alex_b

ech Wrote: > This is what I have seen in the Lyndhurst Road > area and had as feedback from other friends who > live in the CPZs which is why i am in favour and > do feel it will address some of the broader issues > in relation to traffic volume and road rage on > Adys Road. I'm not sure I follow the logic. My (unscientific) observation is that most traffic down Adys is through traffic (often commercial/goods); presumably as a cut through from Peckham High St (and North) down to the A205. I don't see why parking restrictions will reduce that traffic volume. I accept it may improve traffic flow and hence reduce road rage, but at the cost of increased speed.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Galileo, I feel for you living next to the station > and agree that it must be awful but the proposals > will not deal with your problem and your sister in > law will likely still end-up parking streets away. > I don?t know what road you live on but do look at > the number of non-resident bays on your road and > work out whether if one or two other visitors are > in the area, or commuters phoning from wherever > they work to pay for parking, whether she will get > a space. > > Also, will the CPZ operate at weekends? People parking with a visitors voucher bought by a resident can park in the residents parking. Its only those using pay by phone who are restricted to the non-resident visitors bays of which there are limited numbers.

ech Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alex_b Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We have occasional spaates of it on Adys, where > I > > wind up parking on nearby streets or down by > the > > park, but by and large it?s ok. Could it be > that > > as the houses are slightly narrower there are > more > > houses per metre of road? Or perhaps more > houses > > split into flats? It is odd that Nutbrook is so > > much worse than other streets. > > We must be on opposite ends of the street!! > > It's terrible down at the Oglander Road end. We > have lived here for nearly 11years and it's got > progressively worse - the first issue was the > council making the end of Crystal Palace Road no > right turn around 4 years ago forcing all the > traffic and HGVs straight on down into the Adys > Road area where the streets are too small to cope > (note the constant knocking over of the bollards!) > Then the introduction of the CPZ's at Lyndhurst > Grove meant a further increase in commuters > parking (i've followed lots of them to the station > in the morning and we can park more easily at > weekends before people say this isn't a cause) and > of course more recently the Denmark Hill CPZ. > > Apart from the challenge parking (i don't expect > to park outside but reasonably nearby would be > great) means there are no passing spaces for cars. > This end of Adys Road the street isn't wide enough > for 2 cars to pass so almost every night there are > road rage incidents, damage to vehicles, car horns > blaring at each other. It's horrific to live with. > Seeing how pleasant it now is around the Lyndhurst > Grove area and how easy it is to park since the > CPZ was brought in i am now hugely in favour. > > Being the only area left without one is crazy and > it's obvious all the issues previously faced by > other areas will now be displaced here if it > doesn't go ahead! I'm in the middle of the road and while it's not empty, I can usually park either outside the house or on the other side of the road (except when everyone leaves 3/4s of a space between cars). I don't think any of my immediate neighbours own cars and only a couple of the houses/flats opposite do. You are absolutely right about the HGV traffic, road rage and general traffic volume. That's what I really want the council to tackle, but I see the CPZ introduction making that worse (due to the double yellows allowing coaches/HGVs to turn from Nutbrook, increased speeds due to more space) not better.

You may find that if they are looking abandoned (i.e. damaged) then the parking people may be more sympathetic (we managed to get rid of a couple of vans dumped near us that way). The other thing to do is check tax/MOT/insurance via the DVLA online checker. If any of those are expired Southwark will generally take action. It's such a frustration that Southwark are so lax on these issues.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > - paid-for bays that you can pay for from your > phone. This does nothing to alleviate commuter > traffic as most commuters will probably pay the > few pounds for the controlled hours via their > phone. Make it a machine payment only and the > problem goes away. At least in the West Peckham CPZ consultation, the number of paid bays is tiny. So if there are a significant number of commuters (I don't know if there are) then they are likely to be squeezed out.

I've heard good things about the one of the corner of Townley Rd/Lordship Lane. We use the one in Crystal Palace at the top of Gipsy Hill.

ed_pete Wrote: > The consultation has now been extended to 7th Feb > due to "due to late mail delivery of consultation > information" - (Hmm..no surprise there then). Important to note that the Peckham West consultation has not been extended, only the East Dulwich one. I know there are two threads, but I want to ensure there's no confusion.

Kjet2 - I completely agree with your points. The council are proposing the wrong answer to the wrong question. What the streets in "West Peckham" need is a reduction in rat running, especially by large commercial vehicles. Unfortunately our local councillors seem to have absolutely no interest in the views of local residents.

We have occasional spaates of it on Adys, where I wind up parking on nearby streets or down by the park, but by and large it?s ok. Could it be that as the houses are slightly narrower there are more houses per metre of road? Or perhaps more houses split into flats? It is odd that Nutbrook is so much worse than other streets.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think part of the problem is that those cyclists > that do break the road law - and they are very few > comparatively - know that they?re doing it and > have it already justified in their mind; as such > they respond forcefully to anyone who challenges > them. Isn?t more that cyclists can be challenged because they?re not in a sound isolated metal boxes? The driver who almost ran me over as I was crossing the zebra crossing on East Dulwich Grove was completely oblivious because she had her iPhone in front of her face. I?m sure she knew she was doing it and had justified it to herself somehow, I?m sure she?d have been forceful if I could have challenged her, but of course I couldn?t. Similarly the red light jumpers at every crossing or the majority of motorists that speed, they all are choosing to do so, but cannot be challenged in the way cyclists can.

Eileen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This message is for people who live in Nutbrook > Street - what do you think of the proposals for > our street? > I frequently can't find a place to park in the > evenings long after a CPZ would have ended. Could > this CPZ solve that? > > To anyone else - do you have any experience of > CPZ's solving car parking scarcity after 6.30pm? I wonder whether some of the problem on Nutbrook (other than bad parking) is the number of ?commercial? vehicles that seem to be left there for long periods of time. I would presume these would be moved on under a CPZ.

rollflick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Breaking up the wall of metal (parked cars) calms > traffic and makes streets easier to cross on foot. Is there any evidence for this? Anecdotally, the addition of the double yellows at the corner of Nutbrook and Adys has led to drivers trying to turn at higher speeds and increased the number of bollard collisions. I really worry that the additional double yellows proposed in this scheme will encourage higher speeds and larger vehicles.

It looks like the quietway plans that everyone objected to are baked in. I?m sure this ?consultation? will equally take residents? views into account. The ?parklet? on Adys Rd is particularly moronic given the volume of HGV traffic using the road as a rat run.

Consultation documents just arrived by post in Adys Road. The "interesting" thing is that the loss of parking spaces and other street amendments proposed in the Quietway "consultation" are also shown which makes me think that they're going ahead despite the widespread objections. I don't really see how we can say no to a CPZ given we're set to lose so many spaces from the street already and already have pressures from commuters and lots of trade vehicles stored on the street.

rendelharris Wrote: > I would be delighted if the > police would focus more on stopping this sort of > behaviour and fining those who do it - such > cyclists (who are a minority) just give the > anti-cycling mob a free stick with which to beat > us (it's rare to see a light turn red in these > parts without three or four cars running it of > course, but that's another matter). I'm in two minds about this. Of course I too hate cyclists jumping lights and agree with your general point. However in terms of police priorities it has to be massively below cars jumping red lights (at pretty much every light change at every major junction in East Dulwich at least one car goes through on red), the constant speeding (most cars around here) and the use of mobile phones while driving (again I see at least five instances a day around here). I have some sympathy with the view that using police resources to target cyclists while rampant criminality from motorists is lightly policed is vindictive and only occurs because of an anti-cycling bias.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So there's two ways to look at this statement. On > the one hand it sounds very negative, but on the > other if what you're saying is right, then the > majority of the economic impact for those > companies properly prepared has already been felt > (ie. People have already been moved or fired) and > the sompany isn't yet in civil war. That surely is > incrementally positive for what might happen in > the event of no deal? On the flip side of course > is those businesses that haven't prepared.... I think a lot of the impact is baked in but not yet felt. Moving contracts and headquarters is happening but won?t be seen in corporation tax receipts until next year. Similarly a lot of companies are looking to shift headcount by attrition over the next couple of years, replacing leavers/retirees with staff in the European locations. There will be redundancies too, but business will look to minimise costs as much as possible. In the event of no deal this would need to be accelerated, if the transition deal is signed it?ll be a slow bleed rather than a sudden impact.

Also even if you live relatively locally (borders of Crystal Palace and Dulwich say) you might choose to drive vs taking the bus.

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think most firms - who are able to - have > already made contingency arrangements for a > no-deal brexit. The company I work for have opened > offices in Amsterdam and Paris, just to ensure > continuity of business in case we don't get a > suitable deal. This pretty much ensures we'll make > a loss for several years in a row, and will of > course have to be offset by redundancies in > London. But it's either that, or risk going out of > business altogether. You're of course right, many firms have set up new subsidiaries, expanded existing European operations and/or moved contracts from UK to European subsidiaries. This comes at the cost of lost jobs to the UK and also the loss of tax revenue from the companies and their employees. To an extent this will happen irrespective of deal/no-deal as May has determined she doesn't want to be in the single market, making a lot of cross border services trade impossible or significantly more expensive than delivering the work from inside the EU. The bigger challenge with no-deal is that this pain will be immediate and deeper than the slow bleeding of jobs and revenue that will occur over the next two years as the final deal becomes clear. Even if we now remain, many companies have spent enough relocating that a significant number of jobs will not return. > I do really wonder what possible upsides there are > to this whole exercise. Even the gammon-minded > leavers aren't going to achieve their aim of > keeping out foreigners, as the govt prepare to > ramp up non-EU immigration to meet the > shortfall... I can't see any, any trade deals we strike with 3rd parties are unlikely to be faster or significantly more advantageous than the ones being struck as part of the EU. Even if they were 20% better this wouldn't offset the necessarily worse trading conditions with the continent. Unfortunately Brexit is a cultural/philosophical position and pragmatism doesn't appear to come in to it.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At the risk of raising the ire of some on > here....given the situation we have found > ourselves in, I am starting to question whether > 'no deal' is actually all that bad? Just one concrete example of the effect of no deal. I know a financial services firm who run all of their customer service and data processing for Europe from the UK. In the event of no deal their legal advice is that they will be unable to process any EU customer data in the UK due to GDPR. This will lead immediately to the redundancy of approximately 6000 staff. Many other firms are in a similar position and of course losing 6000 jobs from a locality will have a huge knock on effect for other local businesses.

We really liked Goose Green when we visited last year, the new head is great and the parents we spoke to are very positive about the school and the changes they've seen. There are some active parents from Goose Green on the forum and I'm sure they'll weigh in. We placed it above SJSC and Bellenden in our choices, but got into our first choice (Belham) which our son loves. Good luck wherever you choose.

I'm in Adys Road and have suffered from fairly regular outages (perhaps once a month or so), although it seems to have become better over the last few months. Generally outages are a few hours, but we've had a couple of longer outages. There's a big thread somewhere on the forum that had a better track on this. My understanding is that the infrastructure in the area is very overloaded which causes the outages. The customer support is beyond terrible and completely clueless. On the other hand when it's working (which is most of the time) the speed is very good.

With the fall in the value of the pound we're already worse off. With the addition of tariffs on EU goods things will get even more expensive. I don't see how Brexit can lead to cheaper anything without a) massive reduction of standards, b) total destruction of domestic production (particularly for food) or c) both.

Our son goes to (and really enjoys) footballmagiccoaching.co.uk which is ?7 a session (?42 per half term). There is a reception class on Wednesdays after school in Peckham, there may be weekend sessions too.

The closure for cyclists is only for the small part of the actual works taking place. It may be that cycling to the closure and then dismounting and walking to the other side might be most efficient (and quietest).

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe neighbours could offer to let those with > lots of cardboard to use their blue bins? I offer > to my neighbours and they sometimes use it, if > there is room. I agree that Dunstans Road looks > messy because of the lack of space (soemetimes) in > front yards/gardens for bins so any extra refuse > would make it look worse. I always collapse big boxes and put them neatly by our blue bin and they?re always collected. It?s they polystyrene that?s a real pain as it completely fills the green bin and isn?t collected if it?s bagged separately.