Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Isn't it time we had residents parking in East Dulwich, especially around Barry Road area? I don't know about everyone else, but it is getting increasingly difficult to find somewhere to park. It seems that people from outside the hood are turning up and dumping their cars for the day - their right of course - to catch the god awful number 12 bus.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/4970-time-for-residents-parking/
Share on other sites

Simple answer is NO


Residents around the barry road area don't want permit parking bays, they restrict parking outside your own house, cost money and stop friends visiting and delivery drivers


Please don't try and gain support here for a council based money making scheme, in times of recession no one can afford the cost just to park outside their own home...

Yep, but remembering rightly, the results of the survey weren't black and white - it's not possible to say "residents don't want...", you'd need to qualify that:


Below are the actual results in graphical format.


file.php?5,file=2944


As a quick summary, gold and pink colours are those who want parking restrictions of some kind. It's no surprise that these dominate responses amongst people who say they're affected to a 'high' degree by parking issues.


For those residents that said they had a 'high' degree of parking problems, over 80% said they wanted parking permits - and these were predominantly living in streets immediately adjacent to the north end of Lordship Lane.


However, these residents were only a small proportion of total ED residential respondents, most ED residents don't have a parking problem, and hence 54% of total respondents completely rejected any idea of parking permits. That just about squeaks a majority.


In other words, if you don't suffer directly, then you don't want to pay for protection, and you want free access to other people's roads (or parking spaces!! ;-))


The question in a democracy is whether you want to protect the rights of those living next to LL, or protect the rights of those who want to drive in to LL.

it's getting harder to park because the majority of 'new' residents to ED turned their front gardens into driveways and shut of the parking to everyone else. The council should have stopped this practice by refusing to drop the kerb stones.....but maybe they wanted parking charges all along ?

AllforNun Wrote:

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

> it's getting harder to park because the majority

> of 'new' residents to ED turned their front

> gardens into driveways and shut of the parking to

> everyone else. The council should have stopped

> this practice by refusing to drop the kerb

> stones.....but maybe they wanted parking charges

> all along ?


xxxxxx


Not the majority, surely?


And none in my road.

Regarding residents driveways.The average permitted driveway is 2.5 metres wide.

An average family saloon car, say a Ford Mondeo is 4.7 metres in length.

If the car of 4.7 metres in length is on the driveway, as oppossed to being the road, an extra 2.2 metres of roadway is available for parking.

Huguenot Wrote:


Firstly very good analysis.


However:-

.."and you want free access to other people's roads (or parking spaces!! ;-))


If any one sentence perfectly summarised these Orwellian (Council dictated) Times its that one complete with symbol like it was some outrageous idea(!):)):))


Imagine it people! Guys actually want to visit other people where and when THEY want instead of when the Council dictate to you that you should!

WHAT A CONCEPT!...sooooo very rose-tinted Inner London 1970's...:-$


p.s.Obviously one should not adversely affect Residents by parking across anyones front drive.

I'm referring to the open road.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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