jimlad48

I spoke to Southwark today on this and they are fairly uncertain about what is going on - we share a brown bin and they can't advise what happens if we don't want the new service, or how it will be replaced. Its not a brilliantly executed scheme, it must be said.

Hemingway Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am sorry to hear you are ill Dulwich Fox > > But being really ill doesn't excuse potentially > ruining someone's buisiness with ill informed and > ignorant speculation just two days ago. > > And, at the end of your long post, you couldn't > even say: "sorry, I was wrong" I fully agree - I am deeply sympathetic, but ultimately DF has made an utterly wrong accusation that could backfire against the restaurant in question who are, without doubt, owed an apology.

I would look for a mandatory cycling test, in same way as driving test is mandatory - and L plates too for those that have yet to pass it. I would also look for mandatory cyclist registration number on bikes to enable easy identification of cyclists who break the Highway code. I think this may make the attitudes more accountable. Said as someone who within the last week has been threatened with a beating up by a cyclist for politely asking them to ride on the road, not the pavement.

I don't normally do 1* reviews, but sometimes a place just warrants it. Its such a shame how good pubs can quickly fall by wayside as the staff change over - I genuinely can't believe difference its made, or how much of a good impact a smiling member of staff behind the bar made in the Grove pub. I don't ask for much, a friendly welcome, reasonable range of beer/ales, a spot of food and a place where I can sit with my friends and play boardgames quietly without shouting into their ear due to the music, and I'm a happy bunny. My current wider favourite is the Goldsmiths in Penge - except on Open Mic nights!

Thought readers may want to get a take on two slightly local pubs in the wider area. Last night I was in the Phoenix at Denmark Hill Station with a few friends. Saturday evening is always a quiet time in this pub, and as we wanted a quiet catch up, we thought we?d stop by. We entered a nearly empty bar, and got a table at about 7.30. It took nearly 10 minutes to be served even with only two people ahead of us, with a monosyllabic sole member of the bar staff taking a long time to serve a simple order ? they then asked another member of staff sitting at the end of the bar to help ? he refused, and went back to surfing his phone. We ordered some beers and a plate of cheesy chips, and a few minutes later the monosyllabic phone surfer dumped a plate of clearly microwaved cheesy chips on our table. We were about to order some food, when the same person suddenly at 8pm mumbled to the pub, ?kitchens closed? (their website clearly states that on a Sat, food is served till 11pm). We asked if there was any chance that we could order food, and the chef refused, even though we pointed out that we?d ordered a few minutes previously and they?d not mentioned closing the kitchen then. To add insult to injury the beer I?d ordered was off, so they were down to a really small range. We felt pretty unimpressed with the shockingly bad customer service and sullen staff, so left and walked into Camberwell. We happened on the Grove Pub on Camberwell Grove which reopened last week ? what a contrast. Light, welcoming and friendly bar staff delighted to see us, plenty of beers on tap and a very good looking menu. The burgers that we had were excellent and it clearly wasn?t too busy as they?ve only been open a short time. I?d not been to it in its old incarnation, but this new one was a very pleasant surprise and left me and my friends feeling impressed. The whole place is well designed and looks like a nice local pub to use. I hope it recovers from the fire and makes something of itself. Sadly it feels like the Phoenix is in a bit of a slump at the moment ? I?ve been there a few times in the last couple of months and the staff seem to be surly, and uninterested and there are clearly issues with beer supply too, judging by how often beers are out. If you?re looking for a non Dulwich local, I?d suggest avoiding Phoenix and trying the Grove right now.

I'd also add my recommendation here - used them to fix a simple plumbing issue. Quick efficient contact, turned up bang on time and charged a reasonable price. Would happily use them again.

Agree - and when the Toastrack discussion happened here, there were plenty of non Toastrack residents participating in it too. If EDF doesnt want non ED residents participating then perhaps it needs to update the forum rules? Galileo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > colville09 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dear Jimlad48, I'm sorry I am confused, do you > > actually live in the area covered by this > proposed > > CPZ? It is not only people who have a car will > > have to pay, we will have to buy tickets for > > anyone coming to see us for repair work. We > have > > lived near ED station for thirty years and > can't > > say the parking has got any worse, just stayed > the > > same. > > > Not everyone posting on this thread lives in the > CPZ area - you?ve not been asking that of any of > the negative voices.

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: > > Jimlad > > From what I'm reading, you are in favour of a CPZ > and campaigned for one in your area as a cost > neutral resident (no car so no cost to you) > > East Dulwich is a place you visit but don't reside > in, but you seem to want to muddy the waters with > your own brand of project fear! > > A CPZ may work where you live, but residents and > businesses here should be allowed to make an > informed decision based on locally researched fact > and not fiction (council variety) especially in > areas where parking is not a problem. > > I did laugh at your description of "commuter > stalking", were the people involved going to work > by car themselves, in which case fair game, or > taking their kids to school, in which case should > they be looking at public transport or walking as > an option to assist with removing the "child > safety" issues you also mentioned. > > Happy to hear your opinion on the subject, but you > do seem to be too vocal to not have a vested > interest imho You know when 'project fear' is rolled out, its usual a chance to dismiss evidence. My purpose here is to inform based on our experience, because this area had a long chat about Toastrack parking some years ago. I have no agenda, it makes not one jot of difference to my life if you vote for a CPZ or not. I am merely offering an alternative viewpoint based on my factual experiences. I'm sorry if you don't like evidence based information, but thats the reality of the experience. And yes, they were single females travelling very early in the morning on their own and being subject to abuse from commuters when they hadnt moved on time. This is the reality of living in a displacement zone - some people may not have it now. I will mererly say again though, if half of Dulwich gets a CPZ and other half doesnt, then expect to experience displacement very quickly.

Hemingway Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > first mate Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The introduction of 'commuter stalkers' as > > another > > > reason to proselytise for CPZ just seemed > odd. > > > > > > Hemingway Wrote: > > > > > > > I'm pointing out that in some areas, multiple > > women told us how disturbed they were to > discover > > that random commuters were intentionally > seeking > > out their car to parallel park next too, often > in > > the early dark hours and wait for them to drive > > away. I'm sure you can see how this may make > > people uncomfortable, and how a CPZ promptly > stops > > it and agree that this is a definite advantage > of > > a CPZ. > > 'Multiple women told us' - who is this 'us'? Are > you a Southwark Council employee or a councillor? Us - a group of local residents who got together to start the campaign for a CPZ and who spent roughly 2 years building local support for one. Part of our campaign involved contacting local residents to seek their views and ask them to sign a petition. We (roughly 25 active campaigners at its peak) went door to door on several hundred houses engaging with local residents, and hearing their stories. We also then presented to local councillors by effective use of local democracy. Overall we found multiple stories of concern from residents, ranging from child safety issues through to someone being delayed for their own funeral. The commuter stalking was a common complaint. I do not work for, and have no ties to Southwark Council.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The introduction of 'commuter stalkers' as another > reason to proselytise for CPZ just seemed odd. > > Hemingway Wrote: > I'm pointing out that in some areas, multiple women told us how disturbed they were to discover that random commuters were intentionally seeking out their car to parallel park next too, often in the early dark hours and wait for them to drive away. I'm sure you can see how this may make people uncomfortable, and how a CPZ promptly stops it and agree that this is a definite advantage of a CPZ.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, for something as controversial as a CPZ > I think it does matter if you have a dog in the > fight, or not. I will keep on posting my positive experience of a CPZ. If you dont like it, then please don't feel obliged to read it.

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...

We used to have a problem with 'stalker' commuters. They'd work out what time local residents left in the morning who used their cars, and pull up alongside and parallel park until said resident left. Some even had the cheek to get grumpy with residents who didnt leave on time. I met several female residents who travelled solo in the morning who, frankly, were more than a little perturbed by the idea of commuters knowing their movements in this way.

Its worth noting that its not just the station, but also bus routes that see a lot of park/ride commuters - there used to be a lot who would drive in as far as they could to park for free, then take the bus the rest of the way.

I know people keep saying that ED is a quiet non commuter residential area that doesnt need a CPZ, but I would note that that is exactly what we said 10 years ago in the Toastrack. We were a quiet non commuter area that had no parking problems and was generally a quiet area. Our challenges started when other CPZ were introduced locally, causing commuter dispersal, and also 'cross border parking' (e.g. residents in the CPZ parking there rather than paying to park). When we got our CPZ, this then relocated further out - to areas which had previously made the same arguments. Everyone thinks their area doesnt need a CPZ right up until you get one near you and suddenly you realise that you are now the parking frontline.

When they did the CPZ they did come up with yellow lines and cycle lockers and pay and display bays and so on. Yet we still have more parking spaces now than before - the only time there is pressure is weekends when people drive in for shifts at Kings and no restrictions are in place. The issue for many areas is that the commuters are quite prepared to park a long walk from the station (as seen in the Toastrack / DKH area) if that get them a free parking space. The persistence is quite impressive.

MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I know people doubt the 40% figure, but go to > any > > area pre and post CPZ and you'll find this to > be > > the case. Parking massively increases compared > to > > the previous situation. Yet despite regular > > repeated evidence to support this, people still > > doubt this. A shame. > > "any area" Jimlad? I think the residents of Grove > Park would disagree with you there. (see Charles > Martel's Post of yesterday) > > But Jimlad, I'm trying to understand your > motivation here. Having successfully campaigned > for your CPZ so you can have a guaranteed space in > front of your door, what's in it for you to have > this imposed on my patch. At the moment you can > park in front of my door for free, and yes there > is space on my street to park. Why would you > campaign to lose that freedom? Mark, I campaigned actively for a CPZ to make my life quieter and safer and easier (so I could get deliveries in etc). I don't actually own a car, so the ability to 'park outside my door' is actually irrelevant. I'm merely expressing a factual position on what has actually happened and trying to challenge some of the rumours and myths linked to CPZs. I'm not involved in any part of the campaign on the ground - merely offering a different point of view here online. Why would people want to have CPZ imposed? My impression at the moment is that the results will see a cross Dulwich split with areas near the stations likely to vote yes, and areas away from it likely to vote no. If the council splits the results, and puts a partial CPZ into play, then the risk for those who vote 'no' is that they will see the trickle effect - in other words displaced traffic will start trickling down to find the next parking spaces. Be aware that if you vote no, you may win a very short term victory, but if parts of Dulwich go into a CPZ, then there is likely to be a long term parking impact generated, which will only see this issue adressed again in due course.

I know people doubt the 40% figure, but go to any area pre and post CPZ and you'll find this to be the case. Parking massively increases compared to the previous situation. Yet despite regular repeated evidence to support this, people still doubt this. A shame.

TJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For one could not walk/ cycle to do my weekly > lordship lane shop of meat, veg, dry cleaning, > maybe popcorn, a spontaneous purchase or two, and > two small children in tow. It requires a car as a > dumping ground.. > Really, this cpz is a farce, we all know it, and I > am totally against it as it will hit our small yet > thriving high street. Of course you can still do this. You will still be able to park in one of the parking bays and pay and display. You are not being stopped from parking at all - merely having to make a small payment to do so.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Jacqui5254 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > You will need > > to > > > pay for parking in all the other roads > covered > > by > > > the CPZ as 'your' permit only covers your > road > > and > > > one or two next to it. > > That's not the case, is it? Looking at > Southwark's website it appears that a permit > covers the whole of whatever CPZ your street is > in. That is correct - as a resident you will be able to park in any street covered by the Zone for free.

Jacqui5254 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh god, I just can't be bothered to respond to > your ridiculous position beyond writing this. So in other words, we have to say that a CPZ is BAD, has no upsides and that anyone saying its okay is to be insulted and ridiculed? Our life was miserable without one - it has made a massive impact on our area by having one. I fully get people feel strongly, but there are plenty of people who want to see one, and I am going to continue to make the compelling arguments. The more people insult and abuse me, the more I know that this is a fight worth staying around for.

Jacqui5254 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimlad48, I hope you weren't referring to my post > when you said this. > > I spent several years living in an area > controlled by a CPZ and it was much worse than any > 'hyperbole' you think is on display. > > I would have so much more respect for you if you > could recognise the wider implications of the > choices people are making without consideration > for what it means for everyone else, > > And, for that matter, the whole of East > Dulwich. > > > > > > jimlad48 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Goodness me there is a lot of hyperbole on > display > > about CPZ. Its an extremely straightforward > > process, which has minimal impact on people > beyond > > asking for a small payment to park their car in > > the local area. Buying permits is easy and > > straightforward for visitors, and isn't > difficult > > to do. > > > > I think a lot of people here are scaremongering > > and pushing a narrative that those of us who > are > > lucky enough to live in a Southwark run CPZ > don't > > recognise. I was referring to many posts that are extremely hyperbolic, and I am offering the counter perspective of experiencing life in a Southwark run CPZ as being a perfectly acceptable experience. I would be grateful for orange owl to withdraw their abusive post please - totally uncalled for.

Goodness me there is a lot of hyperbole on display about CPZ. Its an extremely straightforward process, which has minimal impact on people beyond asking for a small payment to park their car in the local area. Buying permits is easy and straightforward for visitors, and isn't difficult to do. I think a lot of people here are scaremongering and pushing a narrative that those of us who are lucky enough to live in a Southwark run CPZ don't recognise.

Heaveb forbid people have to pay ?2.50 for a parking space, or shudder have to use publuc transport...

Mark - I think you are possibly starting to use some fairly strong language without good cause. So lets Look at what went on in this finding because there are some key things to remember. I was heavily involved in the campaign to get a CPZ survey launched and it took several years of effort. The problem was that there had been a survey several years previously and the ?toastrack? narrowly voted no to one at the same time as other areas voted ?yes?. This led to significant parking pressure on the local streets because IIRC the original plan was to create one zone ? instead they split out the toastrack and didn?t put it in the zone. It actually took a lot of persuasion to get this done, the Council is usually reluctant to rerun CPZ surveys quickly unless they are convinced the result will change. They aren?t cheap to do (ours cost ?30,000 to run), so they need real evidence to do so. We spent a year campaigning to get a large petition issued to the council to get them to agree to the survey again. The outcome of the survey was that 57% of respondents voted for the CPZ on an 18% turnout. This may sound small, but by local government consultation standards, it was considered statistically high (e.g Lambeth put a CPZ in on the basis of a 5% turnout recently). The roads that voted no are also worth understanding more about. Most of them are linked to large council estates anyway which have parking restrictions and relatively few car parking spaces. The key opposition came from a little clutch of 3 roads ? Talfourd and Denman ? these roads historically were always slightly quieter, although still busy, and felt at the time less affected by the parking than other roads. The council noted (correctly in my view) that not only would the Toastrack CPZ come into force, but also another Peckham one was due to start too ? this would essentially squeeze these three roads into being a single area of zero parking restrictions between two CPZ. What would have happened to Talfourd is that the displaced traffic (commuters and NHS workers mostly) would have been trying to park on those two streets ? which given how busy things were anyway, would have made it impossible for residents to park. So, the council decided to include them, because they expected to see demands for a CPZ within a year. This is a very sensible decision -CPZ implementation always leads to displacement ? we got the displaced traffic from the nearby CPZ, Dog Kennel Hill got our displaced traffic, now DKH is live, the traffic is going to Dulwich. As one zone starts, demand for as new one quickly follows as people previously without parking problems experience them. Given the likelihood of needing a CPZ, coupled with the cost of doing something that was blatantly obvious would be needed, the council decision makes perfect and very reasonable sense. Hence the Southwark note onPage 18 of the report: "While streets such as Denman Road and Talfourd Road were against the implementation of a parking zone, it would be irresponsible to leave these streets out because these roads would then experience the displacement of commuters and even higher demand for parking spaces. It is anticipated that within a year these roads would require a parking zone". It is also worth noting that this process is not generally about the will of streets, but the will of the majority. Unless there is a clear coherent street by street majority vote against, these streets will be included. This is not a one way process ? Southwark were happy to exclude the toastrack from the last consultation because the group of streets narrowly voted against it- so they do listen, and they do respect findings where it makes coherent sense to do so. But, where you have a smallish area, its really hard to do street by street exclusions because it makes life much harder for the residents if all the parking pressure falls on one road. Ultimately this was an entirely democratic process where a majority vote won the day ? the council acted appropriately and the CPZ has made an immensely positive difference to our local area. In Dulwich case, my thoughts would be that if people vote ?no? then be very careful what you wish for if some areas find themselves with a CPZ and others don?t. You will quickly find a previously quiet area coming under huge parking pressure ? and I suspect there will be local clamour for a CPZ very quickly.