trizza

Welcome to the neighbourhood. There are quite a few ginger cats towards the top of the road (underhill end)! We have a cat flap that works with our cat's microchip. It stops other cats from getting in but does not stop them sitting outside it!

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > gedwina Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Hi James, > > > > Thames water are back on the corner of rye > lane, > > any idea how long they are ping to be digging > the > > road up this time? > > > > Thanks > > Hi gedwina, > Council officers have suggested that the traffic > jam was a combination of Southwark housing works > with concrete being pumped onto site and a > delivery lorry the opposite side of the road at > the same time. > I've been assured that parking enforcement will be > stepped up to avoid this occurence while ther > designating loading bay for the development work > is in place. > BUT please do keep me posted on this. I rarely > travel along Rye Lane preferring Green Lane. James, the cues on Rye Lane have been horrendous all week. You are looking at a 30m journey on the 63/363 from the Dunstans Road stop to Peckham Rye station - it usually takes 10 minutes. It beggars belief that this section of road (by the tesco express) is being dug up again.

Allegations of corruption are extremely serious. It's easy accuse Cllr Barber on an anonymous internet forum, but there's no evidence that he has done anything untoward. In fact, whilst it seems people have concerns he is biased for the CPZ (an accusation he denies), it is to his credit that he has sought to engage with people on this forum. He was, if I recall, also prepared to obtain information regarding the CPZ that the council did not release, which was very helpful to those who are against the CPZ. Gsirett - you have made, IMO, a number of valid arguments against the CPZ and it is clear your feel strongly about it. However, "playing the man, not the ball" weakens your arguments. If you feel you have a case against Cllr Barber present it. If not, I think it would be to your credit if you withdraw any allegations people think you have made.

How strange. I thought the Council always maintained that the consultation was paid for by funds for TFL. Of course, if the CPZ does not go through then what's the score with the dulwich garden centre development? I am aware of other developments in Southwark (particulary SE1) where there is a provision in the planning and leases etc. that prevent residents of those developments for applying for permits to park their cars in the CPZ around their development. Essentially, by buying a flat you agree you can't have a car and park it in the CPZ. Presumably, if the CPZ does not go through and the Dulwich Garden Centre development has these restrictions against cars (am not sure of this) then this couldn't be enforced (you can't stop someone owning a car - just parking it in the CPZ). Some of the car haters at the Council wouldn't like that - fancy approving new flats where residents are allowed to own cars... It adds an interesting dimension to the debate.

I do find this all rather depressing. I don't live in the CPZ but I live in ED and believe its introduction will be the thin end of the wedge. I suppose I shouldn't be suprised but I find it very suprising that it is left to people on this forum to seek to ascertain (on the basis of the council's own information) whether, in practical terms, there will be a relative increase or decrease in the amount of available parking for residents after any CPZ is introduced (taking into account the predicted reduction in commuters parking). As many others have stated this issue is absolutely fundamental to assessing whether a CPZ should be introduced, but it seems the powers that be are dancing around it and are not willing (or able) to give a straight answer. Frankly, I think this is pretty poor and really reflects how biased I think this consultation is. James - if you want to do one thing to assist the debate and inform people, can I suggest that you try and get a straight answer from the Council to this simple question: "If a CPZ is introduced will there be more parking spaces available to resident permit holders in the impacted streets than there are allready available to them (taking into account the anticipated reduction in commuter parking)." "If so, what percentage increase in the number of car parking spaces are forecast?" If the answer to the above is that the Council honestly believe (on some rational basis) there will be a significant increase then I can see why someone in the proposed CPZ would be minded to vote for it. If, however, the Council can't answer the question or there is a decrease (or only a marginal increase), I think residents would be nuts to vote for it IMHO.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Peckhamboy, > Some other posts indicated posters concerned about > the knock on effects of these proposals to Nunhead > and Forest Hill. Clearly if you live 20m from the > edge you may well be affected if the proposals > proceed. > > Hi trizza, > 100% of what the surveyors considered safe parking > would be provided. > > Hi gmckinney, > Clearly any reduction in parking pressure is a > reduction and all streets would go below 100% but > yes even with controlled parking some streets will > still feel stressed - my hunch is 80% means people > can park very close to their homes. So yes people > wont necessarily be able to park as close to their > front doors as they like. > > Hi peterstorm1985, > On reflection I suspect Elsie Road is about people > parking across dropped kerbs - parking above the > theoretical/safe/legal maximum. Those residents > have been asked to indicated that if it progresses > whether they would want double yellow lines to > protect access or take pot luck. > Talking to the western side residents even numbers > on Saturday they have terrible problems with > parents parking across their drives at school drop > and pick-ups. Some also find the drives of double > benefit as effectively they privatised the highway > - if somone else parks there they complain to the > police and the vehicles gets towed away but if > they or their friends park their they don't report > it and they have the parking off street as well. > One alternative would be to keep the drives as > they are but that would require larger controlled > parking signing on the entrances to Elsie Road. Sorry James, I may be being stupid but I don't think your answer addresses my question. Simply put - have the council worked out how many parking spaces will be "lost" if the CPZ is introduced as a result of new yellow lines, pay & display bays, disabled bays etc? Without this information is it impossible to compare like with like - unless of course it's the case that no spaces will be lost if the CPZ is introduced.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It will be interesting to see what residents on > the proposed streets input. > > mikeb, > how can you saying stopping commuter parking wont > make it easier for residents, if that's what they > indicate they want, to park? > > peckhamboy, > Virtually all the the streets are under parking > strees i.e. 80% and above. > > hi Loz, > If you look at the word document I think it > explains. People that drove into the area after > 6am and left the area much later that day were > assumed to be commuters of some description. > I can;t recall if Grove Vale is proposed > controoled parking - assuming you live in the area > please do take a look at your consultation pack. > 10am. On average 20% of the vehicles Mon-fri are > commuter parking. Remove them and the streets will > be easier to park in for those that have permits - > again, if that's what residents indicate they > want. > > > I don't understand why everyone is bluring what is > a simple decision for residents. Do they mind the > current parking stress. If they do are they > willing to pay the price for controlled parking - > heavy version or 2 hour lite version. > > It would be really helpful for people posting to > say what their relationship to this consultation > is - do they live on a proposed controlled parking > street and if not how far away. James, thanks. Let's assume for the sake of argument that 20% of the vehicles are "commuters" of some description and would no longer park in the CPZ were it to be enforced. Please can you tell us what overall % of parking spaces in the CPZ would be reduced as a consequence of it being introduced e.g. as a consequence of more yellow lines, pay and display etc. This seems to be a fairly fundamental point because unless this is a very low figure then the CPZ is unlikely to have any impact on parking availability!

The following would be very interesting to know: 1) How much revenue will this generate for the Council? The statement in the consultation that it is not a money earner seems quite misleading to me - whilst the revenue may be ploughed back into traffic etc. that surely means that monies can be allocated elsewhere. Does anyone know the total number of homes in the CPZ or could hazard a guess? 2) How many spaces will actually be lost as a result of the CPZ with the new yellow lines and other parking restrictions?

IMO barber would be happy banning cars from Ed entirely. The absence of any comment from him on this is telling. It's a complete stitch up by southwark council. The "consultation" is utterly impartial and quite misleading.I suspect it will go through though - one more step towards making Ed like clapham.

The consultation is badly thought out (although i'm not at all suprised - it's by southwark council). Streets near to the CPZ will clearly be impacted. Quite how Oglander isn't part of the proposed CPZ escapes me. Many in the proposed zone will doubtless support the imposition of parking restrictions in the belief they will allow them to be able to park outside their houses. I suspect the reality is that there will still be problems with parking given the location of the zone to local amenities. The cost of parking will rise - motorists are seen as cash cows. Prepare yourself for "green taxes" on CPZs - in Islington it costs almost ?400 pa for the "most polluting" cars (although this obviously takes no account of how they are used).

I live on St Aidans (at the top). I think it's a nice quiet road which is close to buses and the park. Lordship lane is only 10mins away. The herne is a family pub so the garden can get quite noisy in the summer - only a potential issue if you live on the same side of the road as the pub.

Amelie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone considered mentioning the dread phrase > 'breach of the Human Rights Act' to Thames Water? > That should focus their attention. Oh for god's sake. Whilst the Human Rights Act gets used to justify some fairly barmy decisions, it doesn't have any application here. The short answer seems to be that TW have complied with their statutory duty to supply water at 1bar to the property boundary. The rest is the responsibility of the home owner.

Ok - but Bunny19 - does it even hit 1bar where it is supposed to (i.e. at border of your property) at that time of day? Can you get them to check? Depending on where your kitchen is, a plumber may be able to hazard an educated guess as to the likely pressure at the border of your property. It seems to me that you need to find out because that's all that Thames Water will care about. If it is 1bar or above then there is nothing you can force them to do as they are complying with relevant requirements... I think the only other thing you could do (apart from Megaflow option etc.) would be to have a larger pipe fitted to the mains supply, but that will cost you and i really am not sure what impact it would have.

I thought that TW had a statutory obligation to ensure a pressure of 1bar at the point it enters your property i.e. just before your driveway, porch etc. I think we probably have this on St Aidan's as our combi boiler fires ok. But if you have pressure of less than 1 bar constantly then I am suprised that TW just refuse to do anything about it...

Herne Tavern is showing it too I think.

belladonna Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Friend coming home a bit the worse for wear on > Saturday last week with bicycle, Woke up with > black eye, broken collarbone and no bike. No > memory of what happened. Coming from Peckham Rye. Could he not just have fallen off? Sorry to hear your news AL_T.

So it appears the purpose of the signage is to hide grotty scaffolding (which is hardly Michelangelo is it) and it's temporary. I really can't see the big issue with this. Would people support it if Waitrose agreed to advertise on it?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is no evidence. The claim was made by the > president of the AA but was later rescinded to > that of any road user being distracted. > > At the end of last year, the president of the > motoring organisation the AA, Edmund King called > for a campaign warning riders not to listen to > iPods or personal stereos whilst they are cycling. > His comments featured in the Times newspaper, > alongside warnings that earphones were one of the > factors behind a rise in the number of cyclists > being injured on the roads, or colliding with (and > injuring) pedestrians. > > The AA later qualified these remarks made by its > President as a more general attack on road users > who don?t pay enough attention to what is going on > around them. The distraction doesn?t necessarily > have to be music through your headphones; crossing > the road whilst wearing a hood was also mentioned > as increasing your risk of being involved in an > accident, as was using a mobile phone whilst > driving ? something which has been illegal in the > UK since December 2003. > > Wearing headphones, listening to a car stereo or > wearing a full face crash helmet (through which > you can hear nothing) doesn't cause an accident. > Poor attention to what is going on around you > does..... Yes, poor attention does cause accidents. But at the end of the day, wearing headphones and listening to music potentially deprives you of one of your senses on the road and may impact on your concentration. The fact that a full face crash helmet impairs hearing is nothing to the point - you need to stack the deck in your favour when cycling and it's not as if motorcycling is a low risk pursuit. Whilst it's a matter of personal choice, I wouldn't do it - cycling is already dangerous enough.

A tile fitter I was chatting to recently (when he fixed my bathroom) said that some people are using white silicone as grout - laying the tiles quite close then using a razor blade to cut the silicone so it is level with the tiles. Good white silicone is difficult to stain. That said, i'm not at all sure how this would look or whether it is achievable/practical. As others have said, using white grout on the floor is a probably a bad plan.

There was a BBC programme on this a week or so back. Some security expert was saying that the majority of cashpoints still accept and pay out on cards with just magnetic strips - no need for a chip in the card. So cloning is really not difficult.

Gang Activity

I think that richardbach is saying that if you own a car and have the temerity to complain about roadworks then you should move to Libya. Sounds perfectly reasonable...

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep. Absolutely. What if a lorry breaks down? I'll > bet those clever dicks at the council haven't > thought of that one!! Typical of them to implement > something on the roads that NOONE ELSE HAS DONE > ANYWHERE ELSE. EVER > > foxy, don't you think this isn't a first and that > There might be sound logical reasons behind this, > made by people who have studied traffic and road > safety for years? No? This is a little naive SJ. If you follow that reasoning you would never question anything the council or government does... The council does plenty of stupid things all the time that achieve little and cost a lot - for example, have you seen the country's shortest (and most pointless) cycle path on Forest Hill Road? The narrowing makes little sense to me and, as a cyclist, i'm not sure i'd fancy going through it at rush hour.

Renata Hamvas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fate of these lights will depend on the > outcome of the consultation on traffic > flow/calming/crossing etc for the whole of Forest > Hill rd from Colyton Junction up to One Tree Hill. > > Renata Isn't this the answer dbboy? Without wanting to pre-judge the outcome of this consultation, i'd hazard a guess that it's extremely unlikely these lights will be moved - they look pretty permanent to me!

Crikey a speed hump free side road in Southwark - do the Council know? Have a word with them - am sure they'd be happy to spend a load of cash putting in road humps on H&S grounds quick smart. But do all cars really speed down Landcroft Mon238 - speed is, after all, relative. As has been posted here in the past, pedestrians' perception of speed is usually incorrect (see Barry Road discussions). I suppose I just find it a bit sad that the council's stock response to any concern re speed is to install speed humps. I say this as someone who obeys the speed limit.