Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It has always been a busy road and depends which end you are thinking of. I do not live in the road but use it regularly to get to East Dulwich Road. Difficult to park a car in road especially on a Saturday when the North Cross Road market is on. However a CPZ is proposed for this road which may make a difference.

Hi

We live on CPR and like it a lot.

Not a busy road but you may not always be able to park directly outside your house due to gym users, other residents and visiting shoppers etc, depending which end you will be.

Wide road at goose green end, doesn?t get traffic congestion. 5 min walk to amenities. Interesting mix of housing stock.

Don?t think there?s anything you should be overly worried about but off street parking would be a bonus and something that would be high on my list if I was to do it all over again.

Thank you very much, very helpful. Bit worried about the parking but thinking this may be rectified if the Residents permits are to come into place. That being said, parking directly outside ones house is a luxury in London.. as long as we can park fairly close we will manage. Thanks again.

civilservant Wrote:

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

> i wasn't aware of that, singalto - which quietway

> is this and when will it come into operation?

> nothing on the TFL quietway pages to indicate this


It's going to be part of the Southwark Spine cycling/walking route, not part of the Quietway - that runs to the west (Greendale/Champion Hill/Camberwell Grove).

The Council is probably keeping quiet about the Quietway until they've got the CPZ agreed. If people knew that so much parking will be lost to the Quietway they'd probably vote against the CPZ.


The plans for slowing traffic in Barry Road have been shelved because they would remove too many parking spaces around the proposed islands.


Clearing all the clutter of parked cars from Crystal Palace Road, while simultaneously increasing the bus lane restrictions in Lordship Lane. will also turn CPR into rat run and a race track for cars as well as bikes, so people might have realised that the CPZ promise of safer streets is a nonsense.

The quiet way consultation originally took place in early 2018 - I recall it as there was concerns raised by Christ Church that church goers, groups and those attending the Bread of Life caf? would be affected. It also covered Friern, Etherow, Barry and Landells Road as well as Crystal Palace Road.

GraceLondon Wrote:

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

> Thanks. I'm not sure I understand, is the

> chiropractor canvasing for the CPZ or is this a

> separate matter?



The chiropractor definitely does not want a CPZ because it would mean patients with a mobility problem potentially having to park some way from his clinic, and then not be able to walk there.


Therefore it will impact on his business, because they will go to a chiropractor where they can park within a reasonable distance.


He is a very good chiropractor, btw!

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Just to reiterate, CPR is not part of the Quietway

> (TfL initiative) but the Southwark Spine

> (Southwark Council initiative).


From the Southwark Green Party website Apr 18, 2018

https://www.southwarkgreenparty.org.uk/camberwellandpeckham


"Southwark's consultation sham

Why do councillors ignore residents' views?


Last year, Southwark Council ran a consultation on its proposed 'Southwark Spine' cycle route. Local people and road safety experts said the designs would make cycling more dangerous, especially around Bellenden Road. In fact, 63% of people who replied opposed it.


But just before the election was called, one of the Labour councillors for this area, Ian Wingfield, signed off the scheme.


Eleanor Margolies says: "This makes a mockery of the idea of consultation."

thanks for the pointer to the Southwark Spine, rendel - the plans are here https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichtopeckham/supporting_documents/Consultation%20Plan.pdf


it does look as if there will be some loss of parking on CPR, but not excessively so


but i need to be convinced that removing the traffic-calming islands on CPR in the interest of improved cyclist amenity is a sensible suggestion

  • 1 month later...

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

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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