Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi prickle,

I'll find out 'cos that sounds an excellent dodge to defeat the system. I'd hope the mobile phone was goving some GPS but doubt it.


Visitor permits. I'd guess that if they were all ?1.60 then some residents might buy lots of books and sell them on. Most visitors would be weekend and evening for most people. If people decide they want controlled parking I hope they choose the 10-12 option which again would mean most weekday visitors wouldn't be affected.

I wonder how much the ability to park near the station is actually worth? I have off street parking but perhaps I should park my car on the road, paying for residents parking if it comes, and then rent my off-road space out to a commuter. Anyone know how much profit I might make? Whoops, is that not in the spirit of CPZs?

Agree totally Minkey. And not only trades but any other 'visitor' that may visit during the week.


I think it is a huge assumption that visitors only come in evening and at weekends. For example, there may be house-bound people who depend on visitors for care and company during the week.


I think that the prices charged for visitor permits are outrageous and disproportunate in amount. Residents should be given free visitor permits or at the most be charged a nominal amount. Frankly it is insulting to assume that we would hoard the permits and sell them on!!!

Hi The mnkey and Prickle,

Yes and no.

If the majority of residents want Controlled Parking Zone and choose the all week day operation choice then yes. But if they choose the 10-12 option then they'd only need a parking voucher if they arrive or leave during that time. I'd just book plumbers etc to arrive after noon or similar. But you would be able to say to visitors you should be ableto park close to the house. It's a trade off.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But there's an obvious policy tension here between the police model and the civil model. The police model theoretically acts as a deterrent but, as on Lordship Lane (and many other A-roads where most collisions happen) there is limited enforcement coverage. With the civil model there is the potential for wider enforcement coverage but the penalties are weaker (some may think of speeding as a 'cost of doing business') and funding it is expensive. There's a real risk of patchwork enforcement within a local authority and between local authorities. As I understand it, this is why the Assembly has been cautious in taking it further. 
    • Lost my 2 cards today around 4 pm think they dropped out of phone. Belenden rd  barclays blue mns green  name c Pascale  If I dropped them. Thanks 
    • Police are responsible for speed cameras, often these only go up after a serious incident or two. If speeding was decriminalised and went to local authorities to enforce then our roads would be safer as there would be far less speeding.   https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/enforcement-20mph-zones-local-roads
    • Never understood why there are not more speed cameras on Lordship Lane and the surrounding area - not sure what happened here exactly, but given the damage to the front of the vehicle as a result of the impact of the traffic light, it seems very unlikely that this person was driving slowly.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...