Jump to content

Recommended Posts

no, no, noooooo to resident's parking! I love being able to park outside my own house without paying for the privilege and having to go through both the council and royal mail everytime i need a new permit. visitors = nightmare too. I had permits in Merton but still could never get a space outside my house, or even on my road a lot of the time.

JoJo09 Wrote:

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

> no, no, noooooo to resident's parking! I love

> being able to park outside my own house without

> paying for the privilege and having to go through

> both the council and royal mail everytime i need a

> new permit. visitors = nightmare too. I had

> permits in Merton but still could never get a

> space outside my house, or even on my road a lot

> of the time.


I don?t want it either in my street because it wouldn?t solve our problem. But folks sometimes it DOES actually work. It all depends on exactly what the particular issues are in a particular street. Sometimes it helps and sometimes it doesn?t. So blanket being against isn?t really the best thing to say. Can we all just say that sometimes it is exactly the wrong thing to do and sometimes it might be just right, but before you think it is the right thing to do you have to be VERY clear exactly what the issue is and if it will really cure without bad effects?

The roads towards Herne Hill station do that "no parking between 12 and 2" thing, and while of course that does cause some displacement to the streets further out it keeps the commuters at bay. If it works there why wouldn't it work around ED station?

Eileen, you make a reasoned point, but I got the impression that most people were commenting on behalf of where they live, as we tend to do. So it sounds like a resounding - "No, we don't believe there is an issue on our streets that we think will be solved by residents' parking".


I lived in a residents' parking area previously, and it was expensive and a pain in the neck.

We live very close to ED station and have never had a problem either, so it sounds as if the problem is restricted to very specific areas and/or very specific times and is probably not a huge one (albeit that I'm sure it's very annoying for the small proportion of residents affected by it). I certainly don't think that an ED-wide CPZ is the answer - strikes me as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Perhaps a one or two hour resident-only parking slot in a few targeted streets would be sufficient, without causing massive headaches for residents as well? As a matter of principle, though, I'm opposed to any CPZ where residents have to pay for their own car (maybe a fee for a second car could be considered though) or for visitor parking within reasonable limits (eg 30 free visitor permits/year per household?).

Surely the issue at that end of LL is far less to do with "people parking to catch buses into town" and far more to do with the fact that most houses are converted into flats and are situated on a main road with very limited parking? Each house has space for one car to park in front, so if it's divided into two flats and both flats have a car, one of you is parking outside someone else's house, which pushes their car onto the next house and so on. 100 cars into 60 spaces just doesn't go.


A CPZ won't solve that one I'm afraid, but will just add an extra layer of nuisance to everyone else's lives.

Moos Wrote:

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

> Eileen, you make a reasoned point, but I got the

> impression that most people were commenting on

> behalf of where they live, as we tend to do. So

> it sounds like a resounding - "No, we don't

> believe there is an issue on our streets that we

> think will be solved by residents' parking".> I lived in a residents' parking area previously,

> and it was expensive and a pain in the neck.


Well yes Moos. But I noticed that when someone says they think it would work in their location it stimulates a lot of anti messages, for good reasons. I just know that when we were threatened with an extension to the Peckham town centre CPZ here which would have affected a lot of new streets, some of the people who might actually have been helped by a small tweaking of the boundary found it hard to get a decent hearing. This was because those where it wouldn?t be sensible tended to make blanket statements about not wanting it at all in our overall area. And similarly, some who wanted it also made blanket statements about it being a good thing overall. So it diverted attention from the specifics. Just passing on that experience, that it is really important not to have blanket approaches and also to be very detailed in examining the precise issues even sometimes down to a junction or small part of a street.


Indeed in this exchange JDR said (see November 15, 11:14PM above): ""Afraid that I'm going to completely disagree with most of the above. We are now part of the residents parking zone in Peckham. (Previously the first street with free parking to Peckham Rye station)."" That is very close to my street but it doesn?t invalidate that it can be wrong for my street while right for JDR?s.

Don't want residents parking but do want the person who parks up several cars in my street with for sale signs and leaves them there for MONTHS AT A TIME to park them outside their own property instead of mine.


Local councillor assures me that council officials have spoken to person re this and I'm fairly certain it's not legal to sell cars like this (in multiples, I mean) but they're still there.


I don't need to park outside my house every day but once in a while to wash/hoover it out isn't too much to ask, surely!

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

    • So top of Lane. Local Sainsbury, middle Co Op and M and S and bottom Tesco Express…..now everyone should be happy except those that want a Waitrose as well…0h and  don’t forget M and S near ED Station….
    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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