|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 06:55 pm: |
Some of you will have noticed that the work on the Crown Graphics site is moving forward. Demolition is completed, and piling has started.
On 16th March, Planning Committee 'B' will consider an application for the Phoenix Works site which lies behind the Bird in Hand Public House on Dartmouth Road. The application provides for housing and employment use.
For thos of us who live in the area, an important element will be the improvement of the footpath along the railway. All the developments along the railway will be contributing to the upgrading of the footpath, which will be widened and better overlooked. Bird in Hand Passage will have an entrance to the footpath at the bottom, and the revised circulation through the Crown Graphics site will increase usage and make the area less attractive for petty crime.
I walked through the area on Sunday. It's still run down, but I think the signs are already there that over the next two to three years it will transform into an attractive little neighbourhood, which will benefit also from relatively limited motor vehicle penetration.
Incidentally, for those of you who read planning applications and then become alarmed, please note that references to Controlled Parking Zones are relevant only to the Clyde Terrace/Clyde Vale area, which, without such action, would become a magnet for commuter parking when the developments are completed. You should not read this as part of plan to introduce a wider CPZ. It's also worth noting that with controlled parking along the railway, and safer and more attractive pedestrian access through the new developments, metered parking along Clyde Terrace might provide a little comfort to businesses along Dartmouth Road
It has taken some time for these developments to get under way, but things are now definitely moving forward. There are still three major sites to come, but serious discussions are in hand.
|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 08:17 pm: |
One CPZ does unfortunately tend to lead to another CPZ. When one was introduced on the west side of Rushey Green, the east side came under severe pressure leading to a CPZ on that side as well. Also CPZ's can also lead to more traffic.
|Posted on Thursday, 09 March, 2006 - 08:23 pm: |
The reason people become alarmed by the idea of CPZ's in their neighbourhood is generally that they find themselves and their families overly and disproportionally restricted as a result, and charged a flat administrative fee for no guarantee of a space and only one parking permit per house.
CPZs are I believe as is the case here, intended to restrict commuter parking not unfairly impede the lives of local residents or to penalise them from having cars. Councils however tend to have both agendas when the introduce CPZ's.Hence the concept gets binned and bashed and the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater,when a more thoughtful approach may be more productive, ie granting each household several parking permits. They probably won't need all of them all of the time, they can give one to workmen, painters, plumbers, visiting family, etc. and hence just live life as normal. Commuters seeking to dump their car for the day whilst they get the train into London are not therefore encouraged. Isn't this painfully simple, or am I missing something.? Think I will start up my own separate thread on CPZ's, parking etc.
|Posted on Friday, 10 March, 2006 - 07:42 am: |
Yes Councillor I am worried about the introduction of CPZ .
They have ZERO benefit to local people.
They restrict the number of places one can park .
This would cause major problems in most local roads
|Posted on Friday, 10 March, 2006 - 08:22 am: |
Lewisham only introduces CPZs with local consent, and as most people agree with Brian, and also feel that at the moment there is no overall need in Forest Hill, then there will be no general introduction. The new developments present a special case. The main parking restriction at the moment on Clyde Terrace is that it is isolated, and only accessible by either a long walk along Dartmouth Road, or via an isolated footpath with some record of crime. In other words, no one would want to park there. Once the area is developed, Clyde Vale and Clyde Terrace will be the nearest parking to the station up line, and, without controls, would almost certainly fill up with commuter parking to the detriment of residents and businesses in the new developments.
Incidentally, while it may be that there is no need for CPZs in Forest Hill, this condition does not apply in many other areas of the borough. There are enough requests for CPZ arrangements to keep our highway engineers fully employed, and I am unaware of any serious demands for their removal where they already exist.
I will also repeat what I have said before on the subject of parking charges and fines. Lewisham has one of the lowest levels of parking income in London, and this will continue to be the case in future. We are under no pressure to implement CPZs unless they are genuinely required.
|Posted on Friday, 10 March, 2006 - 08:50 am: |
Many thanks and I except what you say. To be honest I have yet to meet someone who lives in a CPZ ( even if they do not own a car ) who says it is a good idea. But that is another matter
|Posted on Friday, 10 March, 2006 - 12:46 pm: |
I agree with Roz, CPZ do tend to spread as local consent is only sought from people who acutally live on a road. As one place becomes a CPZ other local roads will be adversely affected by commuter and shopper parking, and eventually the local residents will want to stop people parking in their street.
We do have a small problem with rail commuter parking on a number of local roads and this will inevitably increase, especially once we get improved connections from the ELL.
The easy solution is to put rail commuters in free car parks, like we used to have in Perry Vale, but which now charges. It was very convenient for me when I had busy evenings or heavy luggage, now it lies virtually empty, except when local youth use it to race those annoying mini-motorbikes. How much revenue would Lewisham lose by making this car park free again?
|Posted on Friday, 10 March, 2006 - 01:36 pm: |
I agree Michael. What a great idea. I like you would be interested how much it is costing the council to patrol the area against actual revenue
|Posted on Friday, 10 March, 2006 - 05:32 pm: |
The public car park behind Laurence House had its Ticket Machine stolen and ever since it has been for council staff only. At a Mayor & Cabinet meeting it was said it was not worth replacing the machine...I think it was reported the car park generated about £200 a year. Other car parks may be different.