LondonMix

Yes, thanks-- I'll edit

Great. Is there an official cycling route that way (I cycle to work often but not that route)? If there is one, the argument to those making the decisions would hold more weight.

I agree with the sentiment and don't want to hijack this thread with a non-point. I agree that nursery places should be subsidised so that more open at lower costs so that more women / men who want to work but can't afford to can get back to work. However, your logic of people being treated like companies doesn't work in my opinion. We all contract many people and services just like a company as part of daily life. If someone directly employed a gardener (rather than hiring a gardening company) would you still think deducting this expense from income tax made sense? By your logic, all costs people incur for running their lives theoretically could be deducted from their income tax bill if they employed people directly. Child care is a special service only in that its in society's interest to keep the population going and to keep people in work. Therefore, child care costs deserves special treatment rather than there being any inherent double taxation at work. Personally, I think most people would prefer to pay higher taxes and have nursery subsidised. It will work out as the same cost over the long run for many people but avoiding it as one lump while you children are little won't force people out of work. Politically speaking, nanny's being subsidised / tax deductible is probably too controversial as most people still associate nanny's with the very rich though in London the reality can be far different.

They won't expand to areas that are past major hills having learnt the lessons of Paris. Many people will cycle downhill and then return home on public transport. As you can imagine, this poses issues for docking station logistics.

I think the government should do something to help but the way nannies are paid are the way everyone is paid who provides you a service-- you just notice it with nannies because you are in charge of filing the taxes. I'm not saying working families don't need help but that often repeated argument isn't exactly right. For example, if you have a gardener, you pay them a gross wage and they pay their taxes. For a nanny, you pay a gross wage but are responsible for handing over the taxes to HMRC. Even if the gardener has a company and pays themselves a wage (which is common) they still have to pay taxes both on the wage they receive and any profit the company makes. Anyhow, the gov't isn't likely to do anything as long as everyone keeps on having kids! The birth rate in the UK is still relatively high and most countries in Europe introduced subsidised child care to bolster declining birth rates.

I get what you are saying about supply and demand but the tax breaks would make it affordable for more people I think. Creating any kind of tax credit would drive up demand (as more people could afford it) and consequently prices (as you allude to) but the price increase would also encourage more people to enter the market (attenuating price) until a new equilibrium was reached regarding supply and demand. In the end, I agree, there wouldn't be much in the way of true savings for those who already can (barely) afford these services but there would be an expansion of the service enabling more women to go back to work if that makes sense so it would not be totally pointless. Not sure if the point I'm trying to make is clear. KatsuQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dg2 and clareC, I agree! - but have a horrible > suspicion that even if that ever happened, nanny > and nursery costs would just go up. It's just what > the market will bear and there is a tipping point > where mothers will say, well that makes it just > about worth it for me to go back to work. And > nannies' rates will always be at that tipping > point. (Not explaining myself really well) > > What I mean is, say currently 30% (totally made up > number) of mothers earn enough to pay for > childcare. If full tax breaks were introduced, > then still only 30% of women would earn enough > because nannies' wages / nursery charges would > just go up.

Anyone see this in the FT today: "A review of housing policy this week is expected to propose that the present obligation on developers to build affordable houses should be scaled back."-- last paragraph in the article. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f3ef55a2-ea9c-11e1-ba49-00144feab49a.html#axzz24IBEH5Iw I agree with the comments that ghettos should not be formed. Perhaps a policy that said expesnive homes should be sold off only of there is land in the area that can be developed? The savings would largely come from period properties being sold (which still sell for a premium) and developing new builds or using the money to make other vacant properties in the area habitable again. There is a balance in most parts of London that I imagine can be struck.

First, I think that the Travel Watch Survey is a very poorly drafted document and the layout of data is not as clear as it should be and I think that might be causing some confusion. With that said, UDT, if you look closely, you will see that only people getting on /off the SET at Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye were surveyed. It was the intention of the surveyors to capture only the users of the SET from and to those stations for their analysis. Therefore, your point 1 is by design of the report. The percentage of users of the Victoria-Dartford line (SET) who would also benefit from the ELLX is unknown. Please see below relevant passages from the report that highlight the intentions of the survey. Therefore, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn about how many total passengers should get off the SET (Dartford ? Victoria service) and start using the ELLX once its up and running. However, there are three plausible scenarios: 1. The majority of people that get on the SET at stations before Peckham Rye (ie Dartford - Nunhead) already get off at Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill (for the reasons you mention in points 3 and 4 of your post UDT). If this is the case, then the majority of people who currently travel into Victoria on the SET are people travelling in from Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye and therefore the results of the Travel Watch survey are largely in line with how expected travel patterns on this line will evolve following the ELLX. That is, circa 40% of users will be better off or neutral switching to the ELLX from these stations, creating capacity to absorb the estimated 70% passengers from the SLL who need to travel into Victoria and don?t benefit from the ELLX as their final destinations aren?t in East / West London. As the SET has more total space than the SLL, the figures might work and there might not be over-crowding on the remaining Victoria service. 2. The other possibility is that the SET all the way through to Victoria is used by a mix of people from throughout the line. Whether or not people who get on in Dartford through Nunhead will be better off switching to the ELLX when they arrive at Peckham or better off staying on the SET train will depend on their final destinations which we don?t know. However, in my opinion, there is no reason to think that more people in Nunhead have final destinations in central London (vs. East / West London) than people captured by Travel Watch who use Peckham and Denmark Hill stations. If a similar final destination pattern holds up, one would still expect 30-40% of capacity to be created by the ELLX to absorb the SLL passengers. I take your point UDT that about half of those not negatively affected in the SET survey from Peckham and Denmark Hill are making short local trips for which the ELLX can work as a substitute between these two stations. But neutralizing those, that still leaves a signifcant 20% of journey's on the SET that benefit. Applying those figure for those travelling from Dartford and Nunhead combined with the 40% of those travelling from Peckham and Denmark Hill still make a compelling case for spare capacity though as you mention with more final destinations via Victoria station than before. 3. The only scenario in which the above isn?t the case is if passengers who get on before Peckham represent a very large percentage of total passengers into Victoria on the SET currently and these passengers have final destinations in central London (vs. East and West London) at a much higher rate than people who get on the train at Peckham and Denmark Hill. This is possible though in my view not the most likely scenario. Either way, like I already said, this survey needed to be more detailed about final destinations of users to come up with more conclusive analysis. Also, given that a lot of people surveyed didn?t realize they would benefit by switching to the ELL once its up and running due to lack of information, TFL needs to start a big awareness campaign to make sure the line is used by all those who benefit to mitigate over-crowding on the remaining Victoria service as much as possible. Extracts from Report: Following an advance ?dry run? it was decided to carry out the SET surveys on the platform at Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill. This was because the loadings of the SET services were already significant when Victoria-bound trains arrived from Nunhead, thereby presenting difficulties in finding passengers originating at Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill for survey staff going through the trains. If survey cards had been had handed out to all passengers, there was the potential for a large number of responses to be received from passengers originating at stations between Dartford and Nunhead. Whilst these could have been discarded, it would have reduced the number of surveys able to be distributed in the available time to the target audience. 5.3 By far the biggest destination is Victoria, with Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill the highest origin stations. Given that the SET survey focused specifically on passengers from these two stations into Victoria, this is not wholly surprising. However, this pattern is broadly consistent with the SLL survey as well, although the spread of origins is much wider. SET - Destinations 5.40 The respondents from the SET survey are even more dominated by Victoria as a destination, which is to be expected given the specific targeting of Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill originating journeys. These three destinations combined consist of 84% of destinations. SET ? Origins 5.43 The 94% combined origin responses for Victoria, Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye validates the survey as having been carried out correctly by capturing the right audience. The small amount of other origins represent interchanges onto the line or joint users of SET and SLL services, who are answering for the SLL part of their journeys. Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @LondonMix > > I can see what you're trying to say but with all > due respect I think you're taking the figures out > of context. > > 1) In sections 5.41 it lists final destinations > for users of the South East Train Services (SETS). > Most of the SETS users benefiting from the switch > to ELL have final destinations to Peckham Rye and > Denmark Hill. > > 2) The report also mentions some passengers freely > interchanging beween SES and SLL as they serve the > same stations from start of journey to final > destination. > > 3) Peckham Rye is a major hub for interchanging of > train journeys. > > 4) Denmark Hill have two major hospitals nearby > > 5) Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill passengers > benefits from the increase frequency of the ELL > services are likely to be short journeys > > Taking into account 1,2,3,4, & 5, the ELL service > will not solve the overcrowding on SETS trains > arriving at Victoria station.

Regarding Victoria, are we assuming people won't be able to get on the remaining trains into Victoria Station (the Dartford Service)? The existing gap between the SLL and the Dartford service is only 5 min so it was basically two back to back trains every half on an hour. For people whose final destination is more easily reached by going straight to Victoria going to Clahpham makes no sense. The Dartford service is already quite full I know but according to the Travel Watch Survey we've been discussing about 27% of people who currently are commuting to Victoria on the SLL would be better off or neutral using the ELL given their reported final destinations (usually East or West London). This considered both length of journey and any additional hassle involved with switching trains in comparing journeys. For people originating in Peckham or Denmark Hill using the South Eastern Service from Dartford to get into Victoria the number who will benefit from switching to the ELL is closer to 40% based on final destinations. We can imagine a similar percentage of the people who got on before Peckham Rye might find it makes sense to switch to ELL at Peckham Rye as well. The Dartford service carries a lot more people than the SLL so there very well could be more than enough space to accommodate the 70% of SLL who will try to get onto the South Eastern Service to Victoria. Does anyone have the exact passenger numbers on each service to see if 40% of people on South Eastern train to Victoria who switch to the ELL will create enough room to accommodate the 70% of SLL users who will need to use the service once the SLL trains disappear? I want to maintain the best connections we can into the centre but the more I look at it, the more I understand why certain decisions may have been made....

Thanks, that's helpful. rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > A lot of people have expressed a lot of views > and at this point, I believe one of the cllrs > should step in and clarify how to make a formal > objection and what grounds will be considered. > > Hi, LondonMix. > > Technically the consultation period on this > application is now closed. The next step will be > for the sub-committee to formally consider it at a > public meeting in Tooley Street, probably in Sept > - we're waiting to hear what exact date, probably > the 11th Sept. > > At the public meeting Objectors, Supporters, and > Ward Councillors will get a chance to speak and be > questioned by the committee. > > My guess is that the grounds to be considered will > boil down to the developers having a workable > Transport Assessment followed by a detailed > discussion on parking policies, which is why > referred everyone to the Sustainable Transport > SPD, as all the relevant specifics are covered in > this document. > > The Sustainable Transport SPD carefully defines > the Suburban Zone in 4.2.9 as:- > > 4.2.10 This area includes Dulwich and is dominated > by houses with gardens rather than flats, with > development between 200 and 350 habitable rooms > per hectare. There are some bus routes and railway > stations, however the level of public transport is > lower than in the rest of Southwark. Less > development is going to happen in the Suburban > Zone and we allow more car parking to a maximum > between 1.5 or 2 spaces per flat or house. > > It can be argued that Lordship Lane has a high > level of access to public transportation but the > fact is that Lordship Lane is only designated as a > Neighbourhood Area, which is suitable for smaller > scale development, specifically because while the > access to public transportation (PTAL) is > excellent running north to south, the > interconnecting access routes east and west are > poor, which is what makes Dulwich residents more > dependent on their cars than in other parts of > Southwark, which is in turn why we are allowed > more parking spaces in new developments than > Southwark saved policy 5.6 and the London policies > allow. > > In my opinion the debate is going to boil down to > how to encourage growth and development along > Lordship Lane while preserving the amenity of the > surrounding local residents.

Exactly, people like being near good schools, close to transport, near green spaces and to live on quiet tidy roads. How many streets have these properties in an area will determine if this is an extra that people pay a premium for or if its common and part of the avg price psm. Most individuals don't do any calculation but its common sense and so is automatically reflected in the sales prices. The issue is with agents who mislead buyers into thinking there 900 sqf 3 bed is worth as much as the property next door which is 50 percent bigger. These properties sit on the market forever until the sellers finally reset their expectations. Even if someone thought about overpaying the mortgage surveyors would knock it back these days so the agents are just wasting everyone's time. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah, I think a lot of people would agree > with you. The total area is important, but so is > the layout.

Tons, do a search in the Events section of the forum.

I would say Frazer 71 is exactly right for average quality / standard layout properties. I think Friern road tends to have bigger houses and gardens in general so for a nice place the headline prices are higher but on a price psm basis fall into the upper end of that range. Everyone is right that its not just size of the house-- size of garden, quality of layout, how modern it is makes a difference. However, for properties of similar quality in the same location the price psm data really does hold up. Buyers set the market this way even without formally doing a calculation. And while each house if unique, there is a standard / average from which each property can deviate up or down for "special / funky" features. Also, residential developers certainly run their financial projections for schemes this way based on the quality of spec they are planning to achieve. This metric already exists in London and not just for commercial real estate transactions.

Very helpful post!

That's not really a legitimate objection. Most of the houses in ED are Victorian Terraces and have similar layouts. Larger houses by sqm within this area therefore almost always have more living / bedroom space. For pricing properties within the local area its a fine metric. The issue really is deminishing utility. People aren't willing to pay that much more for a house that is larger that what they consider adequate living space. They'll pay more but not at the same price psm which is understandable.

As you know, I agree. A lot of people have expressed a lot of views and at this point, I believe one of the cllrs should step in and clarify how to make a formal objection and what grounds will be considered. There are serious problems posed by the planning application and 5 legitimate objections need to be formally presented. For instance, even getting clarification on how close you need to live to the store to be able to raise concerns about noise and parking? KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now now that's not particularly a fair thing to > say... it would seem there is/was (I don't know > where they're at with the idea of moving on) no > choice... however as you've clearly pointed out as > have I and others to which this application > effects the choice/selection/wishes of which store > occupies the site is not the question

UDT, I have already stated I am in favour of the SLL being maintained but want more information. I said the problem with that opinion survey was misinformation by users- which is true, and you accused me of making it up. I have come to realize that even when I agree with you, you are impossible to speak to so again, I choose to end the conversation with you on another topic.

From the Travel Watch Study: Many respondents to the survey took up the opportunity to include comments about how they believe the changes to train services might affect their journey. (A sample of these is included as Appendix D of this report). It was clear from the feedback received that there is a general lack of accurate information (and, indeed, some misinformation) about the proposed changes, which means that a more substantive communications exercise by TfL is likely to beneficial in the near future. Therefore, there were many misconceptions in passengers? responses, primarily that there would be no direct services from Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye to Victoria. This means that the disbenefits are overstated by respondents and the benefits are understated. and also: 3.3 In general, though, this general ?revealed preference? approach should provide more robust data than asking passengers questions about their possible behaviour in the future, although sometimes this has to be done. Such is the case in trying to understand what passengers might do if their current (preferred) SLL alternative were to be no longer available. Some of the responses given here clearly reflected misinformation or a lack of information both about current journey opportunities and (more particularly) about likely service plans. Transport for London, Network Rail and train operators clearly need to consider a communications programme to publicise future train service plans and the improved journey opportunities afforded.

Was that LOROL survey a final destination survey or did they simply ask "do you think you will use the ELL"? If its the latter, its really not any better than the Travel Watch Survey asking "will you be inconvenienced by losing the SLL". Most people have no idea. The best way to gauge use is understanding final destinations, since regardless of what people say, that is what will determine if new routes will be utilised without great inconvenience.

Yes, thanks I've seen that. I meant a really detailed survey on final destinations specifically. The issue with Travel Watch survey which was acknowledged by the authors is that most of those surveyed were not fully aware of the interchanges the ELL would allow. While I assume most people using the SLL are terminating in Central London for work and therefore think losing the SLL is a bad idea, I could be wrong. It would be interesting to learn how many people's final destinations are areas in West or East London that could be better accessed by the ELL. It would influence my view on how travel habits might change once the new ELL line is introduced.

Bic, Someone mentioned something about Thameslink and Peckham. Do you have a link or more information about that? Also, do you know if TFL did any passenger surveys regarding final destination before eliminating the SLL? Thanks, LM

gm99-- Do you know if there is a published timetable already for the new ELL service? gm99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Looks like things are on track (no pun intended) > for the ELL opening - saw an ELL/London Overground > train on Platform 2 at Peckham Rye on Tuesday > evening.

Let's end this. My position has always been the same. We disagree. That's the end of it.

First Mate, thanks so much for sharing your link. I agree with most of the points raised and will be incorporating some of your more detailed analysis into my own letter. UDT- I see the point you are trying to make and I know you are not the only person who may feel that the new framework could work this way, but I disagree that the powers extend as far as you suggest. From what I understand, the framework was designed to revitalise the high-street in a number of ways. First, the new framework prioritises the high-street over retail park development. This is both for sustainability reasons (people tend to drive to out of town retail park developments more than their local high streets) but also to prevent the continued decline of the high-street as locals abandon it for large out of town retail park developments (clone towns). The other major guideline is that the scale of new developments and redevelopments on the high-street should be in keeping with the local character and scale of a local shopping area. So building a new 5 storey retail out-let on LL would be an obvious violation of this. A-1 retail units and residential development are encouraged over all other forms of development / uses. Applications that include planned uses for community gathering etc will be viewed more favourably. Diversity of options will also prevent a store like Tesco for example, dominating one local shopping area through the development of multiple stores. Where you and I disagree is that should all other aspects of the planning application be viable regarding scale and use, the planning authorities don't have the right to reject a planning application based on who the freeholder intends to lease the premises to. As RCH mentioned, lease agreements are temporary. If the premises were already exactly as a chain retailer would like them, the planning department would have absolutely no scope to enter into the commercial lease negotiations. Therefore, denying a planning application solely on the grounds of who the lease is intended for over-steps its authority. This is why I have repeatedly said we should stop focus on M&S lease and instead discuss the planning application. We will have to wait and see how various councils interpret the new framework and the outcome any appeals that result from those decisions but I do not believe applications denied solely on the basis of who the shop is will stand. Edited to remove ambiguity Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not insulting you LM. Just pointing out your > obvious failings as a way to correct your > thinking. > > Here are part of minister's foreword. > > Our historic environment ? buildings, landscapes, > towns and villages ? can better > be cherished if their spirit of place thrives, > rather than withers. > > You also need to read the New Economics Foundation > website to further understand the background to > the National Planning Policy framework > http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/2012/04/02/time-i > s-running-out-for-clone-towns

I personally know people on Melbourne Grove with children in those schools but of course it is up to the OP to decide where they want to live! Tatianadias, of course the closer you are to any of the schools the better chance you have. I suggest if there is one school above all others that you have your heart set on, get as close to it as you can as the school allocation system is becoming more and more competitive each year.