Time for residents parking

[charliecharlie]

Perhaps my rant could be the start of a new thread for grumpy old residents!!!

Proposed title... "Things the council have got wrong over the years"

oh no... mercy! It could run and run and drive us all into packing up our teepees and moving on out!!!!

charliecharlie Wrote:

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

> karter Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Is the council not pedestrianising Northcross

> rd

> > anymore?

>

> they keep trying to bring this one in... some

> years ago (about 3/4/5, can't really remember)

> they had loads of meetings, did some consultation,

> drew up some (hideous and worthless) proposals

> adding ghastly 'features' to improve' the street

> (which was fine as it was) using resources (both

> material and financial) which did not need using

> up!

>

> One of the ideas was to pedestrianise which was

> DEEPLY unpopular with both residents and traders.

> We (those who went to the meeting/mix of retailers

> and residents) managed to do some damage

> limitation and the LEAST bad thing we could get

> them to do was repave (one side!!! as there was

> not budget for both!!! genius eh!) part of the

> street, which the council then did badly, took

> 6mths to complete and chose (without consultation)

> a red paving and black tarmac combo that, 1)

> looked like a new run way at Heathrow 2) did not

> match/sit well with all the other paving around

> (straight forward stone grey stuff) 3) made any

> repair work a disaster (as the red bricks either

> get filled in with lumpy badly laid tarmac or or

> are left as a hole for another 6mths)... Remember

> the hole outside Pretty Traditional that has only

> just been bunged back up again with tarmac??? 4)

> knocked retail trade really badly for the 6mth it

> took to complete the work 5) miscalculated the

> depth of the bricks so the curb had to be raised

> (which in turn meant none of the market traders

> stalls fitted the site anymore) which caused

> further chaos. They also bust through into the

> water mains and I seem to remember gas mains too

> as they had not done a proper survey and left the

> barriers and heaps of waste lying around for

> further 2/3 mnths. GENIUS eh!!.... I could go on

> and on (or am I going on already??? hypothetical

> question folks... no reply needed here!!)

> The long and the short is that the street is FINE

> as it is!!!!

>

> You may all note that I am not that impressed by

> the council (having lived in and around the area

> for 20 yrs, one can get a teeny bit worn down by

> their inability to manage 'a p**s up in a

> brewery')

>

> Say YES to good, well managed, considerate design

> that improves peoples lives... however, say NO to

> change for change's sake

[shaun]

I'd be all for parking permits IF residents didn't have to pay for them. The upkeep of permit schemes should be funded by the charges levied to non resident drivers, but that clearly won't happen and residents will be fleeced as well. So because of that I'd have to vote no.

[MelbyG]

Mmm. Clearly I'm the minority voice here (see gold/pink) but try heaving two small children and shopping out of a car you've had to park several streets away....

[Huguenot]

The thing I find so frustrating about this debate is that on-one gives any evidence for their claims.

I understand Karter's concerns as a trader, but there are no figures provided by him/her and colleagues supporting the case that business would be damaged. Restricting parking to a couple of hours for non-residents may free up long period parking by commuters that currently block casual shoppers to the Lane. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that Karter's business may improve with parking restrictions.

Where's the retail data from areas in Zone 2 borders that have implemented these zones? I stress 'data' here - 'I reckon...' is not data.

People may resent it as a stealth tax, but once again there's no evidence that it is. The link posted about Sheffield says that councils are currently losing money on the projects, the 'profit' gossip is merely an unsubstantiated forecast.

Change may well be scary, and I'm not recommending gambling with this superb commercial area. I do wish that someone would get off their bums and find some blinking evidence instead of peddling mob-think and prejudice. We know that busy mum's don't have a 'right' to park outside their house, but we do have a social responsibility to try and help them resolve these problems - it's called being a good neighbour.

[????]

Hugenot as resident of Singapore you're obviously quite happy with the state interfering with individual freedom....in contrast many of us don't feel like living in semi-tolitarian cities...and looking at the 'data' on this thread, that applies to many in SE22..

PS it's snowing

[Huguenot]

Totalitarian? Not much residents parking to be found here ;-) but of course an awful lot of sunshine. Just back from a river cruise down the Mekong in Laos. Very hot but lots of mozzies.

There's not so many private cars here, because they're taxed very heavily. Hence you get far fewer parking issues. In recompense the public transport system is exceptional, and one in every five cars is a taxi. I can call an automated taxi number here that recognises my mobile number and can get a taxi to my door within 5 minutes of placing the call. The fares are about a quarter of London's.

As a result of fewer private cars there are very few hyper-markets and most people shop within walking distance of their house. No car required.

Singapore's run more like a business than a democracy, but they seem to find a very effective balance to accommidate the diverse population. For example homosexuality is illegal (to satisfy muslim and christian groups), but the government is on record that they have no remit to interfere with the actions of consenting adults within their own bedrooms (to satisfy the liberal progressives).

If there was evidence that parking issues were causing economic problems or causing social unrest I could imagine them resolving it in a professional way, whatever the solution was.

[karter]

Morning Hugue,

Thank you for your PM. I am well diversified in business, trading stocks and property. Cpz would not affect me as a business person but as you say you too used to live in the Crawthew area where Foxtons cars had taken over. I have noticed a big decline in the number of their cars recently though. I always find a space when looking to park. I understand you would like to see data on how CPZ affects an area both positively and negatively, have you tried contacting the council? For the newbies reading this, you provided Mark an online survey for people to vote on this forum. The majority of people said no to Controlled Parking Zone for their various reasons.

I have had it up to my ears discussing this, i think i will start a new thread on a zebra crossing.

Cheers.

[the flynn family]

replying to Huguenot - we are affected by living near Lordship Lane and we STILL say no to parking restrictions. a) they would cost money b) what a palaver whenever a friend wants to visit or the woman repairing the washing machine or whatever c) I don't mind walking a bit further to our car as a small price to pay to have such a fantastic selection of interesting shops and nice bars/cafes/restaurants right on my doorstep. It's an acceptable price! though it was quite hard whilst the twins were babies and I was lugging two baby car seats two roads down to the car.

no parking restrictions PLEASE