former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[James Barber]

Hi Maria Mac,

I'm sorry to hear you and a number of other people felt stung.

Yes, parking partly on the pavement is a parking offence zealously enforced due to the safety nature. Idea is it causes people have to walk around such parks cars into the road highway, blocks prams, blind people wont expect it.

Also the issue of driving onto and of off the pavement. But clearly these issues don't arise there.

But placing parking notices on posts would be unsightly in a park, repeating the highway code, and cost parks budget money. But it must feel horribly unfair.

What I will ask is if in such circumstances a first offence could lead to a warning. Most people would then understand the rule and not repeat the parking offence. I hope this all makes sense.

I'll also ask the parks service whether discrete double yellow lines down one side of Strakers Road is possible.

I'll also PM you.

[edhistory]

Mr Barber,

You may also wish to check whether Southwark Council hold any evidence that Straker's Road is a "road" where the RTAs bite.

If not, things could be interesting.

John K

[fazer71]

Peckham Rye and Straker's Road

Another example of all that is WRONG in this country with public space leisure areas and parking or rather the LACK of parking.

Go to France and there is sufficient parking Le Touquet and all the beaches along that stretch they don?t impose ridiculous parking restrictions they give adequate parking at a price or often free on many of their beaches areas as they also do with parks and running tracks often they are a quarter the size in comparable areas with the UK but give a multiple of the parking available in the UK!

Here in the Great Britain try going to a park of a beach it?s a total parking nightmare for NO apparent reason!

Go to Camber Sands Brighton or Weston Super Nightmare etc etc

It?s all organised to cause frustration and generate revenue ?.

Or is it some plan to stop the public using these leisure areas? Or just there to drive the British population to distraction.

There?s one thing for sure it does not restrict the use of cars it just make people spend their time in out of town shopping centres rather than on the beach or in a park with their family.

James maybe not a vote winner but the parking on and around Peckham Rye is just another UK parking joke!

[James Barber]

Hi fazer71,

But more parking would mean less park.

How else would you provide parking?

France has 5 x the land mass with the same population. They also don't have suburbs in the same way or degree we have. So of course they have more space for car parking.

You'll find that in Paris they're closing the equivalent of the Embankbent dual carriage way for cycle routes. So not clear great comparisons with our area.

[Cyclemonkey]

And whilst i appreciate it is not always an option you could get some of your leisure/exercise by walking to the park - i'd guess Peckham Rye park is a facility mainly used by locals who live within a couple of miles or less.

[fazer71]

COMPLETE utter total nonsense!

This is the misguided small-minded pathetic view of people who really should know better typically those who are supposed to help make the lives of the British public better, less frustrating, unreasonable and frustrating!

French Public open Beaches are the same as ours and they have 5 X the parking.

Many of their parks are 1/4 the size of ours yet they have 5 X the parking.

Even in Italy Spain etc etc all have more parking for public use of leisure areas than we do in the UK.

I've worked all over Europe as well as many other parts of the world and here in the UK parking is unreasonably restricted.

You only need to go up to London and see wide side streets with double yellow lines for no purpose.

If Peckham Rye was in a similar location in Paris it would have far more parking and apparently Paris is 1/2 the size of London. It?s all relative.

Peckham Rye is HUGE!!!! With a tiny weenie car park. Which results in the tax payer NOT being able to use the open space they own as they should.

If say the carpark was doubled in size there would still be a massive area for recreational use.

Your logic and your spatial awareness are flawed.

Brockwell Park has similarly pathetic parking allowance.

As I said Parking in the UK is a complete Joke.

[fazer71]

Cyclemonkey Wrote:

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

> And whilst i appreciate it is not always an option

> you could get some of your leisure/exercise by

> walking to the park - i'd guess Peckham Rye park

> is a facility mainly used by locals who live

> within a couple of miles or less.

I knew it?d only take a minute or two for that old argument.

Yea right people more than 1 mile away are going to walk to the park with their little kids. I don?t think so.

Point is there is insufficient parking those who are going to cycle would do that regardless of Parking.

If they can?t park they?re going too got to Bluewater etc.

I?ve seen it with my own eyes no car parking no people.

Only a fool would say otherwise.

Maybe it?s so the council don?t have to deal with the mess maybe it?s too unsightly seeing all those people on the Rye.

I really can?t see the logic of having an open space with such heavily restricted car parking other than it suits the local council to have a few people using the open space as possible???

Edit to add

You only need to google map the rye to see there is more than enough space to double the car park and retain much more open space than is ever used !

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=peckham+rye&aq=f&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=N&tab=wl

Even Dulwich Park has 30% more parking and it's maybe 1/2 the size.

[Cyclemonkey]

Umm yes soem people do - we walked/got the bus with my Stepson most places when he was small as we didn't and still don't have a car - we now have a fit, active and independent teenager.

I understand it is not always possible but using small children as an excuse for travelly very samll distances by car is pretty much rubbish i think. However my main point was unlike attractions such as the beach Peckham Rye park is a very localised attraction so i stand by my point that the majoirty of people who visit it will be in walking or public transport distance. I'm nt a driver so why should i have to lose some of my local amenity to placate people who can't be bothered to walk to the park - there should be appropriate facilities for a limited amount of parking, prioritising the disabled - that is it. - it is a park not a car park

[fazer71]

Umm yes Yada yada yada yada

Who cares about walking everyone can walk or cycle of dance or skip or jump .....

What is wrong with you people this is about car parking.

As the overwhelming majority of people families etc etc want to drive to the park the beach the open air pool the woods or the forest etc etc

This is about CAR PARKING!

This is a bonkers country car parking is totally over restricted.

Look at Lordship Lane the traders are so frustrated they cut the parking signs from the polls so that their customers can park as the parking has been over restricted by the bus lane the islands which stick out at every street corner.

What is wrong with you people .....? We need more parking around Peckham Rye and Peckham otherwise it'll remain a no go zone ghetto and it will not be used to its full potential....

Just as with the UK's beaches I went to Weston to see an old friend last week and we couldn't park near the front.... F"?ing INSANE!!! Peckham Rye isn't that bad but it's obviously NOT good is it otherwise people wouldn't be getting parking tickets for parking on a curb!

I'm so lucky I don't live in this bonkers country 100% of my time. Bring on my next contract towards common sense.

[fazer71]

Cyclemonkey Wrote:

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

> Umm yes soem people do - we walked/got the bus

> with my Stepson most places when he was small as

> we didn't and still don't have a car - we now have

> a fit, active and independent teenager.

>

> I understand it is not always possible but using

> small children as an excuse for travelly very

> samll distances by car is pretty much rubbish i

> think. However my main point was unlike

> attractions such as the beach Peckham Rye park is

> a very localised attraction so i stand by my point

> that the majoirty of people who visit it will be

> in walking or public transport distance. I'm nt a

> driver so why should i have to lose some of my

> local amenity to placate people who can't be

> bothered to walk to the park - there should be

> appropriate facilities for a limited amount of

> parking, prioritising the disabled - that is it. -

> it is a park not a car park

Illogical lose some of your local amenity .... like you need all that space ... and there's not enough space to double the car park?

Cyclemonkey it's quite obvious that to you a car park with 1 space on Peckham Rye would be 1 space too many.!

[Cyclemonkey]

I'm not going to clog up this thread argueing with you are you are clearly an obsessed with parking to the extreme. People may want parkign near Lordship lane and Peckham Rye but that is not the same as need. Peckham Rye is a local park not a tourist attraction therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that the majoirty of the users are very local and therefore can walk or use public transport - the same goes for Lordship lane. Try walking once in a while - you'll be fitter, healthier and much calmer! :)

[James Barber]

Hi Fazer71,

What bit/s of the park do you think should be tarmaced over?

Colyton Road and Homestall Road have no parking restrictions and immediately abutt Peckham Rye Park. Many park there and walk through the park.

I can't imagine that people wanting to go to a park decide driving to Peckham Rye and parking there is so painful that they'll drive past a couple of dozen other similar parks to trave lto Bluewater.

[fazer71]

Cyclemonkey Wrote:

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

> I'm not going to clog up this thread argueing with

> you are you are clearly an obsessed with parking

> to the extreme. People may want parkign near

> Lordship lane and Peckham Rye but that is not the

> same as need. Peckham Rye is a local park not a

> tourist attraction therefore it is not

> unreasonable to assume that the majoirty of the

> users are very local and therefore can walk or use

> public transport - the same goes for Lordship

> lane. Try walking once in a while - you'll be

> fitter, healthier and much calmer! :)

Lack of Parking is a major cause of high street failure, and high street business failure it?s also a major reason beaches and other public spaces are not visited.

I can easily walk to Lordship Lane and I do but if there was no parking LL would be dead with lots of empty shops and I?d be living in a far less vibrant place. We're lucky in ED other areas ?Penge Sydenham Streatham etc? are not so fortunate. The parking restrictions have killed the businesses in those areas the locals all end up in the local hyper / supermarkets with their easy parking.

The only obsession here is with those who want to unreasonably restrict parking in the belief it?ll stop people using their cars. IT will not!

Mr and Mrs Fatty with their 20 stone kids are not going to go and kick a ball around the park if they have to walk there, but they probably would if they could park their car. That?s logic for you.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Fazer71,

> What bit/s of the park do you think should be

> tarmaced over?

>

> Colyton Road and Homestall Road have no parking

> restrictions and immediately abutt Peckham Rye

> Park. Many park there and walk through the park.

>

> I can't imagine that people wanting to go to a

> park decide driving to Peckham Rye and parking

> there is so painful that they'll drive past a

> couple of dozen other similar parks to trave lto

> Bluewater.

James

I don?t think tarmac is the answer probably better to have a grass block over flow car park or gravel about twice the size of the existing car park and only open it when needed in the summer and for events like the circus etc. Just needs a little practical thinking. I know that?s not easy as from our previous discussion on Trams over Trolleybuses you think digging up many miles of road to install tracks plus the overhead electric cables makes more sense than just installing the overhead cables.

Colyton Road and Homestall Road have no spaces when there are events going on and the car park is full.

Mr and Mrs Fatty with their 20 stone kids will do what ever is easiest and gets them out of the house on a Saturday if a drive to easy parking in Kent at Bluewater is easier than finding a parking space on Peckham Rye to kick a football around then they?ll make a day trip to Bluewater rather than Peckham Rye.

I guess the other thing is cost to the council for extra cleaning and maintenance.

Which may be the true reason for restriction of parking, less rubbish to clean from the Rye and easier and cheaper for one man in the cleaning truck to clean the roads?

What annoys me is the pigheaded view that if parking is restricted it will some how magically make things BETTER when it has exactly the opposite affect it just makes life a poorer experience for everyone even those who don?t drive.

Just look at Socialist Ken Livingstone?s Congestion Zone, it?s absolutely fantastic!

I love it! Love it Love it.

I often pay ?10 to drive into it and there are fewer cars and plenty of parking I can always find a pay by phone parking space at ?3.50 an hr it?s brilliant!

Total genius it?s great for people with money.

What about those Mr Livingstone is supposed to champion the poor F?all benefit to them, but I?m a big fan thanks Ken he was the ultimate Champaign socialista.

Blimey I miss him.

If he was in Southwark there?d be a nice big pay and display car park on the Rye.

[*Bob*]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> Mr and Mrs Fatty with their 20 stone kids will do

> what ever is easiest and gets them out of the

> house on a Saturday if a drive to easy parking in

> Kent at Bluewater is easier than finding a parking

> space on Peckham Rye to kick a football around

> then they?ll make a day trip to Bluewater rather

> than Peckham Rye.

Potentially valid points are not helped by ludicrous crackpot analogies.

[pebs]

Hey James, you made it to 100 pages on the forum. Congratulations! A good 'vehicle' to understand the needs and views of those you represent.

[Townleygreen]

100 pages - great effort, James - thank you!

[James Barber]

Wow pebs and Townleygreen, I hadn't appreciated that.

Thanks to everyone for very nearly all of the posts ;o)

Even the pointed ones have been helpful keeping me level headed.

[fazer71]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> fazer71 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> Potentially valid points are not helped by

> ludicrous crackpot analogies.

Point taken, though I can't agree, little crackpot about them, actual no fiction there.

You'll see more ludicrous crackpot reasoning for the restriction of parking, causing reduced use of public amenity for zero benefit.

It's Potty UK Parking to match the Potholed UK roads an embarrassment comparable only to the undeveloped parts of the world.

All caused by numpties who care only about chasing the next vote, and voters who care more about the nonsense numpties want them to consider rather than the real issues which improve our quality of life.

[*Bob*]

Parking and cars are certainly a national obsession: four headline threads on here yesterday - all car-related one way or another.

The thing is not everybody agrees that more parking and increased car capacity increases quality of life - indeed you'll find a definite divide right down the middle with people who think exactly the opposite. There will never be enough capacity, there will never be enough spaces. The only real limit and cap on expanding car ownership and use is the one where they become so much of an arse to use that people just use them less.

Where I'm from (outside of London, of course) - there is much more capacity for car ownership and use. As such, ownership has expanded accordingly and the area is now a car-centric hell-hole where everyone has as many cars as they can afford and fit on their expanded driveways, drives 100 yards to the papershop and public transport is 'only for the poor' (ie those losers who don't have a car).

[henryb]

I think you would probably find that a lot of people want to use their cars less and would sacrifice some convenience and cost to do so. However the cost and loss of convenience is too high in many cases for it to be viable. If we are serious as society in solving this problem then yes the individual can do a lot but for real change the Government needs to take the lead in making substantial capital investment in the public transport infrastructure. Even if it is at the cost of other things.

[fazer71]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> The

> only real limit and cap on expanding car ownership

> and use is the one where they become so much of an

> arse to use that people just use them less.

Blimey!!

That?s already the Southwark policy.

They put parking restrictions double yellow lines islands pavement piers jetties carbuncles along almost every Southwark road usually where they are not needed spending Millions of our tax payer pounds on rubbish all designed to reduce parking, and not one single pound adding parking.

More than 1/2 the spaces on Lordship Lane have disappeared in the last 20 years.

Every year Southwark has fewer and fewer parking spaces.

If that?s not a policy of making car ownership an arse to use I don?t know what is.

I?m a big fan of public transport but also a big fan of personal transport.

Is there any investment in public transport South? Nope. but they are happy to spend millions on removing parking.

Genius ! Southwark Canute holding back the sea of cars.

[UncleBen]

Hi JB. 100 pages huh? Hmmm, I suspect that if ED residents did what the rest of Southwark residents do and email or ring the Council directly rather than use a middle man and post on here then this thread would probably be about 10 pages long. Still well done for playing ED folk.

While I'm here there are a couple of questions/comments that you may wish to respond to over on the 'number for reporting a car blocking your drive' thread.

[James Barber]

Hi Fazer71,

Since I've been a councillor May 2006 we now have fractionally more parking around Lordsihp Lane than we did before.

Hi UncleBen,

I regularly sign post people how to contact Southwark Council.

Council officials tell me they get more queries from East Dulwich than other areas as result of the forum not despite the forum. To such a degree that the council now employs a press person to interact with such forums.

[Katrionaf]

Hi James

Just following up here. I sent you an email re:Copleston Rd this week. Did you have a chance to have a read?

Many thanks,

K

[stacey-lyn]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Fazer71,

> Since I've been a councillor May 2006 we now have

> fractionally more parking around Lordsihp Lane

> than we did before.

>

How so? Just interested how this is quantified as I simply don't see it. What I do see however are greater restrictions.