Penguin68

The P13 travelling towards Forest Hill seems to be dumping its customers at the Underhill/ Barry junction (at least I saw one do that) - maybe later buses are doing so at the bus stop before.

Just to add Lordship Lane is closed in both directions from Grove Tavern to the Horniman. Technically I think that stretch (which is the A205 South Circular) is London Road.

The issue is relevancy to ED, not situated in ED. Many good suppliers are prepared to work in SE22 but are based elsewhere. Great. But maybe this is the wrong section?

I think you will find that if your street was not included in the CPZ and most others were then you would have so much displacement that you'd never be able to park. This is saying - 'pass on distress to others - you've had your house broken into, now vote for someone elses to be broken into as well.' Somebody has to stop this rot - if we keep passing it on then the bullies win. All they want is our money, and if we can help them to get others to vote to get others robbed, then all to the better. No. The domino effect is what 'they' are banking on. If we are complicit in this, then we should be ashamed.

Thanks, Admin - it would be good if Southwark listened so attentively or responded so helpfully!

I would accept that there is an argument about air quality - although equally if cars are driving around looking for somewhere to park, or dropping someone off at the shops and driving round to pick them up (I've done both) that wouldn't hold - and the key issue on air quality is to do with NO2 from diesels, CO2 emissions from petrol cars have a different sort of environmental impact. However as regards to safety - the effect if implemented will be to make local roads far less parked up (because so much previously parked bits will be banned from parking through double yellows etc, not because there will be fewer local cars wishing to park) such that speeding cars are far more likely, both contributing to accidents and making them worse when they happen. I have seen no evidence to support the safety statement at all.

By the time you get to Langton Rise ('East' side) the pressure is fine - I think that's served by the main running in Wood Vale.

Threads - there are location specific issues for both ED and West Peckham which would justify two threads, but there are also CPZ comments on the new councillor's thread - and there are CPZ issues which would be common across locations. Multiple posts on different threads are frustrating - and separate discussions can emerge which would be better consolidated. On balance I suggest resurrecting the West Peckham thread but asking that it be used for location specific issues only, including timing etc. of survey closures. With comments on CPZs which are general to controlled parking appearing together on a main (ED?) thread, where debate can be contained and where good points and ripostes are not lost. Herne Hill points made are less relevant because Lambeth's and Southwark's policies are not aligned.

They want me to go to Orpington to collect a parcel? I suspect that the postie was a relief (probably from Orpington) and left one of his own cards rather than the correct one from Peckham. Doesn't help but might explain.

What they mean - without any evidence, proof or study as regards the situation in ED, is that by excluding nasty foreigners and incomers (notwithstanding they will reduce, overall, parking spaces) there will be 40% more parking space for the residents of Royston Vasey. Without any study of ED this is a LIE - or at the very least a statement with complete disregard for the truth. This statement is only true when (1) the number of authorised residents cars is substantially less than the reduced space available and (2) the parking problem perceived by residents is caused by incoming commuters parking up to use space. Even then the implied assumption is that these are through commuters and not commuters coming in to work in the locale, where local business could also apply for residents permits. Indeed it works best in areas where there are no, or very few, local businesses - which could of course be around LL in due course if Southwark has its way.

My next door neighbour and I both have dropped kerbs, mine is probably originally pre-war as it 'feeds' what was a pre-war garage (from old O/S maps). His is probably of much the same vintage. We have space for two cars parked on the street between the houses - but with the extended double yellows there will be space for NO cars. Or, by our houses, a 100% loss of parking. The only people who park in our street are visitors, trades people or residents. No commuters. So there would be no benefit to us either of a CPZ or even just of double yellow extension. Except to speed up traffic which had to be slowed down with humps after a number of quite nasty accidents. The road is narrow enough for cars to have to give way for each other/ larger vehicles - but with all the space created by the double yellows...

What do you mean ?the west side of Lordship Lane?? I'm guessing the left hand side as you look towards Goose Green. It is (very broadly) North: South orientated.

The journey carries public costs which your staff member does not pay. - other than through Road Tax (or whatever it's now called), fuel duty and VAT on fuel, general taxation, community charge for local roads... - where do you think public expenditure comes from? Even business rates and corporation tax are eventually charged out to the paying public through prices. 'Public' expenditure eventually comes out of someone's private pocket - even government borrowings have to be paid back eventually, so maybe your benefit is paid by your children or grandchildren, but then you're paying back a benefit to your grandparents. And public (rail) transport in the SE is directly supported by taxation subsidy.

James Barber would have been fighting against this. I am appalled by the lack of involvement by our councillors. His track record I believe is to support the introduction of CPZs, certainly where a majority of residents have not come out against them. For a long time he was equivocal about the last proposals (for streets around ED station) but I believe eventually he indicated personal support (though prepared to voice the concerns of those against). His party, like Labour, would like to see car usage and ownership substantially reduced in London. There are perfectly good reasons why they believe this, even if they are not reasons I, and many others, subscribe to.

On the one hand, everyone obviously wants the normal council services - refuse collection / recycling, schools, libraries, road repairs - but the councils have systematically had their central Government funding cut and cut over the last 10 years. Technically they are not allowed to use money derived from motorists in this way for things other than those associated with road conditions, public transport etc. So they can't tax motorists to collect refuse. In practice of course if they have more money to spend on roads they could re-allocate funds, but this must not be in any way transparent. So if this is a result you want, then you are asking your council to lie and cheat.

1) "Over the course of a month, people who walk to the high street spend up to 40% more" - TFL Study 2013 The dependent variable here is the distance walked. It is reasonable to assume that many people will walk short distances to a high street because they live close to it. So they will do their shopping there because it is convenient. People who have to travel to a specific high street by public or private transport may well be 'local' either to other high streets or take public transport or cars to e.g. a mall where there is parking. This statistic may be no better than the obvious - people who live close to a shop are more likely to spend more in it than people who don't. A more valuable statistic for LL would be the overall revenues driven by 'close' customers and by those who have travelled further. If LL shopkeepers and restaurateurs derive most of their revenues and profits from local walk-through trade then that's fine - a CPZ won't impact them. If not... 2) "People who walk and cycle take more trips to the high street per month" - TFL Study 2014. See above - if you're local that's not surprising. But also - just how much can you carry walking and cycling? maybe you have to make more trips. Equally, maybe living close means that you tend to pop into the shops going to or coming back from work and only buy what you immediately need. Again - it is revenue and profit, not frequency which will be important to shop keepers. Finally - the study being used is (as far as I can see) a general one on 'high streets' - LL is a very untypical high street (e.g. virtually no chains, high proportion of cafes etc. and specialist artisan shops) - so conclusions drawn from the study simply may not be locally applicable.

If there was to be a short period in which a CPZ came into play (which would be relevant only if 'through' commuters are blamed for congestion - rather than 'in' commuters serving in the area) - then a suitable period would not be mid-day - when punters might be expected to be coming to the many cafes and restaurants in LL - but, say 9:00-11:00 - or 3:00 - 4:00. That at least would cause least damage to trade. But that isn't what the game is - it is 'squeeze the punter' time. So we may expect the worst possible times to be inflicted on the largest areas - and if LL ceases to be a hub drawing in trade - well why should Tooley St mind - they don't live, work or shop here, so we can go hang, so long as the money keeps rolling in. Which it will from anyone unfortunate enough to keep a car in an area with relatively (for the rest of Southwark) deplorable public transport options, most regularly suspended (save buses) at the weekends when residents might want to travel locally rather than banging into work.

Baskets and trolleys are put out by supermarkets partly at least to encourage purchase (it's marketing) - of course using them is convenient but it's not obligatory. If I just want one or two items I will normally just carry them, without basket, to the check-out. Putting items openly in your own bag, with no intent to steal (and intent is key here) is absolutely fine, particularly in a relatively small outlet where (and additionally) you may already be known. If you think someone is stealing, alert a member of staff. I suspect that if the assumed perpetrator had been six-two and in a hoody the OP might not have been as keen to confront him. Indeed, and in that case, the OP might have been very foolish so to do.

though one of the great advantages of segregated cycle provision is that without motorised traffic they don't develop potholes, or at least I've never encountered any But to get to, or from, segregated cycleways you will need to cycle on side, and even main, roads - those around us in ED - last year certainly - were in a disgraceful state.

Thank you, now amended...

But if safe and segregated cycle provision is available, people may be encouraged back onto bicycles, to the benefit of their own health and the environment - I know several people who wouldn't have dreamed of cycling in London ten years ago who are now very happy cycle commuters due to the superhighways. Each to their own re cycling in winter of course - personally I long ago realised I'd be warmer riding at a good pace with suitable clothing for half an hour than I would be standing still on a windblown railway platform for half an hour waiting for a train to battle its way through half an inch of snow! Whilst my second broken arm was caused by an uninsured driver in a stolen vehicle coming out of a side street without looking (and knocking me clear across the Strand), the first was caused when I came round a bend and straight into a pile of rotten fruit dumped in the roadway - I slipped and fell awkwardly. Cycleways would not have helped me there. Friends who chose not to cycle in the winter do so less because of inclement weather per se but because this leads to adverse road conditions (ice or to pooled water) which can obscure pot holes etc. making cycling more hazardous. Most are robust enough (and have enough bad weather clothing) to cope with rain and chill on its own.

By the way, comrades, is this the most prolix troll in the history of the forum?

I agree that cycling should be equally promoted as a form of active travel Remembering (I would hope) that a significant number of people may be excluded from cycling through age or infirmity - particularly relevant in the ward you used to represent which is hilly and does not replicate the flat plains of northern Southwark. It should not be promoted to the detriment of those who cannot, or choose not, to 'benefit' from it. Keen cyclists I know in SE22 still chose in bad weather (the winter) not to cycle, or may have been scared through bad experiences to stop. After my arm was twice broken (when I was much younger and on two wheels) I chose discretion as being the better part of valour. I doubt whether I would be alone in such a decision.

s anyone having problems with BT at the moment, I have no landline, internet etc. for last 2 3 days coincided with trying to connect to new fibre broadband so thought i?d done something stupid. Anyway rang BT outside fault! Anyone else having problems? If you are changing over your service I'm afraid that it is all too likely that the fault has appeared as a result of work within a cabinet or other flexibility point to achieve this. If you have seen inside the cabinets you will know they are a mass of wires and connecting points and it is all too easy for work in the cabinet either not to be fully connected, or for connections to be disrupted by other work going on (they are known as working-party faults, and in the 70s accounted for 25% of external local loop faults). Moves by BT over time has been to 'nail-up' the network as much as possible to remove flexibility - as this (whilst clearly of economic benefit) was generating faults.

To add another stir to the pot - the gentleman in question may have been well-known to the staff as someone who habitually placed shopping in his own bag and then paid for it. And therefore to be treated with natural courtesy and respect. He does not appear (based at least on the ease in which you spotted his behaviour) to have been acting covertly or suspiciously as regards his placing of items openly in his own own bag before paying for them.