting people who live on a street with parking problems decide whether there should be restrictions for non residence. That seems a perfectly reasonable policy and I am glad this council and indeed most in London use that as the primary criteria. You can make up as many fantasy situations as you like that, in your mind, are similar in some way or another but that doesn't change anything. It is up to the people living on the street - not the non residence who use it for free parking. I think that is good thing. If you don't - you don't and we disagree.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmm henryb, I notice you left out of your quote of > my post the definition of a stakeholder... and > then accused me of "ignoring facts that don?t suit > argument." Cute. You asked a question I answered it. Your post is there for everyone to see. Whether parking on a street should have resident only restrictions should primarily be up to the people who live on that street. Not the people who use that street for free parking or people who want other people to suffer so they don?t have to. This is not an unusual view and one that is normally applied when deciding CPZs > And then you throw in an accusation that I was > "very quick to criticize the council for > with-holding information." That is downright > dishonest. Where have I done that? Where did I say you said that? I made no such accusation about you. Why didn?t you copy the entire sentence? > But, back to the point at hand: if I choose to fix > the problem that my bin is overflowing by dumping > it all in your front garden, then you should have > no say in the matter? That is what, in effect, > you are arguing. That is not an equivalent argument at all. An equivalent argument would be saying it is wrong for people on neighbouring streets to try stopping people putting in measures prevent fly tipping on their streets because the fly tippers will just move on to neighbouring streets.

> Why should it matter if the people expressing an > opinion live in the streets covered by the CPZ > versus nearby or adjoining streets? Because CPZ is primarily to relieve parking problems on the streets covered - caused by people not living there parking there. They are the ones who will have to pay and get permits and hopefully be able to park near their houses. It seems people are very quick to criticize the council for with-holding information are themselves very quick to ignore facts that don?t suit their argument.

And how many of those lived on streets in the proposed CPZ?

"the majority of residents don't want CPZ," What? On the streets where it is proposed? You sure? Can you provide the data you based that claim on?

Yeah people are more honest these days. 20 years ago it would have caused a riot of stabbing and robbing.

It is in East Dulwich parish - some say that makes it in East Dulwich.

Oh god it's back! They should make a horror film about this thread.

> Copleston Road is in SE15. SE15 = Peckham > and Nunhead. > Copleston Road is in East Dulwich surely! Why would estate agents lie about something like that? It makes no sense.

I imagine it would be annoying if you lived there. I have lived in a CPZ zone before and it is not the end of the world as some people are making out. Free parking is a privilege not a right. What is frustrating about the whole thing is that the reason why people park commute isn't being addressed at all. People have told me that the same thing happens in the streets around Honor Oak Park and I know people who drive to Deptford to get the train. I suspect the reason is the isn't any sensible planning around providing adequate public transport links to these hubs. Has any analysis been done on where the commuters are coming from?

> can't believe i am actually asking this but just > out of interest, for what offence/ crime did you > have in mind? Crime! He has clearly violated one of the most import rules the ED?s self appointed guardians of civility have. If you do any of the following: Cycle on the pavement Cycle through a red light Have a late night party. Let your dog shit in the park. Take your badly behaved kids out for a meal in a pub. Take a baby in a pram anywhere. Park your car badly. Play your iPod on the train loudly enough for other people to hear it. then you will feel the full weight of their disapproving. They will tut, they will glare, they will twitch their curtains, they will mutter under their breath ?some people", eventually one will come on a website and have good moan about you. You have been warned!