bonaome

That's not a young man, that's a child. I assume Police will do it, but otherwise I'd inform NSPCC (who have some Police powers) with your description etc.

No CPZ, minor changes for safety improvements. See this http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=27502

Hi First Mate. The document that I think has the most detail regarding deliveries etc is this one. It proposes deliveries from 6:30am. The proposals suggest no change to the entrance to the site. They show how the proposed size of articulated lorry can enter and exit the site in a forwards gear. The arrivals and departures will be supervised by a person on the street. Currently deliveries are unrestricted. I do not know the current pattern of deliveries or whether they are supposed to go in and come out in a forwards gear (i.e. not reversing on Chesterfield Grove) and if so whether they abide by that, or whether or not they are (supposed to be) supervised from someone on the street. Do you know?

There has been a planning application to develop the property on the site of Iceland. The plans involve extending the property to cover much if what is now the carpark at the back of Iceland, and changing the upper floors to accommodate 8 new 2 bed flats. It seems that the lease on the property is soon up for renewal. Nobody knows whether Iceland wish to renew or plan to quit (pls correct if I'm wrong). M&S appear to be keen on takin the redeveloped property. Nobody knows if M&S would still be interested in the property if not redeveloped or if the plans were curtailed. The first post in the thread has links to the proposals on Southwark's website. Concerns are that the proposals would mean increased problems for residents of Chesterfield Grove from the delivery lorries making noise and damaging residents' cars and increased pressure on local parking from a) a busier store and b) the new residents. This vs. potentially neither Iceland nor M&S wanting to stay leaving an empty space on LL. Lots of people v excited about M&S both for and against. A less thoroughly discussed possibilities: no change at all - Iceland stay, no planning consent; planning consent and Iceland stay; planning consent and a 3rd retailer takes the space; etc

Vale street doesn't take rubble. Devon street takes everything.

Indeed so, I hope not to have suggested otherwise.

I think you might share you views to better effect by looking at the details of the planning application here, and sending your comments by email to [email protected] quoting the application reference number 12/AP/1340. I broadly support the proposed development, echoing some of Penguin68's points I think it may make the difference between an economically viable retail unit and an empty shell and I think 8 new flats in the area is a good thing, especially if a caveat can be attached to planning permission to make (some of) the flats available / affordable for key workers. I think there is a broader sense of community in ED than perhaps you give credit to.

Ahmed (sp?) is great. The other guy in there is lovely too. He always takes the skin off the fish for me. Fish and chips tonight then!

Thank you for the confirmation that it is just your opinion. For a brief moment I thought you had some facts to base your objections on.

How is that clear?

alsmith Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I am on about is that currently Iceland has a > car park with 17 spaces. The proposals will have > no car park. Given this parking is used at 100% > capacity on a weekend that puts more demand on > local roads for parking. I do realise that I may have hit on the one single time in the last 20 years that the car park has been at anything less than 100% full. But I did my own informal reccy on Saturday - nice sunny day, market in full swing, popped by about noon - there were 8 cars in there.

We went to Punt Prima in Menorca - see here - and liked it so much we went back again. Would have gone back a third time but too expensive for us once we had to start paying for the child places (kids are free under 3 I think).

'Researched' alas no. But on our street it's fairly common to be unable to park (from Thursday evening through to Monday morning) and almost as common to see several cars taking up 2 spaces. Might be worth informally looking into. As has been said, if it works in Oz ...

Mark the streets out into bays. They would not be compulsory. You wouldn't get a fine for spanning more than one bay. The idea is that simply by having them people are encouraged (nudged) into parking more considerately.

If the results had been the exact opposite James, would you now be expressing reservations about steaming ahead with a CPZ? All the streets except 2 have said no. If all the streets except 2 had said yes, would you be fighting for those 2 streets to be excluded from the CPZ? Perhaps that could have been prevented by a more honest an open consultation process. Nothing fills an information vacuum better than rumour - on both sides. There are also people who are saying that a CPZ will cause them real problems. That's why they have "voted"* against it. * Yeah, yeah. I know it wasn't a vote. Can't help but wonder if the results had been reversed ... bet you then it would have been all about how people have 'voted'. Edited for typo and tidiness.

One thing that might help a bit would be if people parked more considerately. It's been mentioned on this thread before, sorry for repeating but maybe worth considering with option 2 - mark out regular spaces along the kerb at, say 6.5m or 7m to encourage people to park within them. Apparently this happens in Australia. I don't believe it's enforced with a fine. It just reminds people/makes them think a bit more about parking more considerately.

Not a fasting test then?

@garnwba: I think if Barry Hargrove knew that the consultation and roadworks would coincide, he should have delayed the consultation (or brought it forward, he's had 9 months from when the data was collected). I think that if Barry Hargrove didn't know they would coincide, and no one in his team knew, then I'd say a) he's not up to the job and b) the current consultation process should be abandoned as there are a-priori reasons to believe that the data collected would be affected by the unusual circumstances in which it's being collected.

THE MOTIVE The council has a stated objective of reducing traffic in the borough by 3% and sees CPZs as a means of hitting that target. The proposed scheme would be funded by TfL, hence the funny shape of it, and whilst the council can't make a 'profit' from the scheme (whatever that means) it seems it can use the proceeds to fund other civic projects - i.e. the very stuff of their raison d'etre. THE CRIME They have pulled together a "consultation" document which doesn't mention a single disadvantage of introducing the scheme. They've restricted the consultation to only those living within the proposed CPZ and ignored the adjacent streets, which they admit will 'be hammered'. The consultation is taking place 9 months after the survey data was collected, and it just happens to coincide with the Grove Vale road works which have suspended all parking on Melbourne Grove, significantly increasing the parking pressure on the surrounding streets at the time of the consultation. The consultation survey is well structured to deliver an outcome in favour of the CPZ (I spent over 10 years in market research agencies, designing questionnaires*) and I strongly suspect that the data analysis might be looked at in just the same way. THE VICTIM Meanwhile the council doesn't really seem to have much of a grip on the numbers. In summary: currently there are 691 spaces, an estimated 20% used by commuters means 553 residents can park. However the scheme will leave only 507 spaces. I'm not sure I need to bother with the summing up.

No. There was a reference to the Herne Hill CPZ, which _has_ expanded on the S'wark side (albeit by only 1 street so far, but ...) and is now under consultation to expand significantly on the Lambeth side.

The 2 aussies in the office tell me that in Australia the kerbs have a line on them marking out a parking space and there's a notice up asking people to park considerately. Apparently it works wonders.

I've never heard of one being removed once instated. I've never known one not expand, once instated.

I asked Barrie Hargrove if he thinks the consultation document is biased. This is what he said. "...I do acknowledge that the consultation document for the Grove Vale area sets out very clearly what some people may well regard as being the benefits of a CPZ, that does not mean that it is "biased". If a proposal had say 11 advantages and only 3 disadvantages, I don't think it would be in anyone's interests in the sense of "unbiasedness" [sic] to put forward only 3 advantages..." It seems Barrie doesn't think the disadvantages of a CPZ should be mentioned in a consultation document. I asked him to clarify whether or not he knew that the current consultation would coincide with the current Grove Vale road works, which involve the complete suspension of all parking spaces on Melbourne Grove between Grove Vale and East Dulwich Grove, thereby forcing local residents to park in the adjacent streets - i.e. the streets being consulted on a CPZ? This is what he said ... "Clearly it is important to get on satisfactorily complete the TfL financed Grove Vale improvement works as soon as possible. It is also important that as a local council were responded to local residents concerns about parking problems in their area. The two initiatives are only linked in so far as their has been a need to get them both underway." Barrie thought it was really important to get the consultation underway asap. 9 months after the survey data was collected. He hasn't answered the question as to whether or not he knew that the consultation was happening at the same time as the Grove Vale road works. I wasn't at his surgery last night in Peckham Library (or the Friday before) but says that he is going to be at the parking exhibition Wednesday 9 November 2011, @ 4:30pm but has to leave sharply at 5:30pm.

Councillor Barber, are you saying that Barry Hargrove, Cabinet Member for Transport, didn't know that the Grove Vale roadworks would coincide with the Grove Vale CPZ consultation? And that when deciding the timing of the consultation he didn't check to see if there would be anything out of the ordinary going on around the Grove Vale area that might make it a poor time to do the consultation - which, by the way, is being conducted 9 months after the parking survey data was collected? And that the left and right hands to which you refer, belong to the same chap? I'll ask Barry and see what he says. If what you suggest is true, I'd say Barry's not up to the job. Wouldn't you?

Are you sure you know which road you live in though garnwba? It's not just Wino who thinks there's no problem on Melbourne Grove, the council's survey appears to agree with him. [pre] [/pre]