Chener Books

Juilet Seymour, Southwark Planning Policy Manager, issued an "Article 4 direction" effective from 17 October 2013 that was subsequently cofirmed by "full council" on 7 April 2014 and will remain in force until further notice. This affects Lordship Lane, Further details here http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/856/planning_policy/3289/article_4_directions

Memorial Service invitation.

> James Barber Wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------- >> Hi grisett, >> And we also had people at the January meeting who >> trade on Grove Vale saying it would help their >> customers. I don't remember that. John K

I listened carefully to Mr Barber. I could not understand his reasons for not representing his constituents. John K

Mr Barber is now running a parallel unofficial consultation exercise? John K

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let me try and explain how an election works > simply for you. An electorate is defined and then > they are polled. The votes cast are counted and > listed as integers and as a percentage. It was not an election. But, yes, a consultation area was defined and the "votes" are in. milk76 does not like the result and now wishes to change the "electorate". John K

Council Officers disallowed several Derwent Grove "votes" as they were deemed to be duplicates. John K

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A car for most costs around 1/2 to 1 > working days work per week. ? John K

I remain puzzled that some residents of Derwent Grove are in favour of the proposed CPZ. I can see no rational explanation for this. I wonder whether a partial explanation might be that some were early "voters" who replied to the consultation before the metrics were flushed out and published on the EDF. John K

When I remember the duo of Simon McT and Victor Parsons in action it will always bring a smile to my face. Peace be with you. John Kennedy

Anyone remember John Beasley and his OTDOGS campaign of 30 years ago? Prescient. What, exactly, is a gated footpath? The docum,ents are here. John K

Well identified, Zak. The "Transport Assessment" document is here in two parts: http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/DocsOnline/Documents/139597_1.pdf http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/DocsOnline/Documents/139598_1.pdf Paragraphs 4.3.2 and 4.3.9 are interesting. Residents of Melbourne Grove (North) and Derwent Grove may wish to read this carefully. John K

Here is another creep.

My down to earth comment about the marginal cost of consulting the streets immediately outside the proposed CPZ got buried under theorectical posturing. Why was Matham Grove not consulted? Because it would cost to much. How much would it cost to consult 34 houses, say 68 households, in Matham Grove? No more than ?136. Why was Matham Grove not consulted? Because you're not worth it. John K

Planet earth calling... Southwark Council has stated that the (sole?) reason for not including the impacted adjacent streets in the formal consultation was cost. This marginal cost should have been costed and rejected before it was decided to go with the restricted consultation. This financial calculation of the rejected marginal cost can be put into the public domain. The probable cost components for each marginal consultee are: a) an extra copy printed copy of the consultation package at run on cost b) the letter box delivery c) extra data processing cost if the consultee responds Perhaps a maximum of ?2 per marginal consultee. John K

> A 'tight' time period would target predominantly daytime commuters, and John K is having a laugh if he thinks that restricted parking in such a tiny time period is going to have any impact on his store. Huguenot is on "form" with his rhetoric. I have not said that "restricted parking in such a tiny time period is going to have any impact on [...the..] store." John K

Please come and take him home. Open again Monday 10am. John K

The shops in Lordship Lane from numbers 2 to 24 are also within the proposed CPZ. [see map] John K

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Chener Books, is it odd? You can provide people > with information through their door, nailed on > lampposts and knock on doors as much as possible, > but there will always be people who ignore this, > and there will always be people who pretend not to > have been informed just to cause trouble. > > It seems you don't live in the affected area, so > can I take it that your campaign is either > politically motivated, or simply to guarantee more > parking space for your customers? > > Penguin68, is your campaign politically motivated > too, or do you live in the zone? > > Just asking, like. Huguenot has "form". Many years ago when parking restrictions were first introduced Zenoria was my designated parking street. For the current exercise I correctly received my two consultation packages as I am in the proposed CPZ. So for the record. I live in the proposed CPZ I work in the proposed CPZ I have a small business in the proposed CPZ It "seems" Hugenot would benefit from map-reading lessons. John K

Odd. I'm still talking with residents of the proposed CPZ who know nothing about it. Did Southwark Council have an audit in place to check whether the consultation packages were delivered? John K

The Council's calculation of 507 residents' parking spaces within the proposed CPZ with no individually marked parking spaces is predicated on considerate parking and each car "occupying" no more than 5.5 metres. In the real world there will be less than 507 available spaces. John K

From the exhibition: How many residents' parking spaces will there be? 507 On what parking space length was this calculated? 5.5 metres Why was this chosen? It is an industry standard. Will individual parking bays be marked? No. How were residents' cars indentified on the day of the street survey? Car registration numbers were logged at 6am and entered into MicroMatch software. These were deemed to be residents' cars. If one of these cars changed parking location within the proposed CPZ during the course of the survey it was still identified as a resident's car. Will the number of residents' parking permits sold be limited to the number of spaces (507)? No. There will be limits of one permit per person and three permits per household. Experience of other London CPZs is that problems do not arise until permits reach 130% of spaces. Will permits still be sold after the (569) 130% problem level is reached? Yes.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi chener books, > My wife runs the family car and she can park it > within 5m. Amazing parker. > Truly amazing. The Driving Test standard is c8m. I think it might be better for you to have regard to the needs of average parkers rather than amazing ones. I also think it would be better for you to engage with the data rather than perceptions. John K

Mr Barber: a) if you have a car, can you park it in a 5m parking space? b) will the concil cap the number of residents' parking tickets sold? Here's a diagram illustrating a transport planner's presentational technique. It's a very simple example where an actual decrease in available parking can be presented as a 25% increase in parking spaces. Slightly more complicated calculations apply for the proposed CPZ. John K

Mr Barber: 5m is neither right nor wrong. It is a design decision. Design decisions have consequences. Sometimes these can be measured objectively. I have not measured the "average gaps". I have used an example of a well known make of car to put a human face on a large array of confusing numbers. Here are the lengths of the common Ford models: Ka 3.620m Fiesta 3.950m Focus 4.358m Galaxy 4.820m These can be compared against the nominal 5m space allocation. What the Council should not do is use a car count from a street survey and compare this with a design decision of a 5m nominal space and derive before and after conclusions on available spaces. John K