MarkT

Jimlad, you are grossly misrepresenting the Peckham Road South Parking Study.

You asserted that "a couple of streets had said no, but the judgement was they would quickly request to be added to the CPZ once the wider zone was activated."

You are wrong in two ways:

1. Officers made no such assumption that people who voted against, would reverse their opinion. Your suggestion that they would do so and your justification of such an assumption was indeed outrageous. Actually the Report reveals that the question was actually asked:

"If you answered ?No? or ?Undecided? to question 4, would you change your mind if a parking zone was to be proposed in only part of the study area?" The Response: No 56% yes 6%

2. You refer me to page 18 of the Report and quote "streets such as Denman Road and Talfourd Road were against the implementation of a parking zone"

If you read the Executive summary, you will see that those two streets are named only as examples."Street-by-street analysis shows that nine streets support a parking zone and eight streets are against. Ainsworth Close was undecided and there was no response from Peckham High Street."

Actually therefore a minority of streets voted yes. The map in the Report shows this to be in a block. The will of that block and the officers driving the process was therefore imposed on the greater part of the area.

Sally Eva,

to ask people to record a provisional alternative choice is totally reasonable, with the option to say 'no, I will not change my mind'

That is not what jimlad has reported and is justifying.

Jimlad, can you provide the actual quote, to support your statement?

"In the toastrack consultation it was noted that a couple of streets had said no, but the judgement was they would quickly request to be added to the CPZ once the wider zone was activated."

jimlad, that's outrageous.

"See below quote from Cllr James McAsh from his councillor thread - 2nd Sept 18

?The consultation will identify what appetite there is for controlled parking in different areas. The consultation area is quite big but the results will not be all-or-nothing. In other words, if controlled parking is popular in some areas but not in others then the former can have controlled parking and the latter not.?"

Did James provide written evidence to support that promise?

It was certainly not the case in Dog Kennel Hill, where only 14 of 29 streets voted yes. Here are some quotes from the 2017 Dog Kennel Hill CPZ Report:

"Street-by-street analysis shows that 14 streets support a parking zone and ten streets are against. Three streets were undecided and there was no response from Grove Vale or Henry Dent Close."

Based on the results of the informal consultation, officers are making the following recommendations:

1. To implement a parking zone throughout the whole study area.

bels123,

how do you prevent those paid bays being blocked by an all day parker paying by phone, or any resident permit holder?

Close to spinerus is a proposed pay to park bay, shared with permit holders, in Jennings Rd, possibly sited with intention that it is available to Heber Road School. Such bays seem to be located close to a range of community facilities. If another such bay were placed close to the clinic, perhaps every resident permit holder, commuter, and tradesperson would altruistically leave it for spinesrus clients, but I suspect, given that people can pay by phone, every such island of pay to park would be blocked all day, and unavailable to the indended users.

the_greeno,

If you mean parking in the public street, then it will not be on the estate parking system. The estate parking officers may have no connection with or knowledge of street parking controls.

CPZ permits are not now displayed in the car window.

Any parking controls in place will be displayed on road markings and signs on posts.

Anyway you have now realised that it is not only car owners who are affected by CPZ's

Tuesdays, term time, 4.45 to 5.45pm

?50 for 10 week term, started yesterday, 15th January.

No experience needed

"The irony of driving to the leisure centre!" Indeed, but to be fair there are some who need to drive but do not qualify for a blue badge. Also, though perhaps not in the case of the Leisure Centre, anyone organising activities at other community facilities may need to carry equipment, so need parking close by, typically for a couple of hours.

The plans show pay-to-park sections (shared with permit parking) close to the Leisure Centre and to other community facilities, eg Goose Green Centre and the East Dulwich Community Centre. If the CPZ restrictions are to be all day, the pay-to-park bays would be necessary as the only available parking for non-residents. However if the CPZ is to operate for only a couple of hours in the day, those bays will likely be blocked by all day parkers, paying by phone for those couple of hours, and thus totally unavailable for the users of the community facility.

MarkT

Well it was certainly there before.

I quoted it in other threads on this forum to argue against extended double yellow lines on dropped kerbs and at junctions.

Why would they delete such a convenient counter argument?

MarkT

Rendelharris

I think it occurs in the opening paragraphs of several sections eg

DS 114 1.2.b. "Stopping distances vary with vehicle type and speed. However, research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at."

I noted this some while ago, so I was citing it from memory, my apologies if I have overstated the concern.

MarkT

Alex_b,

Your concern of higher speeds is confirmed by Southwark Council's Streetscape Design Manual, which states that research shows that increased sightlines lead to increased speed. Also the Council's reports on previous CPZ's state that a benefit of a CPZ is improved traffic flow through the area. That implies more speed and an invitation to rat running.

This is an obvious result of the extended double yellow lines at junctions and dropped kerbs. I have particular concerns about the extended lines across dropped kerbs as it encourages greater speed crossing pavements, with a particular risk to small children.

MarkT

This map gives street numbers

http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?tooltip=yes

sally buying comments: "if you were expecting a CPZ between the hours of 11-1, whereby cars have to remove themselves discouraging commuters etc, in our neck of the woods the signs show park and pay for the above hours."

The concept of CPZ certainly includes both resident/visitor parking and pay by the hour arrangements, but were people who voted for the Dog Kennel Hill CPZ expecting park and pay to be included in that area? Were they misled by the Council.

You raise an interesting point. Previous park and pay systems - parking meters and pay and display - required the presence of the driver at the time of payment. A two hour charged period in the middle of the day could therefore be employed to thwart commuters. With phone payment, a commuter can park all day and make the payment remotely at the start of the charged period.

Water? Can you locate the sound? Look around your water systems eg toilet. Can you turn off the water before it enters the flat? That would confirm if it is water, and would limit damage. Are you on the ground floor?

MarkT

Rollflick wrote

?Surely it's the people not responding to consultations who are lazy? And many people who want a CPZ - so space can be given over to wider pavements, safer junctions, cycling, greenery etc. - don't have any cars at all.?

Rollflick. The 2012 Grove Vale CPZ consultation report states that 10% of respondents don?t ?have? a vehicle. More answered yes to: do ?You? have difficulty parking, than to: do ?your visitors? have difficulty. So most of the 10% who do not ?have? a vehicle must be drivers.

So the many people who do not have car, who you say want a CPZ, do not respond to the Survey.

You say that non car owners want a CPZ to get people friendly streets. That is a very nice vision and it is well presented by the Guardian reporter, but it is not on offer here.

Look at local Controlled Parking Zones. They are exactly as the name implies. Boxes marked out for paid parking, and everywhere else restricted by yellow lines. Note in this context double yellow lines across pavement crossovers, extending well beyond the length of dropped kerb.

In its CPZ reports the Council states that a benefit of CPZ is that it improves traffic flow through an area, by providing more and longer passing places, with greater visibility around junctions.

The Council?s Streetscape Design Manual states that increasing visibility leads to increased speed. I am particularly concerned about the extended double yellows on dropped kerbs. The resident is thereby encouraged to cross the pavement at greater speed, regardless of the toddler on a scooter.

By the way, for the privilege of guaranteed speedy access, the off-street parker, I suppose, doesn?t need to pay for a Resident?s permit.

Under a CPZ all residents have to pay for their visitors and tradespeople. In the Grove Vale consultation 21% responded, almost all drivers. 59% voted No. The non-drivers may not be lazy; they probably think it does not affect them.

MarkT

Apmuso, who declares himself as "campaigning for" writes:

MarkT - you assume that the ED CPZ scheme will be rolled out in exactly the same manner as the Dog Kennel one. Not what I'd heard.

Now, Apmuso, my assumptions are based on published Council documents. Are you saying that you, as a CPZ campaigner, are privy to better information?

MarkT

Where does it say that amount of people is all they need?

The 2012 Grove Vale Consultation Report had a 21% response. The Report justifies that as acceptable by quoting Council policy:

?The Parking and Enforcement Plan1 (PEP) sets out the council?s policy in the management of parking on its public highway.?

?The PEP sets out that the council will give significant weight to the consultation return when it exceeds a 20% threshold.?

"Q5 Do you agree with the proposed introduction of a controlled parking zone in your street??

Response: Yes 35% No 59% Undecided 6%

Recommendation: CPZ throughout the Grove Vale study area.

The 2017 Dog Kennel Hill Report justifies a 15% response: "As the response rate was over 10% the Council gives significant weight to the consultation returns."

I can't find the PEP on the Council website, so I don't know if that policy has been been rewritten to allow 10% as significant or if the CPZ pushers are making it up as they go along.

MarkT

Apmuso wrote:

?Personally I'm for a 12-2 CPZ in the Grove Vale area, but I appreciate the arguments against.?

?As I understand it, the council are willing to implement a CPZ where there is enough support on a road by road basis, rather than firehose the area with them.?

Why do you understand it will be implemented on a road by road basis? I have quoted above (Oct 17) from the Dog Kennel Hill Report:

- 14 streets out of a total 29 streets voted yes to a CPZ.

- 47% of all respondents voted yes to a CPZ.

- Based on the results of the informal consultation, officers are making the following recommendations: To implement a parking zone throughout the whole study area.

As you are for a CPZ, you might agree with the officers that 47% of a 15% response is, to use your phrase, ?enough support?, but you are demonstrably wrong that it will be implemented on a road by road basis?

I also question your phrase ?the Council are willing to implement?. I think that determined would be more apt. In each area that has previously rejected a CPZ, they try again until they have "enough support" to justify bulldozing it through.

I?d like to explore your appreciation of the arguments against in a later post.

MarkT

To follow up your aside, Jimbo, the garages in Henslowe Road, and probably also your former playground, have a big sign "NO BALL GAMES". I think that is really sad, what harm could be done to a row of garages. Who in the Council takes those decisions to prohibit children from engaging in such positive activities?

Johnie,

I have this one reservation.

the guides (I have 2 books - Collins Gem Guide and Blacks Nature Guide) seem to make a point about the snakeskin stipe as an identifying characteristic. In Lee's photo, like the ones this year in my garden, it seems smooth

http://www.gallowaywildfoods.com/parasol-mushroom-edibility-distribution-identification/

However, looking again at the first photo in the link, that looks smooth. The confusion would be with the shaggy parasol, which at worst according to the link "doesn't agree with some people". - small risk. I'm regretting now I didn't eat mine.

MarkT

Looks to me like a parasol. Macrolepiota procera. The specimen in your pic is newly emerged; it opens into an umbrella shape. I ate them years ago, when I was young and careless, and found them very tasty. Sliced thinly, they also dried nicely for later use. My mushroom guide confirms this but warns that related species are poisonous. The edible one it says does not discolour on cutting but it has has a snakeskin-like stem. I don't remember that last detail on the ones I used to eat. So now I'm not so sure; Some appeared in my garden recently - smooth stem - I did not eat them. I would appreciate an expert opinion.

MarkT

rh, Abe,

my point, which I should have made clear, is that I question the phrase "would like". No doubt people who strongly object to a CPZ would select the 2 hour regime as the least objectionable option if the CPZ is created. That is very different from saying that those objectors "would like" that option.

Perhaps "prefer" would be more appropriate.

MarkT

I think if you do not want a CPZ it would be unwise to wait for the launch of Consultation. The wanty drivers clearly do not wait. The various consultation reports on specific CPZs make the point that outside of formal consultations the Council receives requests for a CPZ. They do not mention if they receive unprompted objections to a CPZ.

Sept 28th on this thread, I quoted from the Grove Vale Report, and now here from the Dog Kennel Hill Report. The pattern seems to be that the council proposes a CPZ and, if it is unsupported in the neighbourhood, they bide their time until they have had enough intervening requests for a CPZ. They then do another consultation and creatively interpret the results to justify a recommendation for the individual Councillor Decision to impose a CPZ

Extracts from 2017 Dog Kennel Hill Consultation Report.

2006/7 Area last consulted on possible introduction of CPZ (No widespread support of CPZ at this time)

As the response rate was over 10% the Council gives significant weight to the consultation returns.

Summary of key consultation findings

? A total of 2,471 consultation packs were sent out to 28 streets within the consultation area. We received a total of 365 valid responses representing a response rate of 15%.

? A valid response is a response from a resident or business within the consultation boundary.

? Street-by-street analysis shows that 14 streets support a parking zone and ten streets are against. Three streets were undecided and there was no response from Grove Vale or Henry Dent Close.

? The majority of respondents stated that they and their visitors have difficultly parking on week days during the day.

? 12% of respondents were undecided on whether they would like a parking zone, 39% stated that they did not want a parking zone and 49% stated that they did want a parking zone.

? It is clear that the largest group of respondents would like a parking zone on their street.

? 29% of respondents would like this parking zone to operate all day (i.e. 8.30am ? 6.30pm) and 29% would like the zone to operate for two hours during the day.

? 65% of respondents would like it to operate Monday to Friday.

Recommendations

Based on the results of the informal consultation, officers are making the following recommendations:

1. To implement a parking zone throughout the whole study area.

2. For the zone to operate Monday to Friday.

3. For the zone to operate for two hours during the day, 11am to 1pm.

My notes on the above:

1. The Grove Vale Consultation Report quoted the Council?s Parking and Enforcement Plan to justify the acceptance of a 21% response: ?The PEP sets out that the council will give significant weight to the consultation return when it exceeds a 20% threshold.? For Dog Kennel Hill the significance threshold has magically reduced to 10% to justify acceptance of a 15% response

2. 3rd bullet point: 14 streets for a CPZ. out a total of 29 ? ie a minority of streets for. Recommendation ?based on that? is to implement CPZ on every street.

3. 4th bullet point: NOT TRUE. Further on in the report the actual figure of respondents who stated that they and their visitors had trouble parking on a weekday is recorded as 47%. That is not a majority.

4. 4th Bullet point ??they and their visitors?? suggests that the majority of respondents were drivers. Why do non-drivers not respond? Non-drivers also have visitors and tradespeople, some of whom may refuse to come to a CPZ.

5. 5th bullet point: A minority - 49% - want CPZ. 6th Bullet point misleadingly implies that the majority were in favour.

6. 8th Bullet point: ?65% of respondents would like it to operate Monday to Friday?. How can that be true when only 49% of respondents want any form of CPZ?

MarkT

Sue,

this from the Council website:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/bins-and-recycling/recycling/recycling-centres/recycling-locator

The link takes you nearly there - goto electricals then energy saving light bulbs.

Nowhere nearby. There used to be one at Sainsburys Dog Kennel Hill, then Colyton Rd/Holmstall Rd, but they seem to have gone.

MarkT