Siduhe

James, is there any way to get clarity on this? A review of the current CPZ being proposed on Southampton Way (which is currently under consultation as well) doesn't show it is being implemented on an experimental basis at all. This is in contrast with the Herne Hill TMO back in 2004 which clearly stated it was being done on an experimental basis. Procedures may have changed and everything now may be done on an experimental basis, but given the strength of feeling on here, it would help to understand exactly what opportunity there is going to be to assess how this proposed CPZ works in practice (given it appears to be pretty much a foregone conclusion IMO that a CPZ will result from the approach taken to the consultation so far).

Someone asked earlier on the thread what the law on council consultations is - there's nothing obvious in the legislation I can see that would apply here - lots of duties not to infringe on grounds of sex, age or race etc, but have just come across this case - R (Lionel Morris) v Newport City Council [2009] EWHC 3051 (Admin) which can be found here. It refers to the Sedley requirements for consultation (after another case) which are said to be as follows: a) consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage; (b) sufficient reasons must be given for any proposal to enable intelligent consideration and response; © adequate time must be given for such consideration and response; and d) the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any proposals.

That's a very fair point, I had assumed "resident" meant residential household, but can see it may well be taken from the electoral register or similar.

This is the crux of the issue for me too. I can completely see that there is parking pressure on certain streets near the station at peak times. I question if the impact of the CPZ will be what certain residents hope it will be (i.e. a substantial relief in parking pressures within the CPZ area) if all residents sign up for permits - the figures just don't seem to stack up. However, if it is right that Southwark only expect between 11% and 44% of current residents to apply for permits, the impact and outcome seems very clear. The planned CPZ will almost certainly free up parking spaces within the zone but there will be very substantial resident parking displacement around the edges of the zone. Forget displaced commuter parking - 56% of residents within the CPZ will be looking to park elsewhere on Southwark's own estimates (if what has been said on this thread is accurate). This is why the decision only to consult residents within the proposed zone and/or to prioritise the views of those residents seems so fundamentally wrong to me. Everyone affected should be properly consulted and have an opportunity to make their views known. As others have pointed out, this forum addresses a pretty small cross section of the community. The fact it appears to be the only place that people can get all the evidence available to make up their minds isn't a great reflection on Southwark Council.

I've also had a detailed response to my query about the apparent commitment by Southwark to consult outside the CPZ which was recorded in the minutes of the Camberwell Community Council on 22 September. Apparently the minutes are in error, no commitment to consult outside the zone was given and Southwark requested that the minutes be amended. The minutes have been updated on the Southwark website and now only refer to "Councillor Stephen Govier recommended that officers should consider the Albrighton Community Centre as an exhibition venue. In addition the consultation should record any comments received from those that reside outside the CPZ consultation area. The presenting officer explained that Grove Vale library was more central to the consultation area.". All this underlines that if people feel strongly one way or the other, it is really important to attend the next CCC meeting on 10 January to make your views known.

My understanding is it's the same kind of thing as was installed at the intersection of Underhill/Barry Road. Slows traffic entering/exiting the road.

Sue, here you go: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,729288,769295#msg-769295

I'm waiting hear back re my Gamesmaker application - everyone at work thinks I'm mad too - the question every asks is "do you get free tickets" (no!) and I've been really disappointed how many people ask me why I'm bothering - as if that's the only reason to volunteer. AFAIK Gamesmaker=volunteering at the Games and Ambassador=volunteering to assist visitors to London during the Games.

And after a clear commitment was given to Camberwell Community Council that residents outside the CPZ would be consulted. At James' suggestion I have followed up with Southwark Council to find out what form of consultation is being done outside the CPZ - suspect the Council will say they have consulted outside the CPZ zone via the two public exhibitions in Grove Vale Library. As I've said before, I am well outside the CPZ so am not expressing views on whether it should or shouldn't be implemented. But the process that Southwark is using to seemingly try and push this through without a proper debate (informed by all the relevant facts available from the surveys) just looks terrible. For everyone who feels strongly about this (one way or the other) can I mention there is a further community council meeting on 10 January 2012 where this is going to be discussed. They are normally at 7pm. So people do have an opportunity to make their views known in other ways and should do this as well as engaging with Southwark.

I'm also grateful for James sharing the more detailed info - it has led to a much more informed discussion on both sides - there clearly is a parking issue on some streets although I'm personally not convinced the impact is going to be what residents expect given the loss of unregulated parking which will bring each street down to "100%" max parking spaces. I did find this line of the report very interesting though, re Oglander: The way I read this is that zone of the CPZ has been determined as much by the manner of available funding (i.e. from TfL relating to Grove Vale) as whether there is an actual parking problem in any particular street caused by commuters. I know that's a sign of the times and not unique to Southwark, but it does sit a bit uncomfortably with any suggestion this is all being driven by resident needs. If it was, all of Oglander would have been included in CPZ looking at the parking survey figures, surely? I've also tracked down this bit of the minute from the Community Council at which the CPZ was discussed: James, any idea why Southwark Council then backed down from this commitment to consult outside the CPZ zone? Or have I misunderstood this minute?

atria, I agree, the CPZ proposal does provide a comprehensive amount of parking types. My understanding from reading the consultation is that this will reduce the amount of available residents' parking (not clear by how much). My point is a slightly different one, which is that Southwark itself says the amount of commuter parking is only 10-14% in the two roads they surveyed. If that's right (you clearly don't agree and may well have a more informed view that Southwark!) the CPZ will only lead to a reduction of 10-14% of parked cars on average. The amount of parking this frees up will be offset by the reduction of available parking for residents. So just on the figures, it seems questionable to me whether this CPZ is really going to deliver what residents want. What I disagree with is whether the facts have been made available to everyone who needs to be consulted in a neutral way - the 10%-14% assessment figures for example don't appear anywhere on the consultation and there is no explanation of how much parking will be lost to residents under these plans. I can absolutely accept that some residents want a CPZ.

atria Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Based on my experience in Borough of Bexley the > CPZ absolutely addressed parking problems due to > commuters. So I would say does work and without > any alternative to our problem not sure what else > can be done. atria, are you aware that Southwark has confirmed in writing to one of the posters on here that they have now formally assessed the impact of commuter parking in two key roads at 10% and 14% respectively? And that the CPZ proposal will lead to a reduced number of spaces in those roads? To be clear, I live well outside the proposed CPZ zone, so I don't have a strong view about the proposal. What I do have a very strong view about is the clear implication in the Southwark consultation document that commuter parking is a massive issue which can be resolved by a CPZ when, at least to me, their own figures don't support it. If you lose 10% of the spaces to pay and display and business parking, where is the net benefit to residents on these figures?

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @James Barber > You said it would become a problem with increased > number of house fronts being paved over. Surely > dropped kerbs are subject to planning permission > from the Council at which point it would be easy > for permission to be denied. I have no idea what Southwark's policy will be on dropped kerbs in any CPZ, but about three years ago a friend of mine applied to drop his kerb in a different London borough, shortly after the introduction of allocated parking bays in his road (i.e. free parking but only in defined bays which cut down the amount of parking in his road by about 20%). The suggested agreement/conditions to his planning application being approved was a payment to the Council of over ?1,400 towards "road safety measures and streetscape measures in the area". He apppealed and the amount was reduced to around ?500 plus the cost of the works.

If I read the additional responses from Southwark correctly - commuter and non-res parking in two of the potential CPZ streets (which were said to have a significant problem with commuters) has now been properly assessed at 10 and 14% respectively? If so, I'm really not sure how real the benefits are - lose 10% of the cars but also a number of available spaces (due to parking bays and pay and display spaces). Is it really going to change things the way that ingrid and others think it will?

I can't see any planning application for Coplestone Road for these works. However, whilst there are rules about paving or concreting over a front garden if the property is a house (even if it is converted into flats) - basically you need planning permission if the area to be covered is over than a certain size and unless you use a permeable surface - I'm pretty sure the rules for blocks of flats are different. It sounds as if the garden is in common usage but under the control of the freeholder (which I assume is Southwark Council). So Southwark may be within its "rights" to do these works without planning permission but seems very poor form not to consult or inform other residents - it may be under an obligation to do this under the lease for the flat as well. You should definitely take this up with your local councillor.

The TFL survey people were out in force at the starting point of the 63 bus (FHT side) one morning last week. From the look of it, they were surveying use of the 363/63 bus by schoolchildren - no surveys handed out, but were headcounting and noting which schools.

Cassius Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Brown bins & green bins successfully collected > today although after watching Dispatches last > night which criticised 'co-mingling' as a form of > recycing collection with a high wastage > rate................... We had a discussion about this on the EDF a while back and I said separated recycling had to be better as a long term solution vs co-mingled recycling (based on my understanding of the lower reuse ability and higher wastage). What was said in response to me (can't remember by whom) was that the recycling rate for co-mingled recyling often goes up more than enough to compensate for this. Now this is hardly a representative sample (one household, mine) but one thing that has gone up massively in the two weeks since the scheme started is the amount of comingled paper, plastic and bottles/cans we have put in for recycling. We've filled our blue bin to over the 3/4 mark whereas previously we were putting out one bag of paper and one box of bottles, cans and plastics. So maybe we need to factor in the potential for increase in the overall recycling rate as well. [Edited to remove duplicate part of post!]

We also had a Tuesday collection - Underhill Road/Melford borders. Both brown and green bins emptied as we expected.

I may be slightly biased as it's my hometown, but the York Christmas markets are usually good. There is one every year, not sure what the plan is for this year but look here.

[email protected]

Maybe look at the map on their website - lots of directions there...or was that a great big whoosh? http://www.bambuni.co.uk/

Pickle, I'm in ED and couldn't mix up recycling until the new system came in. Southwark introduced comingled recycling gradually and there were some parts of ED that still hadn't got it.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Science joke of the day: > > And the barman says sorry we don't serve > neutrinos. A neutrino walks into a bar. My personal favourite: An electron and a proton walk into a bar. The proton says, "you're round." "Are you sure?" replies the electron. And the proton says, "I'm positive".

The event in Dulwich Park has indeed been cancelled: I can't help but think any kind of event in our part of the borough would have been better than none...

You don't need to email them to the Kindle - just connect the kindle to your PC via the usb connector - the Kindle will show up as a drive (assuming you run Windows). Drag and drop the books to the "documents" folder and reboot your kindle (you may need to go into Home/Menu/Restart on the Kindle to do this). You need to be sure the files are the correct format and not DRM'd (if you've got them from Gutenberg, should be fine). There is also a detailed guide on the Amazon site: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200493090#usb