spider69

No not confused just pointing out that your concern is business and I am sure that discussing local issues would cover the outcome of a CPZ for local businesses and not so much for the residents parking issues. So stopping any CPZ would be a priority.

"stoo31, We the local retailers chat with each other, we have a real community of retailers, who like to discuss local issues with each other. When Southwark council threatened to fine us for "blocking the main thoroughfare" about 4 years ago, we did our own research, looked at the boundaries on our deeds, which confirmed the private land in front of the shops belonged to the retail outlets. Hopefully that has satisfied your curiosity. smiling smiley" It does read that you do not appear to look out for local residents but are only concerned that people cannot visit and spend in your shops.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that it can safely be said that the > residents of East Dulwich say HELL NO to a CPZ. > > So, Councillors, read it and weep. It's a huge > THUMBS DOWN FROM ED TO CPZ. Only so far from the small minority of residents that comment on the forum. What about others that do not comment on the forum? I suspect most do not know about this sampling. Dont know cannot comment

Always remember your case must be watertight. They have an endless pot of money supplied by us into Council coffers. They are able to carry own until you run out of money. If serious they can employ the most expensive legal brains to give advice. Good luck

Hi spider69, I was tired last night - the council web page about the Dog Kennel Hill controlled Parking Zone decided to proceed earlier this year and to be implemented summer '18 -[www.google.co.uk] 15% response ratite the public consultation. 49% of that 15% in favour, 36% against. 10 streets with less than 10% response rate of residents. -------------------- Regards [email protected] 07900 227366 Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward [www.jamesbarber.org.uk] [twitter.com] 15% response rate. But how many streets were under 10% and did not want one but are included because Southwark wants to implement a CPZ so they have to be included. Why 15% and not 30/40/50% again Southwark's figure. As mentioned if some streets want it the others must accept that this will push traffic into other streets so Southwark will do it to "EASE" parking stress. We will have to accept one because traffic is being pushed into our street/s but we are being told what we must have not what we voted for.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi nomen, > some people will leave an email address to be > updated others a phone number for text update. > Postage costs me more cash, time and effort. And > until 4 May I can;t spend any money else it would > count as an election expense. > > Hi sider69, > Can you share the link to the DKH CPZ report > please - I'm knackered and going to relax after a > long day canvassing. > > hi Sue, > Before postings here I had submitted a piece in my > SE22 column about this sign posting the survey. So > it will be widely distributed across the area in > print form. The forum is great but only one medium > to communicate with residents. If you contact Joanna Redshaw at Southwark Council as Project Manager I am sure she can give you the link and full report on the consultation Regards

Vote them out in May.

Charles Notice wrote "Even if you say no to a CPZ if other streets say yes Southwark will say we will have to include your street as it will impose greater parking stress on others not in a CPZ. If 99 people say no and 100 people say yes, majority wins you will lose. You cannot win." As part of the DKH recent survey the above was used to justify a CPZ. Southwark would love to be able to hold a survey to push one through. Unfortunately a CPZ will at some point be pushed though. Control is what they are looking for in the Borough. .

Loz wrote jimlad48 wrote "Really? Where is your evidence base for this assertion? What proof do you have of it? Why if this is true have Southwark repeatedly found that CPZ implementation leads to a 60% fall in parking on streets with a CPZ? " Does anybody trust figures that Southwark put out as gospel?

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Given I live in a CPZ where parking spaces have > shot through roof, tradesmen are delighted they > can park and people everywhere are praising it, > I'm happy to be a convert. There are lots of ED > residents fed up of suffering from appalling > parking problems, which will only get worse as the > Dog Kennel Hill zone enters use in a few weeks > time. Suddenly ED will be the last free parking > area before central London. > > Always delighted to help residents secure the > quieter, safer easier life that a CPZ offers and > end the misery of parking chaos caused. Its the > best thing that happened to our street in the last > few years - if you want one, you are not alone in > wanting one and help is available to let you get > one. Of course your parking spaces have shot through the roof you managed to get full all day parking which means you can go out and be almost assured that you will have a parking space when you come back. All we have been told we can have is a 11-1 CPZ. So if we go out we might have to wait until 11 to see if visitor parking has moved on to free up spaces. Please advise us how we can get a full all day CPZ, bearing in mind we all voted for it just like you did.

Whilst CPZ'S can be a useful benefit do not forget that Southwark will be charging from 18th April ?49.50 for a book of 10 visitors parking tickets. If you have visiting family or need to visit ageing parents it is going to be very expensive. Still tops up Southwark"s coffers. Borough wide a goldmine.

jimlad48 wrote "Given the utter nightmare of life in a non-CPZ street, I cannot recommend enough campaigning for a CPZ to make life more bearable for everyone who lives there. Anyone needing advice on how to start a CPZ campaign for East Dulwich, then please let me know - I helped lead the toastrack campaign and would be more than happy to help you campaign to make life quieter, safer and easier for you and your fellow residents." What you do not mention is you campaigned, requested and got a full days CPZ not 11/1 which has been indicated we will have to accept even though we sit in the middle of existing area full of full day CPZ's. Overwhelming vote for a full CPZ was refused. Please do not say a 2 hour CPZ will work as you do not have one. What you do have are Cllr's that are better than what we has been landed with who do zip for residents getting a response would be nice. I would like a full day CPZ just like you. I still have to pay the full cost of a permit for a mini CPZ.

If Southwark bought 5 or 10 of these machines would they turn into pumpkins at the stoke of midnight? No matter what party is in control these should be held in reserve and will always be there for 5/10/20 years. How much does Southwark piss up the wall on in vogue fad projects? I.E Cost of signage for the 20 mph speed limit on roads comes to mind It really is time party politics are consigned to the dustbin and what is of benefit for the community takes precedence. Perhaps more independent Cllr's should be elected that represent the community. There used to be a Southwark website that lists bills paid out over ?500 per month which was crazy. Perhaps it does not now exist. More than enough to cover these machines.

Chadwick Road on the Camberwell Grove bridge closure diversion, long hill with iced over railway bridge at the top, appears to be un-gritted although should be on Southwark's gritting list. If you have to stop anywhere on road due to cars passing, difficult to restart, coming down icy as hell. Southwark have said they have gritted not seen a thing every since snow started. Hope this helps

I am sure it is with 0830-1830 controlled parking. Why did you when given the choice request all day not a 2 hour CPZ? A majority of 64 % of our street wanted your times but we were refused. We were not given the choice even though we are surrounded by all day CPZ's of which your road is one. If you had experience of a 2 hour CPZ slot for your street/s would it be a wonderful, wonderful experience? You have no idea you do not have it. Perhaps having the right Cllr helps.

People in Chadwick voted for all day. 64% in favour. Cllr Barber any thoughts, majority wins

I have always found at these consultations that if there are only 3 people there and it goes 2 for and 1 against it gets carried as a majority. If only one person turns up to object who knows. The Southwark plan. Providing of course you are informed of the meetings. I will be there but I doubt not many others will be. If 98 properties where contacted and only 14 replies that says it all. Game set and match to Southwark

Commuters went out of the picture a while back. Residents no longer move their cars because they cannot get back any free spaces are quickly filled with people waiting. I want longer parking restrictions so I can be assured that there will be parking available. With double yellow lines going in, meter parking space, it is already being lost. If 11-1 or 12-2 works why have the other CPZ's not been changed and why was the "Toastrack" implemeted as all day when it is the next street across? As for Southwark changing something once it goes in I would not hold my breath. Why are residents not listened to in these matters. They requested all day why does Southwark know better.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dont blame us on the toastrack - we blame Vestry > and Southampton Way for starting it! > > 11-1 does make a big difference as all the > commuters stop coming - its actually easier in > some ways than other areas, so you've not done too > badly. Just wander around the areas where it is > already in place and you'll see the difference. You are all day no open window for people parking. Makes a big difference. Should be all day like all the surrounding roads. All day I have no problem with. East Dulwich next on the hit list.

I do hope that your parking wish is met. I to am in the new DKH CPZ, and it would appear from Cllr Barbers post that the CPZ for me will be operating from 11-1, whilst all other areas are all day. What this means is you will go out, come back and still not find a space until 11 as traffic will still be pushed over. I am trying to find out from Southwark if this is correct, but no luck at the moment, no response. Whilst I did not want a CPZ it has to be the future with all other free areas being closed down. For Chadwick Road it will be business as usual looking for a residential home space because traffic will still come overnight and early morning. Does anyone know what the hours are and if as above why we are different from the "toastrack" that started all this. All CPZ hours should be the same.

Well attended meeting, first rate presentation. All Cllrs and Public in agreement to reopen. Only downside. No Cllr Wingfield to hear the local residents passion and common sense, those who are suffering. He will be at the Camberwell meeting, why not at this one? Camberwell Grove residents more important. If he is to make the decision why not hear all sides?

Unfortunately the Council does not seem to realise what the damage is to other areas. They want all of Southwark to be CPZ under their control and look no further than the red line on their map. Ask for a computer model of the possible problems from a CPZ Southwark will not reply. Ask Cllr Wingfield for an explanation all he will do is say he has asked the people concerned to supply the answer. It never comes. I am glad you are happy and I am glad a small % got what you wanted. Your happiness is for others on a lot larger scale misery. As Bargee99 wrote the % results will be used for the Councils overall plan even if they do not reflect the overall truth. If 51% of the people canvassed do not vote for a yes or no it cannot be taken as a valid result. It only takes a very small % of a vocal group to get the vote the council wants. The closure or open result for the bridge will be interesting.

It is already carnage. Since the new CPZ around the "Toastrack" parking on Chadwick Road and Grove Park does not exist for residence. If a resident moves their car they do not get back in again. Ask Southwark if they factored this into their plans you never get an answer. Consultation like most things with Southwark lately token effort all already decided. The only good thing is the One Way system, put in 1989 has proved that it the right system. With all the weight of traffic due to Camberwell Grove being closed there have been no accidents to either pedestrians, cyclists, motor vehicle or any other moving body nor any negative comments on this forum. Will Southwark take notice, I doubt it.

A new CPZ has come into effect on the area surrounding Lyndhurst Grove, Crofton Road etc. "The Toastrack". Not sure if this will effect you but many roads with free parking off of Bellenden Road seem to be solid. I can confirm that Chadwick Road and Grove Park, free parking at the moment, is solid. Move and you will never get back. No joke. It used to be that traffic moved in the evening now ever since this CPZ cars just sit and never move. Even untaxed/no mot are just left by Southwark even if reported. One less space to be used It certainly appears that Southwark want residents to request CPZ's as they move the problem elsewhere. It is residents who request a CPZ only because they have inherited someone else's problem not that they actually want one.

They have been taking readings before the bridge was closed and after the bridge was closed on all traffic in surrounding areas. This will be used in their deliberations to open or keep closed. Will common sense prevail This is done on a routine basis. Has anyone not noticed the black rubber lines across roads into a monitoring box. Result. massive increases on all roads all round. Chadwick Road/Grove Park up 98% because of the bridge closure, the rest all up hugely. Roads like water need need to flow not be restricted.