Do you want Controlled Parking YES or NO

[Sally Eva]

Mscrawthew Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> James Barber Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Hi TE44,

> > Housing Associations and the council have tens

> of

> > thousand of social housing in controlled

> parking

> > zones so they must have cracked this one.

>

> Less time to do the job in hand so they are rushed

> and incomplete. Results in secondary calls

>

> to the local council at more cost. Private

> contractors just add the cost of the tickets to

> the final bill so we still get pay indirectly!

Apcoa, who are the council parking contractors, do not automatically cover HA car parking. On Oxley close/Stephenson Crescent the parking on the road (whoever it is by) is enforced by Apcoa on behalf of the council.

The houses are Wandle HA and the off-road Wandle HA car parking is not enforced by Apcoa. Wandle are responsible for that themselves. Other HA may subcontract to Apcoa I guess.

[TE44]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi TE44,

> Housing Associations and the council have tens of

> thousand of social housing in controlled parking

> zones so they must have cracked this one.

>

> Hi singlto,

> I campaigned to stop the crazy amount of double

> yellow lines installed. Originally it was going to

> be 10m from the apex of every corner but reduced a

> little to 7.5m. Annoying.

>

> Thanks Luana.

>

> Hi sahmatin,

> I've not looked at the survey reponses so far and

> wont for a couple of weeks.

James, there is no allocated parking, and I must agree with above comments regarding time and quality of work when under pressure to do a job in a time frame.

I shall let you know if they've "cracked it", after i've enquired about this, there's many things assumed about social housing but I'm sure as a councellor you

are more informed. Thank you.

[James Barber]

Hi MSCrawthew,

It is refreshing to hear someone - by implication - praise the current maintenance work undertaken by HA and council working home repairs!

Hi sing alto,

The Harris primary school opened on a temporary site on Homestall Road. It is likely that some of those parents drive. The school was awarded an Ofsted Outstanding in all categories. it seems extremely likely that its catchment area will shrink rapidly.

What has no helped in the loss locally of around 100 car parking spaces from all the unnecessary double yellow lines - I think this a bigger issue.

[TE44]

James, It is all well commenting on praise for scial housing maintenance, but the reality is very different. I do not have up to date figures but here is a link to disrepair. Southwark Council mentioned as paying most in compensation and legal fees regarding this matter, sorry I have a habit of connecting things and this may seem off topic, I can now see there may be a bigger impact on non driver households, whereas In the past I have only looked from neighbours perspective who drive.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30067%3Adisrepair-claims-over-english-council-properties-rise-44-by-five-years&catid=60%3Ahousing-articles&Itemid=28

[Michael Palaeologus]

Is there any empirical evidence that M&S has significantly increased the number of cars parking in ED? Or are we just guessing? or, it stands to reason? or, a bloke told me in the pub?

[Mscrawthew]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi MSCrawthew,

> It is refreshing to hear someone - by implication

> - praise the current maintenance work undertaken

> by HA and council working home repairs!

I think you need to read that again James, I did at no point praise any maintenance work. Prime example is the Saltash contract that has been absolutely abysmall. The work that has been done in a lot of properties is substandard and they continue without any comeback. This is digressing from the point of the thread so I say a definate NO to a CPZ for a various amount of reasons.

[flocker spotter]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is there any empirical evidence that M&S has

> significantly increased the number of cars parking

> in ED? Or are we just guessing? or, it stands to

> reason? or, a bloke told me in the pub?

Nothing in this thread has a basis in anything remotely factual or independent, including the pretty shoddy OP survey

[AC1964]

NO NO NO NO NO NO

[ktbg]

No thanks. Been there, done that, and it was hell.

[Pugwash]

In some areas (not London) car owning residents are issued with free 'residents parking stickers' with car registration details listed on them. Would this be cheaper than introducing a CPZ ?- any vehicle without these stickers would be subject to parking fines.

[tash b]

Pugwash Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In some areas (not London) car owning residents

> are issued with free 'residents parking stickers'

> with car registration details listed on them.

> Would this be cheaper than introducing a CPZ ?-

> any vehicle without these stickers would be

> subject to parking fines.

Never heard of that pugwash, but what a good idea.

[Ontherun]

That is indeed a good idea Pugwash - do you know where outside London this has been introduced?

Tortor is right - parking has become increasingly difficult over the years, certainly within strolling distance of East Dulwich station and the roads around Dulwich Hospital so we need to consider whether there are any realistic and more community minded alternatives to a CPZ. I was originally opposed to the CPZ, however it's become so difficult to park now with developments including the squeeze of encroaching zones and especially the ludicrous long yellow lines on every corner already in place. The impending new secondary school opening up nearby and the new flats being built on East Dulwich Grove are likely to make it impossible to park anywhere near where I live over the coming months.

I used to like the fact that patients and staff at Dulwich Hospital could park in local roads for their appointments. The Alleyn's staff and parent drop/pick ups not so much, but I am coming round to the fact that a CPZ seems to be the only solution. I've lived with one before in another borough so am aware of pros/cons. However it's a sad state of affairs when lovely neighbours start moving (that's already happening) and others have become so possessive of 'their imaginary spot' outside their house - lovely community-minded people in every other way - start parking wars and hog huge spaces to avoid parking a few inches away from their front gate, ignoring the need to squeeze up and make room for others.

A CPZ therefore seems an expensive but fairer solution, and an all day one to avoid those using Ringo to cover lunch time parking.

[bargee99]

tash b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pugwash Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > In some areas (not London) car owning residents

> > are issued with free 'residents parking

> stickers'

> > with car registration details listed on them.

> > Would this be cheaper than introducing a CPZ ?-

> > any vehicle without these stickers would be

> > subject to parking fines.

>

> Never heard of that pugwash, but what a good idea.

This is simply a CPZ without a yearly charge. I suspect it would not be enforced because there would be no money to pay the wardens.

[louisemurray]

NO

[MarkT]

Bargee wrote:

"This is simply a CPZ without a yearly charge. I suspect it would not be enforced because there would be no money to pay the wardens."

Outside of any CPZ, are not single and double yellow lines enforced? Income comes from fines. If in fact CPZs have greater enforcement, might it be that resident parkers alert the traffic wardens?

[bargee99]

I don't know MarkT. I would assume CPZ's are more rigorously enforced during the hours of operation by wardens employed for that purpose rather than the general infringements which occur at all hours and have to be enforced at all times.

[Jennys]

Ontherun mentioned drivers who ?hog huge spaces to avoid parking a few inches away from their front gate, ignoring the need to squeeze up and make room for others?. When I had a car I would have agreed there is a need to squeeze up, especially as it is so difficult to find a parking space in many roads in East Dulwich. But now I am not a car owner, I often find it difficult to cross the road and access the pavement on the other side if cars are too tightly parked with no space between them. This is especially so for people with a pram or buggy or a shopping trolley. Please think of this when parking.

[eastdulwichhenry]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What has no helped in the loss locally of around

> 100 car parking spaces from all the unnecessary

> double yellow lines - I think this a bigger issue.

I fully support double yellow lines near junctions. This is not a convenience issue of whether or not people can park, it's a safety issue, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists, and the council was quite right to impose it.

There are far too many junctions in ED where there's no visibility because of parked cars, meaning people have to edge out without knowing what may be coming along the road.

[alex_b]

eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I fully support double yellow lines near

> junctions. This is not a convenience issue of

> whether or not people can park, it's a safety

> issue, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists,

> and the council was quite right to impose it.

>

> There are far too many junctions in ED where

> there's no visibility because of parked cars,

> meaning people have to edge out without knowing

> what may be coming along the road.

That?s a nice idea in theory. But I live by one of these junctions and since we?ve had the double yellows we?ve seen an increase in traffic speed, more collisions and more large vehicles attempting to turn on a corner that they can?t safely navigate. The proposed quietway increasing the double yellows in our road will only make matters worse.

What we need is road closures to stop the rat running, not counterproductive double yellow lines.

[Sally Eva]

Road-closures (filtered permeability) to stop rat-running are the approach supported by southwark cyclists. The problem is that Councillors are frightened to suggest them because of angry reception such ideas receive.

If you feel that road-closures are a safer way forward, please write to your councillor

[James Barber]

Hi eastdulwichhenry,

I agree with 2-3m of double yellow lines on corners to make crossing the road easier. But the safety angle is spurious based on the last 18 years ro publicly available crash data.

We also know that longer sight lines can lead to more speeding.

hi Sally Eva,

We know half of the traffic on Southwark roads starts and end outside Southwark. Their was talk of camera enforced filtered permeability - open for Southwakr residents registered vehicles during schools runs and charged or banned for non Southwark registered vehicles - we're talking about residential streets not A & B roads.

[Penguin68]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi eastdulwichhenry,

> I agree with 2-3m of double yellow lines on

> corners to make crossing the road easier. But the

> safety angle is spurious based on the last 18

> years ro publicly available crash data.

> We also know that longer sight lines can lead to

> more speeding.

>

> hi Sally Eva,

> We know half of the traffic on Southwark roads

> starts and end outside Southwark. Their was talk

> of camera enforced filtered permeability - open

> for Southwakr residents registered vehicles during

> schools runs and charged or banned for non

> Southwark registered vehicles - we're talking

> about residential streets not A & B roads.

Actually that's a pretty rubbish statistic. It assumes all communities of interest are constrained on Borough lines,but that's clearly not so. My daughters live just over the border in Lewisham. ED, Forest Hill and Brockley merge into each other at the borders. Wood Vale is split in two. James' proposal is nimbyism at its worst.

[kibris]

What I don't understand is why the Borough of Southwark has money to ask us if we want CPZ but doesn't have money to fill in the large number of pot holes everwhere

[lavender27]

Haven't been following this thread but I'm going to put my ore in and have a joke. If you don't control your parking you'll never learn how to park. Also I hate that bread/cake called parkin. What the hell is it. Some say a load of poo.

[wulfhound]

"We know half of the traffic on Southwark roads starts and end outside Southwark. Their was talk of camera enforced filtered permeability - open for Southwakr residents registered vehicles during schools runs and charged or banned for non Southwark registered vehicles - we're talking about residential streets not A & B roads."

Even as an avowed supporter of filtered permeability, that's an odd idea. The restrictions are most needed at school run time (and in term time) as that's when the most vulnerable of road users are trying to get from A to B. Allowing borough residents to use cut-throughs but not others favours those making shorter trips by car - exactly those journeys which are most likely to be possible to shift to walking / cycling.

If camera enforced filtering does become a thing, it needs to operate on far smaller "cells" than borough-wide - similar in size to the CPZ zones - to reduce the number of vehicles cutting through to a point that makes those minor roads usable by kids walking / cycling to school independently, and ordinary mums / dads cycling to the station after drop-off. Effectively making those minor roads access-only at specific times of day. It's pretty much essential if the Quietways are ever to live up to their name.