|Posted on Monday, 18 April, 2005 - 01:44 pm: |
About 1 year ago the local conservative party raised the fear of CPZ s in SE 23.
I raised this on the web site and was shot down in flames by our MP Mr Jim Dowd , who claimed this was rubbish.
Yesterday I received a leaflet through the door from the council asking our views on CPZ s.
I have replied strongly against although I am sure they will press on regardless.
Surely everyone can see the only party to gain would be the council ( although after all the costs maybe not )
Residents lose all counts.
Have to pay.
Less spaces than before ( By the time they have marked out the spaces we lose I believe about 30% plus of spaces which are now used ).
In my road , Devonshire Road , I do not believe their is much of a problem of people parking then using the train all day. Although I except it does happen on the other side of the railway, Dacres Rd , Perry Vale etc.
The vast majority of these outside parkers come from the south and takes too long to cross the S Circular etc.
I sincerely hope the locals will reject this revenue raising measure.
|Posted on Monday, 18 April, 2005 - 03:50 pm: |
What do you mean by a CPZ? Residents' permits? I haven't seen the leaflet yet...
|Posted on Monday, 18 April, 2005 - 04:26 pm: |
If you read the leaflet, you will see that is a consultation to establish which areas would be most likely to be interested in a CPZ. On the basis of the response, the Council will be planning further consultations in those areas which seem most likely to be interested in this approach to improving our environment and road safety.
Contrary to Dommy's fears, CPZs are only introduced if residents support the initiative. He should also bear in mind a few other points:
1. The Council is only the representation of the local community, so I don't see how the council 'gains' separately from its community. Any revenue we have we spend on services. This applies whether income comes from Government grant, council tax or charges of various sorts. No one really likes paying out on taxes and charges, but most people also want good local services, so we have to balance these conflicting objectives as best we can.
In fact, all revenue from CPZs has by law to go back into highways related improvements.
2. For what it is worth, Lewisham raises less from parking charges than almost any other London Borough. Kensington and Chelsea raises much more from parking fees than Council tax, but such boroughs as Lambeth and Wandworth raise much more than we do.
3. Residents actually often gain from CPZs where there is pressure of commuter and other parking. They are not nearly so universally unpopular as some would have us believe.
4 The better organisation of parking in a CPZ can also lead to better road safety, by , for example, protecting sight lines at intersections and protecting pedestrian routes.
5. I don't have the exact figure in front of me as I write, but there are probably 20% or so more motor vehicles registered to Lewisham address now than in the early 1990s, and the numbers continue to rise. There is also the East London line to consider. Things are certain to get worse, not better, in terms of pressure on road space.
At the end of the day, it is up to everyone to form their own view of the advantages and disadvantages, and I am sure most residents will give all the issues the seriousness consideration they deserve.
|Posted on Monday, 18 April, 2005 - 08:54 pm: |
Just out of interest, how much do resident's permits typically cost?
I would be in favour of anything that would help certain neighbours decide to do without 2 of their 3 people carriers!
|Posted on Monday, 18 April, 2005 - 09:25 pm: |
We also received the forms last week and sent a resounding 'NO' to the Council. Our house is just off the South Circular and doesn't have a parking problem. However, if the forecasted concerns are genuine, I would advocate better use of the huge car park next to Parcelforce depot, which remains unused. Commuters could be encouraged to park here with profits restricted to regeneration of the east side of the station, which remains an eyesore.
|Posted on Tuesday, 19 April, 2005 - 06:51 am: |
I appreciate your reply.Is there an independent person who collates the replies.
As I say the Devonshire Road side of the railway does not , in my opinion , have many vehicles parked there which are not local. The people using the railway park on the Perry Vale side of the station. It takes too long in the rush hour to drive from one side to the other.
Also my point that a great many spaces seem to vanish when CPZ's are implemented.
I will await the result with interest
|Posted on Tuesday, 19 April, 2005 - 09:17 am: |
I said this would happen when Perry Vale car park stopped being free (see 'Perry Vale Car Park - No longer free'). Commuters are now parking in local roads rather than in the car park and we are now being asked to pay to park in front of our homes!
Give people free places to park near the station and they will stop clogging up local roads.
It is clear from Dave Whiting's posting that our councillors want to make more money out of residents from parking - to bring them up to the level of other London boroughs.
|Posted on Tuesday, 19 April, 2005 - 09:21 am: |
I live on Honor Oak Road and we have no problems with parking save for when everyone drives the 20 yards to drop off their little darlings at school. We had a letter a few weeks ago also. If look at last council notes they show discussions on some CPZ's already polled and show that if no local support then instantly rejected. Good they are listening.
|Posted on Tuesday, 19 April, 2005 - 09:51 am: |
Now controlled parking outside the schools, preferably with mobile car crushing equipment, now we are talking business. Any views Councillor? (and I am being serious about this, perhaps the car crushing equipment is going too far...). I hope some of the selfish parents are reading this...
|Posted on Tuesday, 19 April, 2005 - 01:24 pm: |
to be honest I was in favour of CPZ in my road Duncombe Hill in Honor Oak as the local garage in Codington Hill seems to think its fine to park all the cars he is working on in my road which means I can't get a space, I counted last night he had parked 15 cars in our roads, its not on.
|Posted on Tuesday, 19 April, 2005 - 01:26 pm: |
I seem to have opened a hornets nest here. I am stronly against especially in the Devonshire Road / Ewelme Road area.
There is absolutely no need in that area.
I agree re Perry Vale Car Park. Surely costs more to police than they secure in revenue ?
I agree other boroughs and other parts of the borough have gone down this road but does not mean we have to follow. The CPZ's in the Lewisham Hospital Area have caused major problems visiting very sick relations. If impossible to get into charging area what are you to do.
|Posted on Tuesday, 19 April, 2005 - 04:28 pm: |
I can't really comment until I read the leaflet but I instinctively think a resident of Forest Hill should NOT be charged to park his/her car near his/her property. I was relaxed until Cllr David awakened my fears. This does look like another local tax ahead of the telegraphed local income tax. Does the council want me to move away after 30+ years? Allay my fears...
|Posted on Wednesday, 20 April, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
This is just another tax raising initiative by the local council. There is no need of parking permits where I live (Manor Mount) but sometimes if people cannot park their car immediately outside their property they see this as reason to blame outsiders. If the area is made a CPZ then it will be us locals and visiting friends who end up paying the vast majority of fines and permit costs, with a scarcely improved parking situation once all the additional yellow lines, disabled and motorcycle bays etc etc have been painted in (viz Manor Mount).
|Posted on Wednesday, 20 April, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
To continue my theme that no one else seems to be bothered about, there is need for parking controls around the schools. Honor Oak Road is chaotic around the school run, the parents parking on the already narrow pavement is particularly selfish. But there are parking restrictions there already - just not enforced.
|Posted on Wednesday, 20 April, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
As I live just there I agree wholeheartedly with Baggy. Funny discussion overheard the other day with a parent saying to another that it had taken twice as long to park as drive - answer to that is walk. Surely the school can promote this mode of transport more. Already a few accidents due to kids walking between parked cars and getting hit. Can't believe there aren't any speed humps nearby - a comment I made on my form (even though they are the devil)
|Posted on Wednesday, 20 April, 2005 - 04:07 pm: |
I had the leaflet and responded to say not necessary in my road - Church Rise. There's loads of space here. The thing I worry about though is that if surrounding roads choose to opt into a CPZ scheme, then a problem will instantly be created where none currently exists. i.e. everyone will park here because the surrounding areas you have to pay for. I put this point on my feedback form to the council.
Re parking around schools, I'm not a parent but I do sympathise with those that are. Parents do need to park outside schools to collect and drop off their children, particularly if they're primary school age. A CPZ won't stop that, because parents put notices in their cars saying they're just collecting/dropping off and it would have to be a very evil traffic warden who would then ticket them (I know there are such beings in existence mind you). I used to live bang opposite a primary school in boro' of Wandsworth before making the v intelligent move to Forest Hill. We had a CPZ in my road, which was very much needed because parking was at a premium, but it was still impossible to park at school-out time. I just waited 5 mins till most of the kiddies had gone, and then parked, or parked 5 mins walk away on the main road. No big deal. The rest of the day it was great because it meant there were no houses on that side of the road, therefore more parking spaces!
Re overheard conversation, Domc, if it took 10 mins to drive and 15 mins to park, that would still be a pretty long walk, especially with 3 children under the age of 8 and a heavy load of shopping or whatever. People lead busy lives, give them a break!
Megan - I think your garage owner is out of order and perhaps you should make a complaint to the council about him. But that's a one off case, not an argument for a CPZ policy, in my opinion.
|Posted on Wednesday, 20 April, 2005 - 05:40 pm: |
tell me about it - I work c.15hrs a day but if it took me 15 mins to park I would be seriously miffed and look for an alternative.
|Posted on Wednesday, 20 April, 2005 - 05:43 pm: |
And don't forget - a 10 minute drive in rush hour traffic is very likely not that long a walk at all!
|Posted on Thursday, 21 April, 2005 - 09:25 am: |
In Tooting there are roads that are 'permit holders only' from 10-11am. If we are to have parking restrictions, which unfortunately seems likely, this would stop commuter parking, but mean that visiting friends wouldn't have to pay. Not ideal, but maybe better than all day ticketing.
|Posted on Thursday, 21 April, 2005 - 03:34 pm: |
Well I may be an old but how did my mum manage with three kids and no car? Some people may have to drive the school run to get to work, but I reckon lots of you have lost the use of your legs, or can't be bothered to find a side street five minutes walk away and don't give a monkeys about parking on pavements, or double yellows and causing a hazard both to pedestrians or vehicles. And the risk to kids walking to school is not from dodgy adults (which I believe is no worse than it was 40 years ago) but from traffic, which in turn is made worse due to parents' fear of their kids being on the streets and hence they have to be driven everywhere, catch 22 here and echos of Newman's mugging thread.
Rant rant rant
|Posted on Thursday, 21 April, 2005 - 03:43 pm: |
What about the idea of a "walking bus"? i've no idea if that's the correct term but I've seen what looks like an organised bunch of primary school kids walking to school together with 2 or 3 adults accompanying them in East Dulwich as I cycle through in the mornings - does the same thing exist in Forest Hill?
|Posted on Thursday, 21 April, 2005 - 05:29 pm: |
Cool idea (from the US??) and it's often talked about, but not seen it in our area. But then there is the syndrome where we do gooders are happy to recommend this to others but still drop litter, speed etc because the rules don't apply to us.
|Posted on Friday, 22 April, 2005 - 02:34 pm: |
I live in one of the streets off Devonshire and we definitely don't need a CPZ here, but we ought to be able to keep this under review, if CPZ's are installed elsewhere and pressure is put on spaces in our road. After all we would still want to park. Some measures directly aimed at commuter parking may be useful as described above. I agree that the marking out of spaces will only reduce the parking availability and prefer to stick with the annoying but efficient approaches people employ now.
But for now there is no need for such drastic measures, and we do need to question why the Council is so eagerly posing a solution to a problem that has not as yet reared its head. This is very kind of them. If they would only run the same degree of consultation on the problems that do exist, such as the issue of local ratrunning, an issue on which they have had considerable local representation, and upon which they have outrightly refused to carry out initial consultation due to apparent lack of resources.
The answer, my friends, may be found in Cllr Whiting's response above. Lewisham is undeed undergenerating parking revenue and is clearly seeking a way to improve the situation. I don't usually subscribe to conspiracy theories but I am here.
It is true to say that the Council will not impose this where not wanted, but they will rely on statistical non returns which will only enable them to get the answer that they want.
I agree with Drobnik that it will be us who suffers payment and fines if one of our friends or delivery companies breaches the rules for 5 minutes. We will have unscrupulous traffic wardens lurking behind our hedges waiting to jump out on offenders, just as they already do in the centre of Forest Hill.
We should keep this under review but the Council needs to take action to ensure there is no pressure on these roads in the first place by
a) not granting new residential developments planning permission without adequate parking as they have done with the ghastly 'UPVC Mews' in Devonshire Road- both a design and parking disaster.
b) taking into account the impact of new developments such as the East London line and Sainsburys within the planning obligations and making adequate provision.
c) using existing spaces to relieve any problems instead of waiting to cash in on a capital receipt, ie Perry Vale car park.
e) The recent redevelopment of the Horniman museum is rather fine but with one major flaw- increased visitor numbers without parking provision. In fact, the parking is addressed in advertising posters all over London by the advice' free parking in neighbouring streets'. No wonder we have problems, the main one being the Council's complete failure in to address parking provision within any of its major planning applications.
Doubtless the argument may come back that increased charges are needed to fund any traffic calming works however I do not buy this. It is highly improbable that any such revenue will be spent in the immediate locality where it is generated.
I hope people will vote against the CPZ's at this current time, and press the Council to manage any increase in parking pressure by sensible means and using the powers available to them under existing planning legislation.
|Posted on Friday, 22 April, 2005 - 02:55 pm: |
ps to Megan- this is something the Council could proably help you with- if your garage owner is working on these cars in the street, then this is not I think legal and may contravene his planning permission. I suggest you speak to the planners first then traffic enforcement second. Good luck.
|Posted on Tuesday, 26 April, 2005 - 01:43 pm: |
I have just received the leaflet / questionnaire and want to check: are we all opposed to this idea?
|Posted on Tuesday, 26 April, 2005 - 02:14 pm: |
Dommy, I hope you're not suggesting that you are going to respond to the questionnaire on behalf of all users of SE23.com.
|Posted on Tuesday, 26 April, 2005 - 02:53 pm: |
I am 100% against this tax raising measure
|Posted on Tuesday, 26 April, 2005 - 10:06 pm: |
they are not working on the cars just parking all of them in my road until they have time to work on them, they then move them to their garage. so not alot I can do really thx for tip
|Posted on Wednesday, 27 April, 2005 - 07:58 am: |
Regarding the distribution of commuter parking.I frequently drive through local roads on the Sainsburys side of the railway early in the morning around 5-6am and the number of vehicles parked on the roads at this time is considerably less than later in the day. The assumption can only be therefore that most of the extra vehicles are probably commuter parking. Some of these people are prepared to walk quite a distance from where they park their cars.
|Posted on Wednesday, 27 April, 2005 - 08:12 am: |
All I can say is that is not the case at the junction of Ewelme and Devonshire Road. It is very crowded at 6am and 6pm but usually no problems later morning or afternoon
If you are talking about near Sainsbury's could be workers from the High Street
Even if you are correct there would still be no benefit to locals. Annual permit plus vastly reduced spaces to park , it is the reduction in parking places that would be the worst result.
|Posted on Wednesday, 27 April, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
Bosco - I am instinctively against this revenue / tax raising scheme. I just wanted to know if anyone could see any reason not to oppose it. I would encourage residents of SE23 and SE23.com to fill in their questionanaires expressing their opposition.
|Posted on Wednesday, 27 April, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
To encourage lazy so and sss's to walk to the station rather than park outside people's places on Devonshire Road. It's only ten minutes walk from the leafy side of the tracks but some can't manage that. Well suppose I'll get their parking spot when they have a heart attack. Perhaps parkings OK in SE23, it was pretty ruthless when I was in Sydenham but perhaps that's SE26 for you.
Filled my form in by the way, not so much opposition but essentially no need round my way.
|Posted on Tuesday, 03 May, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
CPZ needs to be there for good reason and proportionate. Most London boroughs limit this to working days and sometimes Saturdays. If you live in central London, and/or close to many stations no doubt most locals appreciate having residents’ parking. Our friends in Greenwich also have restrictions on Sundays as no doubt do other areas with Sunday markets – again locals probably appreciate this although it could drive business away. But some are more draconian, such as Camden (to 8pm on a working day) and Croydon - that appears to be 24/7/365 within a mile of the town. This appears to be over the top. And never make assumptions, as experienced in Watford yesterday, that because it is a bank holiday there would be no restrictions (wrong, but you had to check at the pay machine rather than the signs) and that there would be no wardens on patrol (wrong again). This policy did appear to be totally driven by raising revenue; the shops being shut and plenty of street parking space, but from witnessing a patrol, parking tickets at 40 quid a shot were a plenty.
Trust sense will prevail in Lewisham.
Journey to Watford included three new set of traffic lights in quiet back streets where they weren’t needed. Southwark obviously have tens of thousands to waste on unnecessary traffic controls.
|Posted on Wednesday, 04 May, 2005 - 09:08 am: |
Posted: 3 May 2005 20:51 Post subject:
By now most residents should have received their questionnaires from Lewisham consulting about what the majority of local people in SE23 and SE26 think about Controlled Parking Zones and whether they are needed in our area.
There is a time limit for response of 3 weeks from receipt of the questionnaire. It is therefore important that everyone responds to this within the time limit and urges their neighbours to do likewise.
Lewisham Council has undertaken to donate 5p to the Lavender Trust for every completed questionnaire. The Lavender Trust funds information and support for younger women with breast cancer .
If you have any queries or want further information or haven't yet received a questionnaire and want to know if you are living within a possible Controlled Parking Zone area call Daniel Cairncross on 8314 2582 or Eva Ashley on 8314 2080
|Posted on Wednesday, 04 May, 2005 - 11:52 pm: |
I'd like to know how in these days of election fever, the concept of 'one man one vote 'does not apply to surveys on CPZ's.
Why only one quesionnaire per household.? What do you do if the vote is split.? My household like so many others contains several adults each of whom pays their fair share towards Council Tax and who deserves to have their own voice. This survey is undemocratic and must be re-run on a more equitable basis. I doubt whether it is legal in its current form.
|Posted on Thursday, 05 May, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
So Roz you are one of these houses with one car parking space each with at least one car each, which is why we are running out of parking space?
Before I get a verbal kicking I liked your other comment on today's candidates
|Posted on Friday, 06 May, 2005 - 06:24 pm: |
Roz's post of 22nd April points to the Council to ensure that there is adequate parking provided for all new developments so as not to compound the problem of parking on the streets. Unfortunately, the Council has very little say in the matter due to the fact that both Central Government and The Mayor's Office, in their planning policies, are promoting the notion that new housing development with little or no parking provision should be favoured in areas that benefit from good public transport links in order to discourage the use of the motor car.
Also, re Roz's post of 4th May - I whilst I agree with the main part of her argument and I accept that several adults within her household are paying their fair share of the Council Tax, as it stands, it highights how unfair it is that my poor old grandmother is paying 75% of the Council Tax for her Band F house and benefitting from local public services for one person whereas a household with say 3 adults could be using 3 times the amount of local resources that she is whilst each paying one third of the Council Tax on their Band D property. (Give me a couple of minutes while I just get under the mattress to take cover from the proper verbal kicking that this will provoke - cheers).
|Posted on Friday, 06 May, 2005 - 10:52 pm: |
I think the argument that no parking provison deters car ownership/use is fundamentally flawed in areas which do not already have CPZ.s and /or a requirement of planning for a car free scheme. No such committment has been sought for the new Devonshire Road development. Car free obligations within planning permissions works successfully in inner London boroughs such as Camden and Westminster, although is not without the potential for legal challenge.
My point about having other adults in the household relates to one questionnaire being issued. I never said each adult had their own car. Each adult resident should have their own questionnaire rather than be unrepresented. LB Lewisham probably assume that the man in the household a) owns any car and b) makes all the decisions.....
|Posted on Monday, 23 May, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
It would be probably the first time that local population opinion would be taken in consideration but authorities in the Kingdom of Great Britain.
Two weeks ago, along with three other local residents that I know of,- but probably more people went - I went to a ‘meeting’ where the future for leaseholders in Forest Hill would be discussed, question would be answered and advice (from us) would be taken into consideration. The room was closed. We called the organiser at the council, and no one called us back…
I agree 100% with Dommy. As far as parking is concerned, we do not need more regulation in Forest Hill, we need less. I used to live in Devonshire Road and now live on London Road.
I have written a letter to the parking people of Lewisham and got a very nice and concerned reply which I have sincerely appreciated. They say that they won't do anything without asking the residents, but regarding London Road, it is not up to them - it is an other organisation that deal with it.. And they passed my letter on to them. Which I think was the right move.
My personal issue is that increasing road regulations creates havoc mainly by driving good drivers crazy and as a consequence less fit to drive properly.
We need basic regulation to prevent criminal or abusive driving and use of streets/roads (alcohol, drugs, outrageous parking habits etc)
But certainly not having 90% of our town centre with so many red and yellow lines that businesses have been failing drastically here since people cannot park here anymore.
1/2 pavement 1/2 street parking spaces would fit on the left hand side of Dartmouth road for example and leave enough space for pedestrians.
They have redone London Road, and bingo, painted it again (who asked us about it??? non one!).
And now we receive this flyer 'how can we improve parking in your town?'. Of course each and every solution they offer us would cost us money. And what about deleting these parking restrictions?
English people and Forest Hill residents are not stupid or dishonest or criminals. They know how to drive and park, and people instinctively are concerned not to block the way or park dangerously.
If someone does it, well, there are traffic wardens to fine them.
Regarding visitors who park here? Well this is what we want! We want visitors, we want Forest Hill to become a busy, lively town with great shops. We need a delicatessen, nice antics, boulangerie, some top trendy bars and restaurants. We need visitors. Let them park!
They want to set-up resident parking in Forest Hill? Well then, what about giving us FREE resident parking? It is NOT normal to pay for resident parking.
After all none of us understand why we are paying such high taxes to Lewisham council..
In two words, let us breathe and live our life in our village. Do what you can to improve the quality of our lives by using our taxes well (and listening truly to us)... not by finding ways on how to milk the cow a bit more.
|Posted on Monday, 23 May, 2005 - 02:02 pm: |
Disagree mate, most of us are sensible, law abiding responsible citizens but a growing number of us aren't - perhaps a reflection of the growing me-first culture or the couldn't give a pooh. Witness this by those driving up Manor Mount the wrong way and teh selfish people parking on the pavements by schools at start and end of the day. No doubt much of your argument is right but don't paint all car owners out as angels.
|Posted on Monday, 23 May, 2005 - 11:43 pm: |
Agree totally with Baggydave on this one - witness the often chaos outside a well known burger 'restuarant' despite parking restrictions.
I think buses should be able to snow-plough cars off the road that (double) park in the bus with their universal parking/hazard lights on!
|Posted on Tuesday, 24 May, 2005 - 07:47 am: |
Its not just outside the Burger place. The Loading/Unloading bay outside Sainsburys is always full of cars despite the large sign declaring that it is for loading/unloading and the 20 minute limit.Witness also the number of cars sporting Disabled badges parked in the bus lane, and the people getting out of them who are obviously not the intended users. It seems to me that the Bus lane is a total waste of money in red asphalt and paint as for most of the day the buses can't use it due to the presence of parked vehicles.
|Posted on Tuesday, 24 May, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
I agree with you in that a percentage of the population acts anti-social and go on our nerves, and this include a percentage of drivers too.
But what is that percentage?
I bet it is less than 10%.
I personally find very strange to have prevented legal parking by Sainsbury on the A205; it is a total non-sense. There is room for 1/2 pavement 1/2 street parking on the A205 down Sainsbury up to the next junction, and on part of the other side of the road as well. It would just need to be painted and people would park nicely, close to where they go, and will rather shop locally than at Saver Centre. And the bus traffic would not be affected.
But the road has been refurbished, new lines painted… to give us the very same problem as we had before. This will have to be modified, lines removed, new ones painted.. etc, well business is doing strong in this area!
I walk or drive several times a day passed Mc Donald and have not seen a 'constant chaos' Les - actually I have never noticed it, if this is the shop you are speaking about. With all respect I do not understand what you are talking about.
You currently have to park behind Sainsbury in the car park and have to pay for it; this is not convenient if in a hurry, ill or disable.
There has to be a compromise between pedestrian views and drivers views.
You got to admit that the centre of town/lower part of the A205 and Dartmouth Road are packed with restaurants, fast foods, shops, banks you name it and that there is almost no parking space there.
We have traffic wardens to focus on areas like schools etc and fine the bad drivers.
It is just that I am against enforcing regulations which affect the whole population when the initial problem comes from a handful of individuals. I thought this was the main reason for a police/traffic force: to police the criminals so that honest people can have a good time.
I am not against all regulation. We need it to survive as a society. But small things like 'parking regulation' can truly make the life of people in an area very difficult.
Ask the 17 businesses that had to close down on Dartmouth Road in the last 2 years due to 'no business'..
|Posted on Tuesday, 24 May, 2005 - 05:30 pm: |
Ummhhh, in a utopian society we would not need regulation. But we don't live in one.
If we drive over 30 mph then we are more likely to kill a child if we drive at 20 mph. But do we do that (including me)? Probably non of us think we will ever hit a child. But one could also question whether the collosal speed bumps are out there around Hornimans area. But knowing there are speed camaras around Park Lane and on the A205 around Clapham Common slows me down to something sensible.
Bull bars on cars. What are they for. Don't meet many kangeroos on the South Circ but as a pedestrian you'd know when you'd been hit by one. Ban um.
Mobile phones and driving. Bally dangerous. But do we use common sense? Only when they banned the use (and pleased to see wireless hands free is so cool and trendy).
So I don't agree with your views that the vast majority of drivers are law abiding etc. Whether it is a 'behind the wheel thing' I don't know. Conversely if you lose your wallet I think around 90% of people would hand it in - so I do have some faith in society.
And as for the driving everywhere, its easy (ish) (until the roads are clogged with MPVs and SUVs) but we live in London, even on my posh estate where most of the facilities have gone its not so far to walk into Forest Hill and HOP.
Glad to hear that our friends who are banned are still looking at the site. Must get back to my garden pond.
|Posted on Tuesday, 24 May, 2005 - 05:45 pm: |
Agree with Baggydave's rant, particularly about the bull bars. I can't believe I get overtaken along Honor Oak when I'm already doing 30!
|Posted on Wednesday, 25 May, 2005 - 01:28 pm: |
Spot on Baggy. I was enraged when I was snapped doing 33mph in Northampton and 'offered' 3 points or a speed course.
I took the latter - and I'm a convert. At 20mph, 90% of pedestrian impacts will live, at 40mph only 10% will - mostly permenantly disabled. And 75% of all road fatalities are in 30mph zones. 10 die a day, and 90 are seriously injured.
So yes, rules are needed!
|Posted on Thursday, 09 June, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
Good heavens, not only are people agreeing with me but my protest has reached the European Commission who are banning bull bars from 1 Jan. Interestingly whilst manufacturers agreed (voluntarily) not to fit them you vain, dangerous and selfish people out there got them fitted after purchase. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1676832.st m
And our new liberal councillor is concerned about speeding on Honor Oak Road. Great, I am not the only one!
Three cheers for the police state and bureaucracy.
|Posted on Sunday, 12 June, 2005 - 10:53 pm: |
Aren't we digressing a bit, chaps? Lets stick to the subject- CPZ's in Forest Hill- yes or no?
An interesting point was made by someone on the SE26 website- the payment of £30 per year for a residents permit does not guarantee you a parking space as they will not be marked out with your name on it. So you will be paying for a reduced likelihood of being able to park near your home. Essentially less for more - another stealth tax.
|Posted on Monday, 13 June, 2005 - 08:46 pm: |
I can only urge everyone to complete their questionnaire and return them to Lewisham Council, so we, the Members who are your ward councillors, can have a true picture of local residents' opinion around the question of CPZs. Speaking personally, I want as many 5ps donated to the Lavender Trust from those returned questionnaires as possible.
|Posted on Thursday, 23 June, 2005 - 01:38 pm: |
Consider me a cynic if you like and I would love to be proved wrong but I would think the outcome has probably be agreed before the consultation. The council need the revenue.
There undoubtably will be a NO vote as there is ZERO benefit to any resident in a YES vote. Even if they are not drivers would impose problems with their visitors etc.
I have lived at the Junction of Ewelme Road and Devonshire Road for over 20 years and I have never been unable to park.There is NO problem there at all.
As I say it would be great to be proved wrong
|Posted on Monday, 27 June, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
the outcome of this issue has not been agreed before the consultation on a proposed CPZ ends, and Lewisham Council will only make a decision based on returned questionnaires. As to your situation, unfortunately, you are unlucky enough to live at a junction where some of your neighbours have at least two, and sometimes three, cars per property.
|Posted on Tuesday, 28 June, 2005 - 01:44 pm: |
Thanks for your reply. You say some of my neighbours have a number of cars and my previous comment was that in living there over 20 years I have never had a problem. Your comment does not seem to answer mine. If my neighbours have all got two or three cars then all the more amazing that I have ZERO problems now.
But , Susan , to go over again , how would CPZ's assist.
1. There would be many less parking spots probably about 60% ish on other examples.
2. I would have less chance of getting a space even if I paid.
It seems to be a lose lose situation.
|Posted on Tuesday, 28 June, 2005 - 02:06 pm: |
Brian's points are spot on. The reality of CPZ,s is that we will pay £30 per year per household for a right to park without penalty, but with no guarantee of a space. The fewer number of spaces will mean increased competition. I do think some people believe that they will get a space for their money and that this affects their judgement of the situation.
The fact that others can have more than one car per household may in fact be balanced out by those who do not have a car at all. Its a bit of a pain. but there is no law against owning more than one car. Some of my neighbours have business vehicles. I can in fact point out two Lewisham Council employees in my immediate vicinity who have to keep their vans parked in the road outside their respective houses, one of them on a blind bend, hence increasing the risk of an accident. Hence there are two spaces which could be freed up for a start.
|Posted on Friday, 01 July, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
I am waiting for someone in the council to come back with the benefits for the local car owning residents , or even for the non car owning residents.
The answer could be interesting
|Posted on Friday, 01 July, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
Also I would like to refer to my opening comments on this subject on the 18th April when i pointed out the local conservatives had sent a circular round saying this will happen. I raised in on the web site about 1 year ago and Mr Dowd MP said it was rubbish.
How soon things change , could it be the election is over or am I cynical.
|Posted on Friday, 01 July, 2005 - 01:43 pm: |
Just to add that Sydenham will continue to be a CPZ free zone. The Mayor made an unequivocal promise that as long as he is mayor there would, because of the response so far, he would not approve a CPZ for SE26.
I guess you could extract the same promise for SE23 (especially as he is an even more interested party).
He also pledge that (whether rebuild or reconstruct) swimming *will* stay on the FH Pool site.
|Posted on Wednesday, 06 July, 2005 - 12:24 am: |
But don't mayors change every year?
|Posted on Wednesday, 06 July, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
Not here. Lewisham is the only London borough to have an elected Mayor (for four years?). If on re-election he doesn't pledge to keep SE23 a CPZ-freezone than, I'll guess, he will change!
|Posted on Wednesday, 06 July, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
Actually there are three directly elected mayors in London - Sir Robin Wales in Newham (who's everywhere on the radio today about the Olympics), Jules Pipe in Hackney and Steve Bullock in Lewisham. They will be up for re-election next May when there are elections for all the seats on London boroughs, having been elected in 2002 for a four year term.
|Posted on Wednesday, 06 July, 2005 - 02:41 pm: |
Sorry Ophelia - should I have said the *first* directly elected London mayor. Where Lewisham leads - others follow?
Coincidentally is not our directly elected mayor a fan of football club that's mascot became the first directly elected mayor in England?
|Posted on Sunday, 01 October, 2006 - 06:20 pm: |
I see this issue has reared its ugly head once more with a proposed cpz centred on davids road and manor mount, i suspect the consultations will just go on and on until the coucil get the answer they are are looking for. Personally i would encourage everyone to vote against this measure as i think it will only lead to fewer parking places and more costs - 30 quid pa for residents may not sound much but when you factor in the occaisional ticket for being 200mm over a white line here and there it will soon avaerage out much more. Another stealth tax imho.
|Posted on Sunday, 01 October, 2006 - 06:27 pm: |
I think we should listen to what the residents in David Road and Manor Mount think. It will be interesting to learn whether they share your views.
You might also like to compare parking income across London boroughs. This would put Lewisham's performance in the collection of 'stealth tax' into perspective.
|Posted on Sunday, 01 October, 2006 - 07:39 pm: |
I would like a CPZ in my road.
If I cannot park in other people's roads, I don't think they should be allowed to park in mine.
|Posted on Sunday, 01 October, 2006 - 09:52 pm: |
Think David is right there. I would imagine those streets suffer quite badly from people making use of "free" parking for Sainsbury and the station.
|Posted on Monday, 02 October, 2006 - 07:36 am: |
Whilst I agree it is very anoying if people from outside the area park outside one's house, I can never park outside mine , the CPZ alternative is a non winner for everyone except perhaps the council and the army of parking attendents.
The main problem is the huge reduction of available legal spaces. Available spaces probably reduced to about 60%.
Also , I am sure if introduced in the roads mentioned it will then creep in everywhere else.
I note Sherwood's comments , even as a local you would have to pay and so would any visitors, even if you can find one of the reduced spaces. It is your option of course but at the moment do not believe any streets in SE 23 effected.
I would imagine a bigger problem for the 2 roads mentioned is they are used as rat runs.
|Posted on Monday, 02 October, 2006 - 10:36 am: |
There is an easy way to stop parking for the railway station. give residents a free parking permit and make it illegal for those without permits to park between say 11 a.m. & 12 noon.
|Posted on Monday, 02 October, 2006 - 10:55 am: |
Reading some of these post makes me wonder how many of the "anti's" actually own a car. Not all of us car users own a 8 litre gas guzzler that does 2 miles to the gallon and we dont eat kittens. Wake up people!! There are times when a CPZ is very useful and times when they are not. We live in Waldenshaw Road and whilst it is not our God given right to park there it would be nice (Yes we have a people carrier but it is a very efficient 1.6 lire before you all throw your hands up in horror) and we use that to take the sprog to nursery and the wife then uses it for work. I cycle to work. What I object to is the people who cannot be bothered to drive 200 yards round the corner to park in Sainsbury's and the people who dont want to pay to park at the station car park to so park for free on our road. Please tell me why a CPZ in my road is no good. So when you fill in your forms think of those people who do use a car for transport who live in your street who might like the idea of being able to park there and not have to spend 20 minutes hunting for a space. There is more than enough parking in Forest Hill for shoppers if they can be bothered to use it and pay their measerly £1.
|Posted on Monday, 02 October, 2006 - 11:37 am: |
Sherwood's idea is great. But who would police it with zero revenue. Hence the revenue
To our good citizen in Waldensham Road. Parking does not become easier for anyone. There will be at least 40% less spaces for a start.
If you believe you will magically find a space outside your house ( even if you have to pay ) take a look at all the empty spaces ( I am joking ) on existing CPZ's
Perhaps our new Society can fight this. Sherwoods idea really good.
|Posted on Tuesday, 03 October, 2006 - 08:46 am: |
Brian, given the lack of parking on Waldenshaw Road at most times the fact that there will be 60% residents only parking will be a god send. Currently, as outlined above, we have both rail users and shoppers parking along the whole length of Waldenshaw Road. Under the CPZ proposal there will be mixed parking (residents/shoppers) which makes up about 35/40% with the rest being residents only parking, a great improvement over the current lottery. As I said, there is more than enough parking for shoppers and rail users if they used them, human nature however means that most people do not because A. It costs money, B. They have to walk further.
In terms of policing, trust me, the moment the meters are in the place will be swarming with parking attendents!
Who knows, this might work, I would find it difficult to believe it could be worst.
|Posted on Tuesday, 03 October, 2006 - 10:27 am: |
I thought David's Road already had the one hour exclusion on one side as proposed by Sherwood (I gave up parking there many years ago because of this, but it was useful when I had to feed my parents' cats on the way home from work). If not, then it should be.
Doing the same on Waldenshaw Road may not help much as this road is affected by shoppers and possibly school run rather than commuter parking. Of course a free car park for commuters in Perry Vale (as there used to be) could significantly reduce the parking pressure on all the surrounding roads.
|Posted on Tuesday, 03 October, 2006 - 11:59 am: |
Someone told me that in Bexley your resident's parking permit relates directly to the bay outside your house. If someone else parks there, you call them and they tow the vehicle away. Presumably the cost of the towaway is born by the owner of the vehicle. I think this sounds like a better idea than most CPZs I have seen.
Incidentally, I have been to Hither Green and the CPZ near the railway station has just pushed the cars to the next street outside the CPZ. I suspect that the residents of that street will soon ask for their own CPZ and so on and so on.
|Posted on Tuesday, 03 October, 2006 - 12:35 pm: |
Given that the frontage of each property is often < length of cars owned by occupants I can't see that working.
|Posted on Tuesday, 03 October, 2006 - 01:27 pm: |
I've seen CPZ's start on one side of an area, which then created problems the other side. Now both areas have a CPZ. In attempts to find a parking space non permit holders now park on the pavement. Council estates have become car parks during the day, with cars parked on every possible place such as laundry areas, lawns and footpaths.
|Posted on Tuesday, 03 October, 2006 - 01:43 pm: |
Re the Bexley comment, I suspect that's rumour and misinformation! Whilst I agree that it's nice to be able to park directly outside your house it is not always possible (very few, if any of the cars on my street are likely to be commuters/shoppers and it is ofteb difficult to find a parking spot in the evenings).
I agree that some kind of CPZ should certainly be explored in and around the station area - I have seen the restriction on non-resident permit holders parking between 11 and 12 in Orpington and it certainly seems to work.
However, we should remember it is a public highway and we do not have some divine right to park directly outside our houses!
|Posted on Tuesday, 03 October, 2006 - 04:00 pm: |
I agree I am fed up with people from outside the area parking here to use our station. They should get a train from station near home. However CPZ's are not the answer . Surely what Sherwood said banning parking for 1 hour between 9 and 5 unless your car has a sticker provided for residents is a much more sensible idea.
I believe those who now seem to support CPZ's will regret their support in the future. There is no way that the local roads can support all the local cars in an evening if parking spaces restricted up to 60% , which they will be. My area ( Devonshire Road / Ewelme ) is much more crowded over night than in the day time.
|Posted on Tuesday, 03 October, 2006 - 05:32 pm: |
Hello, although I've been reading your postings for sometime this is my first post. I'd just like to say how impressed I am that so many people in Forest Hill feel so strongly about their area and community, something for which you should all feel proud of. With that bit of SE23 appreciation over, i'd just like to add my tupence worth. Having moved down to FH from an area that had a CPZ, be very careful. If it comes into force in one area in will inevitably spread to all parts. We are close to the shops along Perry Vale (Old fire station end) and often suffer from people parking there to use the shops. However, i realise that bringing in a CPZ to our area may threaten the shops close by. I'd rather have shops open than boarded up. Also it can affect friends and family who may visit. CPZ has to be a last line of defence.
|Posted on Wednesday, 04 October, 2006 - 07:41 am: |
I agree 100%.