Chener Books

Mr Barber: Thank you for providing the data. Everyone: We now have: Gross Residents' Parking Bay length c2650m. Design nominal bay length 5m Calculated bays 530 The 5m nominal bay length is the Tfl guideline lower limit. A Ford Focus is 4.358m long. Could you park a Focus with 0.642m margin? (That's 2'1?"). And here lies the major flaw in the Council's calculation of before and after space availability: The street surveys counted cars regardless of their length (spaces before) The consultation uses a design length (spaces after) What should be done with a flawed consultation? John K 2011-03-11: Edited to correct car model name.

Relevant extract from Goose Green Bye-laws: Fires 9. (1) No person shall light a fire or place, throw or drop a lighted match or any other thing likely to cause a fire. (2) Byelaw 9 (1) shall not apply to: (a) the lighting of a fire at any event for which the Council has given permission that fires may be lit. Missiles 10. No person shall throw or use any device to propel or discharge in the ground any object which is liable to cause injury to any other person.

... and the proposed number of Residents' Parking Spaces is? John K

Following on from Penguin68's point comes the consideration of the proposed Residents' Parking Permit (RPP) to residents' parking space (RPS) ratio. Say there are 836 proposed RPSs (when/if Southwark Council reveal its proposed RPS number this calculation can be revisited), would Southwark Council restrict sales of RPPs with regard to the RPSs? Some examples (based on 836 proposed RPSs): 794 RPP - -5% - allowance for effective visitor and tradesmen parking 836 RPP - same number as RPS 878 RPP - +5% - based on a calculation of likely occupancy 920 RPP - +10% - based on a lower calculation of likely occupancy ?? RPP - RPP issued to anyone who applies Would Southwark Council sell RPPs where the resident has little chance of using it? If there is a cap on RPPs, will there be a waiting list for the next "freed up" RPP, or will there be a public auction? John K

> It's just such a shame that the benefits of the CPZ may only be short term, and for only a small group of the community Derwent Grove would not be a discrete CPZ. Residents of Derwent Grove need to consider potential displacement within the proposed CPZ. Whether you calculate Derwent Grove would have more or less residents' parking spaces you need to consider whether residents of Elsie Road and Melboune Grove would start parking in Derwent Grove because it would be less affected than their own streets. John K

I do not agree that the proposed number of resident parking spaces for each street is an irrelevant detail. John K

Individual Residents' Parking Bay metrics: It seems that TfL has planning guidance of 5m-6m length for each individual bay. This guidance is not mandatory for Southwark Council. It would be helpful if someone could verify this. Marked as individual bays a 100m of uninterrupted kerb provides 20 spaces at 5m and 16 spaces at 6m. To give this an on the ground perspective here are the lengths of these Ford basic models: Ka 3.620m Fiesta 3.950m Focus 4.358m Galaxy 4.820m It could be that Southwark do not intend to mark individual bays. Either way, someone fixed a length from which the occupancy percentages are derived. John K

A quick back of an envelope calculation suggests that CPZ Resident Permit holders who live south of Grove Vale would optimise their chances of finding an empty space by trying Derwent Grove first. John K

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If I lived on Elsie Road or Zenoria Road I'd be > severely worried about this. Elsie Road is going > to lose at least 34% of their parking space (as > their 'maximum' was 134% of legal spaces) and > Zenoria will lose 15%. > > In fact Elsie is going to be hit a lot worse than > that with the additional loss to the 10 pay and > display places. Given the quality of the documentation provided, I would prefer to calculate the number of "legal spaces" myself. John K

How long is "one legal parking Space"? You seem to have missed my question Mr Barber. This information is needed to calculate the number of proposed parking spaces. Percentages are statistics. They are not data. John K

How long is "one legal parking Space"? John K

Percentage of what? John K

> Very sneaky, highly underhand, and like this whole survey, thoroughly undemocratic, but there you have it. And illegal? John K

> 40 resident complaints An average of 2.7 per affected street. John K

At least it's invisible advertising... John K

"adjacent streets". John K

The consultation document says: "However, in our experience, the introduction of parking controls in one street often results in displacement parking problems in adjacent streets, as commuters and other motorists may move their cars to the nearest road where parking is unrestricted. Consequently, we are not only asking if you are in favour of the proposals now, but also, if you are not in favour at the moment, whether you would change your mind if the road next to yours became controlled." The residents of Tell Grove and Matham Grove have been excluded from the "consultation area". John K

My memory for names and faces is awful. I could only positively identify two in a court of law. Robert Crow who is standing two away from you. Reuben Goldberg. He went on to university in Bradford and stayed there. He died of liver cancer about 15 years ago. I remember about half a dozen other names who should be there, but apart from Mahdu Kholi (spelling?), I can't put the names to the faces. Robert Beeching John Beechy Joan Blight Margaret Greatrex Ann Harrington Gary Leach Janet Sims Brian Stapleton Then again, my memory might be totally defective. John Kennedy

Which of the excellent young ladies is Pamela Murphy? John K

Yes. I'm there. John K

The revised documents are now on Southwark's web-site. No application yet, although one may not be required, for the works to the building that require this scaffolding. John K

Willard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Saying you don't think it will look nice isn't going to cut the mustard with the council. So you didn't read the council's grounds for rejecting the first application. John K

.

James Barber has alerted us to planning application 11-AP-2953 for 25-27 Lordship Lane. The planning documents use the name "The Foresters Arms". The building has been known as "The Bishop" for some years now. The application is not yet on the Southwark web-site. James says it is for a 10m x 8m (80 square meters) illuminated advert. Earlier this year planning application 11/AP/1705 for a 11m x 8m (88 square meters) illuminated advert was rejected. The attached photo-montage if of the rejected application. John K

The Bishop.