first mate

There is a need for hard evidence on parent driver habits, proximity of home to school etc? I don't understand the reasoning. Proposed road blocking only works if the majority of parents stop using cars, if not the problem will remain but be displaced a street away. I am not clear what evidence there is to demonstrate the majority of parents will stop? If the same driving habits occur in the displaced space surely children will be just as at risk there? So what will be the remedy then? In regard to a paucity of wardens, other posters have suggested they are a fairly regular feature. Even so, a number of random FPNs might have served as some deterrent. Unless it has been trialled we cannot know can we? It is the seeming reluctance on S'warks part to do this that is odd.

I do wonder why FPNs have not been issued for parking on double yellows etc, especially if there are wardens in situ? In terms of pollution and physical dangers, won't the problem simply be displaced to streets adjacent to the blocked road outside each school? So there will be stats produced to show success and a reduction in the problem but that will only be immediately outside the schools? Will the majority of those currently driving their children in to school just stop?

Hemingway clearly prefaced his/ her comment on the Palmerston with the word "unrelated". Think your final comment was unnecessary Rendel and not worthy of you.

Assume it is wretched Concordia Health who bid and won?

They must have been directed not to enforce. The cynical side of me wonders if this is a deliberate ploy to add as much fuel as possible to the council drive for mass CPZ, yellow lines, road closures.

How odd that wardens would not issue fines for dangerous parking. Have Southwark instructed them not to, I wonder? Passiflira Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bessemer Grange should have had CEO's (otherwise > known as traffic wardens) patrolling the school at > drop-off and pick-up times, prior to the street > closure. Why didn't they if there was such a > parking problem? The head must have known about > parking issues but the head has now imposed other > parking issues on the local surrounding community > i.e. inside and outside of the yellow gates. > > I've noticed that the two disabled parking bays > directly opposite the school are due to be taken > out (notices on lamp-posts recently) but nothing > about the zig zag lines directly outside the > school so what's the point of them? > > So now the surrounding area have to put up with > cars parked on double yellow lines, across > driveways, across zebra crossing zig-zags, > neighbours cars being damaged. This is just > around the corner from Bessemer Grange and this > also impacts on children's safety. > > The area is suddenly (since last Sept/Oct) being > patrolled by CEO's on foot and in cars but they > are reluctant to issue any fines in the area. > I've spoken to them regularly about the problem in > the area since the Street Closure but they all > seem very friendly with the parents driving into > the school.

The thought of this practice inhabiting a 'prize' site like the community hospital is deeply worrying. How did they manage to swing that? This practice has a very chequered history.

How many women? Did men never complain or were only women targeted? How many different 'commuter stalkers' were identified.

James, Think the devil will only be apparent if and when a number of schools around ED implement this at the same time. The first few will not make much of an impact but will set a precedent for others to follow suit. That is why it needs proper consultation across the community, not the council favoured piecemeal approach. I should add that when a number of schools were in the development phase- Harris ED and Charter the issue of lack of parking and drop off points was raised many times. I seem to recall soothing assurances that parents and pupils would mostly walk or cycle.

The introduction of 'commuter stalkers' as another reason to proselytise for CPZ just seemed odd. Hemingway Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Hemingway Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Oh that sounds likley - stick 'commuter > > stalking' > > > as a reason for CPZ in the consultation > > document. > > > jimLad for someone who doesn't live in the > > area, > > > and if i recall doesn't have a car, you seem > to > > be > > > a very vocal presecence on this thread.... > > > > Sorry, could you point me to the rules on the > > website that bar non 'local' people from > > commenting please? > > > > I am offering factual practical advice on our > > experience to help inform peoples decision > making. > > I am very open about the fact that I actively > > campaigned for a CPZ, and I am very clear on > the > > benefits we have accrued from it. I am offering > a > > different perspective based on the experience > of > > what actually has happened when it was > > implemented. I appreciate not everyone supports > > CPZs, but surely good debate is about offering > > both perspectives, not an echo chamber? > > > > I wasn't aware this was a crime. I also joined > EDF > > many years ago as a good source of local > advice, > > and have posted on a variety of topics. Heaven > > forbid me for trying to participate in a > > discussion forum with views you don't agree > > with... > > > I didn't say you couldn't post, anyone can, just > pointing out that you don't live in the proposed > area, live in an area where CPZ was imposed but > there wasn't a strong and vibrant high street that > will be effected , and you don't have a car. Feels > like you do have an agenda though.......

And yet, sadly, it is quite likely all that parking stress has been created by a combination of road and parking changes put through by Southwark with the sole intention of creating a demand for CPZ.

Presumably these are private roads owned by the estates?

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do council tenants get free parking permits? I would also like to know if this is the case?

There are many schools around East Dulwich, so yes it is valid to ask how simultaneously closing off myriad streets adjacent to those schools every day will impact the area. It seems that the favourite trick of doing it a street at time is once again being employed but it won't be until they are all closed at the same time that the true impact will be felt. Quite a few schools sit on major access routes into and out ED. Why not ask each school to campaign with the parents whose children attend and ask them not to drive in? And there should be a major consultation across the community before such far reaching measures are taken.

Is Herne Hill really like ED though? Lots of large properties with off street parking.

The perception of many is that the current approach in terms of proposals for ED is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Safety is a fig leaf. Revenue is the real motivation.

Still no response from James?

And local jobs for local people. Unless you are able to work and function locally without using a car then really you should up sticks and live elsewhere. After all, the choice is all yours!

Think Charles makes a reasonable point though.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sidll1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This is an extraordinary first world thread. > There > > are,you will be surprised to know, many non car > > owning people living in the proposed zone. Many > of > > these are elderly, many do not own their > > properties, many are not very well off and some > > are not very internet savvy. They rely on > visits > > from children, grandchildren and friends. A CPZ > is > > not going to help them one bit and the cost of > > visitor permits may be prohibitive. > > Get over your ?I deserve to park outside my > castle > > attitude? think about your less well off > > neighbours and see if you can help them fill in > > their forms to oppose this scheme. > > Well put This!

Not all careworkers though, only some. The system as outlined in the link seems to support businesses and agencies involved with care not those individuals who might have the additional stress of caring for a loved one as well as working, or even caring for a loved one full time.

But how can a consultation be valid if a majority decide against? Surely this would be completely undemocratic? Would Southwark Labour really force through CPZ without majority support for such a major change? bonaome Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I was positively encouraged by both the huge > > numbers of people who have signed the various > > petitions in the shops of Lordship Lane at the > > weekend and the passion with which the > shopkeepers > > are trying to fight the CPZ. > > I think, unfortunately, if even a very small > minority of people on a very small number of > streets support it, the council will roll it out > in the whole proposed zone. I lived on the > Shaftesbury estate in Battersea in 2001/2 and was > astonished to find a CPZ was being introduced. > When we lived there it was very unusual not to be > able to park right outside your house. Council > still put a CPZ in though. When I asked them why, > they said a tiny number of people had responded in > favour (e.g. like 23) to a consultation I did not > even recall receiving. That was Wandsworth, but > I'd expect Southwark to be the same.

Renata, thank you for your reply though you do seem to be restating what is already known. Of greater interest would be whether you support the 'closed' process as described above, where use of much valued public land is essentially determined without public consent. Is hiring out the park for private profit now part of Labour's vision for the borough? Just to add, this event should be on the Commn, not in one of the prettiest parts of the park, where we have already seen damage not yet righted. Control of noise is then a problem for the organisers and S'wark Events to solve. As others have said, these large scale events are almost always mounted on the Common and this event shoild also be mounted there.

I am sure I am not the only one who would like to hear Renata's response to TheTruthisOut's comments above.

I agree with you Jimbo1964, much better to use the Common which seems an ideal event space and leave the more scenic, planted parts of the park open for use by public. The reason given for not using the Common was I believe noise, in that the trees in other parts of the park provide a baffle. However, no doubt the organisers can find other ways to reduce noise, I find it hard to believe this cannot be done.