Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Charliecharlie, where's your evidence that planned parking damages retailers?


It's quite frustrating that so many people trot out this glib cliche with no evidence but present it as fact.


Since all shoppers on LL are ultimately pedestrians (or how would they get to the checkout?), then facilities that improve their access and movement will ultimately increase trade, not decrease it.


If you are claiming that these pedestrians can't get to LL without driving, then how about traders running a survey asking all shoppers at the point of purchase what their postcode is? At the end of the survey period we can finally find out the cash value of motorist non-SE22 customers to LL traders without all the bullshit.


Or will this be prevented because it may reveal an alternative agenda on behalf of traders - their own convenience at the expense of others?

At the risk of a "change? change?!" reaction, I'd like to know what the criteria are for spending money on that area and whether a crossing will actually _improve_ anything.


It's a dangerous section of road for those crossing, granted. It's a bit dicey to drive down.


If the traffic speed is too high, why not reduce the speed limit to 20mph?


If pedestrians not using the crossings is a problem, why not put up railings to ensure crossing anywhere else is more difficult? (yuck)


If the road is full of speeding through traffic, why not make it buses and pedestrians only (except trade vehicles within certain hours by parking permit)?


I'm not saying any of these are the best idea, but I don't think that yet another crossing, on a curve in the road, is actually going to make much difference - people will happily wander into the road 20 yards either side of the existing crossings.



: P

Pierre I'm sure if it was an issue of speeding through traffic no one would be complaining - no one would be able to cross (saving the need for any sort of crossing) and the traffic movement would mean no congestion (again no need for a crossing) ;-)

Turn it off Hugenot, you don't even live here, can you remember what Rye Lane was like a few years ago...you think the parking nazi's round there helped it? I think that rather than conduct a huge statitstical study for firm evidence (quite how that would work is beyond me?)...you could. given the lack of any other evidence, anectdotally look at the views of people who actually live and work in SE22, which on this forum are pretty resoundingly a NO.....go back to Raffles for your tiffin.....


...how about we give local independents evey chance in tough times.

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Charliecharlie, where's your evidence that planned

> parking damages retailers?


Talk to Mel ref Blue Mountain and Forset Hill branch (which closed as turnover plummeted after they brought in parking restrictions)

Talk to Chris and Karen from Pretty Tradtitional about thier views on the interrelationship between CPZ's and turnover

Talk to Rob and Monica at Health Matters about how the bus lane/changes of parking regs effected them


I understand that about 20% of trade come from those who live outside the area (about the % that makes a business viable, lose that lose the business)

Yes, I know that you can use the buses, but....

>>I'm confused.. where is this fabulous section of South London Autobahn where the cars race at high speed and pedestrians risk their lives in a deadly game of virtual 'Frogger' whilst trying to cross the great divide?<<



That'd be at the other end of LL, by the Grove Tavern (I refuse to refer to this centuries-old tavern as the "Harvester"!) which really does need some pedestrian phasing/pelican crossings/whatever to help us negotiate the Monaco Grand Prix-stle traffic...


Oh and the Forest Hill branch of Blue Mountain was hopelesly positioned from the word "go" - down the road from the station, no room for even outside tables never mind parking...

>>Entering a Harvester should always entail a certain degree of mortal peril.<<


Well there's the salad bar for that.....but for those of wanting to cross to get to the park or along to the college or picture gallery (and/pr back again) :))it'd be nice to cross in some safety...

Surely what 'slows down motorists' on LL is - and I'm just thinking outside the box on this one - the amount of traffic?


You could put 12 pedestrian crossings in between Somerfield and Goose Green and you'd still be stuck in the same queue on Denmark Hill just a few minutes later anyway.

Awww, Quids, you know I only post because I love you xx


It's a bit wierd though, because I've not recommended a parking permit, I've only recommended that someone check the data before casting judgment.


Your strategy seems to be to shout at me for being reasonable, to berate me for asking for information, and then to tell me to get the hell off the forum because I no longer live locally.


You misrepresented the results of the survey on another thread, which showed that residents close to LL are vastly in favour of parking restrictions. You continue a tired argument that involves using LL as your shopping destination, and other people's roads as your car park.


Your reaction to their chagrin is to bully them.


In your own terms, 0 out of 100.


And I still love you.

I can't see where anyone has mentioned that in the option where the least parking spaces are lost the bus lane is interrupted. As a daily bus user but also a resident of Chesterfield Grove I am struggling with which option would be better. I do believe they is a need for a pedestrian crossing but struggle with my options of delayed buses as they have to pull into the main traffic lane particularly during rush hour - anyone who gets the bus in the morning will know the delays involved in Grove Vale where the bus lane ends - or struggling to park on my own street particularly on a Saturday. Anyone got any thoughts?
I like the idea of a wide pavement to walk on outside Somerfield but I don't like the thought of the disruption caused by the interruption of the bus lane. Nor am I keen on the loss of parking spaces as it may mean loss of business to local traders, or will it?. Is anyone a trader or has anyone spoken to a trader to get their opinion on this?

how wide does a pavement need to be to do its job(?)(?)


don't remember seeing any human corpses or mangled buggies outside Somerfield


seems kind of OK the width it is; room for double buggy, Big Issue guy, cash point folks and general ED flaneurs.

Stroll on EDers:)


what's happening? are we planning a big party outside Somerfield?


NB End of year budget... Conways - the cousin of 'Southwark Big Daddy', and another big ol' expensive f**k up springs to mind

future scenario....


http://www.blog.treutech.com/photos/crowd_of_people.jpg


people enjoying the new wider pavement outside Somerfield

(wow, I never knew it was such a popular shop... perhaps it's the closing down sale bargains that are attracting such a crowd...)


edited because of horrendous typing and trying to do 12 things at once

I think the question of cars has only become an issue in ED because we do not have a public car park. I think it is a great shame that we cannot invest in a patch of local land which not used so that we have a place for visitors to the area to park.


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> I think the question of cars has only become an

> issue in ED because we do not have a public car

> park. I think it is a great shame that we cannot

> invest in a patch of local land which not used so

> that we have a place for visitors to the area to

> park.

>

> Louisa.


What about concreting over the LL end of Goose Green? It's plenty big enough and might ease the "It's Saturday and I can't park within 5 metres of my front door" syndrome. It may also discourage those arriving from the north from driving up LL.

I dont think I could stomach the thought of GG being sacrificed for a car park, as much as it would be nice to have somewhere that close to LL. I was thinking more along the lines of perhaps reopening up the somerfield car park and maybe extending it a little, perhaps putting some underground parking in too?


Louisa.

Will losing some parking on LL increase parking issues in the side streets making it easier to introduce controlled parking and permits in future? If it's only a couple of spaces then probably no issue, just musing.


Just seen this already discussed earlier. Sorry folks.

Mark Wrote:

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

> I like the idea of a wide pavement to walk on

> outside Somerfield but I don't like the thought of

> the disruption caused by the interruption of the

> bus lane. Nor am I keen on the loss of parking

> spaces as it may mean loss of business to local

> traders, or will it?. Is anyone a trader or has

> anyone spoken to a trader to get their opinion on

> this?


I have spoken to a number of retailers now , on my journeys on that strip of LL and lower down, they all have said pretty much the same thing, shoppers will not be able to park temporarily at that spot to do their shopping so it may affect trade. Parking would be retained behind the zig zags though and the pavement would be built out disrupting the buslane. As Moos said ( which i admit was funny reading my first post back) that does it take fatalities to warrant a safety measure? I think it does unfortunately that's why they put safety measures such as speed cameras on black spots and that's how councils work bizarly enough. I can't recall reading about any fatalities on that strip of LL though. And like charlies said, are they doing this cos they need to spend allocated monies or it would just be wasted if they don't use it. Who knows. I think a third crossing at the roundabout would definitely be a good idea though. It can be tricky crossing from Goose green to the Mind Shop. Another crossing on LL would make life easier too however. And one more thing before you all fall asleep, i recall the workers building up the side roads at the lower end of LL some years back, to reduce speed, only to have them take it all away again. I mean WTF, what a waste of money.

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...