trizza

Err, it's Southwark Council - they'll install speed humps anywhere for no particular reason...and damn the cost. This is quite funny. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/wasteful-london-council-installs-1000-speed-hump-in-a-culdesac-6776816.html It's enough to persuade me to buy a 4X4 to cruise the streets of southwark in relative comfort without having my spine re-arranged when driving (within the speed limit) The world's smallest cycle lane on Forest Hill Road (about 2 metres) is also a laugh - that will have cost thousands too. Completely pointless... And people complain about loss of local services...

Buy a small hippo bag (break up fence panels) - http://www.hippobag.co.uk/ Or pay someone to take it away.

Complete waste of money. The build outs into the road will just increase congestion and, as a cyclist, I just hate them as they reduce the available road space.

I use this junction daily. My experiences are: - Traffic from East Dulwich Road (both from Nunhead and ED) routinely jump the lights (whether turning right or otherwise). Even buses do this. - When busy it's impossible to turn right onto Peckham Rye from East Dulwich Road without either: a) being at the front of the lights and engaging "sport mode"; or b) jumping the lights. The junction is so busy that i'm not sure a roundabout (without lights) would really work. I think the only option is a right filter and installation of traffic light cameras - I am anti speed cameras, but think this is really the only way of preventing people jumping the lights.

And the P12 never turns up. Apart from these small issues it's a wonderful suggestion.

Dbboy If the 363 can go down Wood Vale there is absolutely no reason why the 63 cannot go down Honor Oak Park - it's a main road!! The P12 is a complete waste of time. You're more likely to see a Waitrose in Honor Oak than see a P12 bus...

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gavin - Just answer the question, what are the > names of the roads where you knocked at 109 > houses/flats? > > What you have done is an attempt to stoke up > support. Where is the independant official > consultation? NONE > > Can't you understand THE ROADS WILL NOT COPE WITH > ADDITIONAL TRAFFFIC AND CAUSE GRIDLOCK. Why don't > people use the P12 if they want to get to HOP > station like every body else instead of wanting a > special bus service. In fact why don't you look to > either improve the P12 bus service or run a every > third P12 as a shuttle service from the Kings Arms > through to HOP station which would satisfy your > desire. Which roads can't handle the traffic? Forest Hill Road? The 63 and 363 use the route at the moment and all that is being proposed is that the route be extended. I live just off Forest Hill Road and strongly support this. For those living in Honor Oak it would provide a great link over the hill as well. ddboy - why don't you think a lot of people in peckham rye ward would support a direct link to the ELL? For what it's worth I haven't had a visit from any of the labour councillors but I have had a leaflet through the door.

I cycle everday along the canal path. It's absolutely fine IMO and there are lots of people using it using commuting hours. Personally, I avoid Burgess Park - which is where the attack referred to above took place.

We got rid of our aluminium 70's windows in our Victorian Property and replaced them with UVPC Rehau Heritage Sash (http://www.rehauhome.com/windows-doors/default.aspx?pr=3) For us, having new wood sash windows installed would have been too expensive. Although I may be biased, I think it's quite difficult to tell that they are not original (unless you look quite closely), although the double glazed panes give it away if you know what you are looking for. Overall they are very sympathetic and have been approved for use in many conservation areas. From speaking to estate agents I think they are essentially neutral on the property value when compared with wooden sash windows.

It's all very well coming up with new ways of taxing car owners and seeking to dissuade them from using their cars. However, there needs to be a viable alternative and there isn't - cycling is (or is perceived to be) too dangerous for many and public transport is just not good enough (query if it ever could be in a city such as London) and is too expensive. My partner and I went to Liverpool last week - ?130 on the train (booking 1 month in advance) and we have to hike accross town to Euston to get the train - forget it. We saved money going by car and it was far more convenient. In my view the car (at least in one form or another) is here to stay - people should accept that and move on. I do, however, have an issue with properties having more than two cars, or businesses using residential streets to park numerous vehicles. I am sure there are ways of addressing this other than CPZs though.

Marking out bays seems a relatively simple (and low cost) option that could potentially improve the situation.

Have a look at the rehau heritage sash - UVPC sliding sash. We had a look at this in detail and they have been approved by various councils for use in conservation areas. There are various companies in SE22 who do them. Ultimately, if you have the original sash windows, you are probably better off getting these overhauled - you can have double glazed panes installed. If the windows have had it (or like us, they were 70's replacements or similar), then UVPC is likely to be cheaper than new wooden sash windows (especially if you go with a hardwood).

People I know who have single speeds buy them for one or more of the following reasons: - Style - Price. A SS bike with a good frame is usually cheaper than a good bike with gears - why? The cost of the gears of course. It's possible to get a decent light SS bike for the same price as a low end hybrid with gears. - Maintenance. No gears = lower maintenance costs, particulary if the bike is being used frequently and left outside for extended periods. As for red lights, yes those on SS bikes may be more included to skip them because of gearing issues, but that's the same for many cyclists who want to keep their momentum going. Another big factor is whether the bike has clip in pedals - stopping means unclipping. This is a bit of a faff, particulary at busy junctions. At the end of the day a lot of cyclists skip red lights but as a daily cycle commuter I don't think those SS bikes are any worse than those on racers, hybrids or mountain bikes. I do not think fixies are a suitable commuter bike - pedal backward to brake!! That said' I wouldn't commute on anything that didn't have disc brakes...

As a slight aside, this link is interesting: http://barnetcpz.blogspot.com/p/comparison-of-residents-parking-charges.html The residents of Barnet are having an almighty fight with the Council over increases to their permit prices. The table showing the cost of other boroughs' permits is quite shocking. I understand Southwark propose charging ?100+ This is clearly right at the top end of London boroughs. For example, permits are free in Hillingdon or between ?15 and ?50 in Greenwich etc. The cost of implementing and enforcing CPZs can't be that different across London so I would suggest the very high proposed by Southwark is simply profiteering. The other thing that shocked me was how much it costs in Barnet to have the parking suspended outside your house (presumably for a skip or similar) - that's ?63 A DAY!!

Thanks and I can see you point First Mate. Ultimately, I don't think the council sees the issue of "CPZ Creep" as a problem. In fact, the opposite applies. They use the responses by people who say they are against a CPZ but would support one if it was introduced nearby as a basis on which to extend the scope of the proposed CPZ beyond streets that actually voiced support for it. Of course, this ignores the fact that these people don't want a CPZ in the first place! It's actually quite a clever question as it allows the council a basis on which to try and shoehorn a CPZ through even when there is only minority support for the central question of whether there should be a CPZ in the first place. It seems to me that the central issues are really: a) whether the support for the proposed CPZ from those who live within within the scheme is sufficiently strong in order to justify its introduction; and b) should the wishes of the minority of residents in a couple of streets who want a CPZ be able to determine the position for other streets who do not want a CPZ (a small CPZ confined to two roads does not really seem workable). Other points could be made - particulary about the anti CPZ support from other residents not in the proposed CPZ, but I feel the argument will be won or lost on the central issues set out above. The council won't give any assurances re parking and once the CPZ has been introduced it will stay.

Re petitions, here is the following information comparing the Bermondsey and ED CPZ consultations: Bermondsey CPZ Two petitions were received during the consultation period, both against the introduction of parking controls. The first petition was signed by 905 within the consultation area. The petition was also signed by 463 outside the consultation area or by those who didn?t provide an address. A second petition was also received from Sherwood Gardens on 6 May 2011, this was signed by 59 Sherwood Gardens residents against parking controls. So I think that makes a total of around say 1400 against the scheme ED CPZ As per the consulation report, there were 9 petitions with a total of 1826 against and 29 in favour which is more than signed the petition against the Bermondsey CPZ. I'm not going to summarise these petitions, but I think it's dangerous to draw direct parallels with the Bermondsey CPZ as many of the residents who signed the petitions live on streets outside the proposed CPZ. The Council has not bothered (as with the Bermondsey CPZ) to count how many responses were from those in or outside the proposed CPZ. However, I doubt it's anywhere near as high as the 66% odd of those who were within the proposed Bermondsey CPZ who signed a petition against it. Overall, comparing the two proposed CPZ's and the responses generally, I think the following points can be made: 1. There was less support for the Bermondsey CPZ from residents inside the proposed CPZ than with the ED CPZ. 2. Notwithstanding 1. the clear majority of residents in the proposed CPZ who responded to the consultation on the ED CPZ are against its introduction. However, there are a small minority of roads where the majority of residents want a CPZ. 3. There is probably more registered opposition to the proposed ED CPZ from residents or other stakeholders who live outside the proposed CPZ than with the Bermondsey CPZ.

The consultation report in Bermondsey recommended not proceeding with any CPZ (see my previous post). This was because there was very little support for a CPZ. It would have been very hard to spin the results of that consultation. I'm afraid the results of the ED consultation (whilst still anti CPZ) give the council some room to attempt to create alternative proposals.

dulwich college have a squash only membership - ?14 a month I think (there is a joining fee) - but no court fees

Gsirett - stand at the next council elections!

Reference has been made to a CPZ consultation in Bermondsey where there was overwhelming opposition. I think this is is it: http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=2344 The report shows the following: for CPZ (14%), against CPZ (81%), undecided (5%). This compares with the following for the grove vale CPZ: for CPZ (35%), against CPZ (59%), undecided (6%). The response rate was higher for grove vale: 21% as compared with 15%. Despite there being a credible data for one street supporting controls on the proposed Bermondsey CPZ (Argyle Way), they seemed to have been ignored. There were two other streets who supported the CPZ but only 1 person responded in each street. Overall, the support for the Bermondsey CPZ was certainly less significant than with Grove Vale, although it seems the Grove Vale scheme has more opposition from outside the proposed zone. The consultation document seems to be the usual biased Southwark production - pictures of CPZ with kids in street playing, lots of parking and a pig flying etc. It's clearly a standard document.

Have to say, it does make you wonder what proposals would be being suggested if Derwent and Tintagel had not voted (with v low turnout and only marginally) in favour of a CPZ. I would suggest the council and others would still be referring to a "number of residents" voicing support for a CPZ and suggesting it be introduced in some form. To try and introduce a CPZ by mainly relying on the outcome of the consultation on two roads seems desperate, but i'm not really very suprised. As for James Barber, he is taking some flak on this thread. Given his involvement, I don't think it is too much to expect him to state his formal position on the matter. One would expect this would take due account of the views of the whole community.

The Lawrence case is appalling but many such crimes (e.g. the bulger murder) lead to calls for tougher "one off" sentences that go against established rules. However, the law does not (and should not work) like that. I for one would not want to live in a country where "special exceptions" are made because it's the thin end of the wedge. They committed the crimes as minors and should be sentenced as such - it's as simple as that. Yes, they had the opportunity to admit their guilt much earlier and, had they done so, they would have received reduced sentences accordingly. There will therefore be a consequence to their actions in not admitting their guilt earlier.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Then that law should have been changed as well as > the double jeopardy legislation. What a silly comment. New law is generally not retrospective for a very good reason. We govern our actions by reference to the law applicable at the time the offence is committed and we depart from this principle at our peril. The law on double jeopardy is different.

I quite like the CPT but question whether it's a viable business as it currently stands. They need the facilities to prepare food. If they can get a food offering pitched at the right level then I think it could work well.

Sometimes there is not really a solution to a "problem". In my view the consultation results clearly show that, taken as a whole, the residents in the consultation area do not regard the introduction of a CPZ to be necessary. That could be for a variety of reasons, including: because they don't really think there is a problem that needs addressing; or they don't like the idea of a CPZ. Either way, it seems to be that should be the end of the debate in regard to the introduction of a CPZ - it should not go ahead. To try and use the marginal support from two streets as a basis on which to introduce some form of limited CPZ would, IMO, be ridiculous given, amongst other things, the impact it will have on neighbouring streets. Frankly, the whole process is still suggestive of an attempt by the Council to introduce a CPZ regardless of the outcome of their consultation (which was biased anyway). They are paying a long game on this and know there will be more scope to increase the CPZ in the future if it is implemented in a small area now (even two streets...). I don't believe for a moment that CPZ are not revenue raising for councils and the money they generate can be used to offset the transport budget generally.