Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Crossfields TRA meeting Thursday 31st March

Plenty of items on the agenda for this month's meeting, with updates on, among other things, Parking Permits (contentious, to say the least), Slippery Surfaces/Stairs (more contention), Tree Works (our beautiful trees will be getting some attention), Sheds (Lewisham Homes hopes to finally make their allocation formal and democratic which may not please some), and Fire Safety...

The meeting starts at 7.30pm. All residents are welcome and don't forget you can get baby-sitting expenses if needs be. Email the Chair Tim, if you've got something you want to go on the main agenda.


  1. Ah yes, parking permits! The return date for the questionnaire was before the covering letter had been sent out (with a different return date). There was no return envelope or, failing that, a return address on the letter.

    We don't need fake consultations - it's cheaper just to let them do what they were going to do anyway.

  2. The issue arose because

    a) Frankham House have limited parking but people visiting the high street etc who should be paying in the Giffin Street carpark have been sneaking in for a bit of free parking.

    b) whilst there is plenty of parking outside Holden etc, it is used every day by businesses from Faircharm who would otherwise have to pay inside Faircharm, and sometimes residents can't find a space (plus leaseholders are paying for the upkeep of the grounds).

    The new Tenancy Manager, Kerrie Taylor, sent Faircharm businesses (or just the manager, I'm not sure) a letter to say there would be parking permits introduced and lo, and behold, there is now plenty of parking space again.

    But, apart from the errors with dates, there is much opposition from residents because a) ACE Security would be managing the scheme and are bastards, and b) Lewisham Homes want far too much personal information. It is also feared the fee (£10-£15 p/a, which is very reasonable) will get hiked up to match council street parking (£85+ p/a).

    Surely it would not be introduced if it was made clear the majority didn't want it? Perhaps Frankham House needs it more than other parts of the estate and it could be trialed there.

  3. Sorry, forgot to say, Marmoset, that the issue came up at the March TRA meeting, so Kerrie said she would look into it, resulting in the 'consultation'.

    Although she explained that Lewisham Homes would need to get a picture of car ownership on the estate, I don't think the TRA expected the consultation would ask for that information (eg registration numbers) straight away, but merely be asking if people thought parking was a problem that required a solution (since many at the meeting were not car owners).

  4. ACE have to pay LH for the contract, why wouldn't LH want to get that income? They would jump on the chance at the first site of a moan.

  5. If your car's legal though whats the problem. Only people with dodgy cars don't like this.

  6. Anon (2), you could be right, but ACE have a very bad reputation. Looks like loads of problems with with people getting clamped for forgetting to renew permit or get tax disc in time (or just sticking in the window in time), or people visiting, including care workers, going over their time allowance.

    See this in Lewisham, where it's claimed ACE see the residents as their main revenue source: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?193244-Just-been-clamped

    "Upon calling Ace Security, they were once again very rude, arrogant and unprofessional and would not accept any explanation.

    "Appointing a private company to control council owned car park with the legal right to clamp a vehicle at their discretion is a major mistake. A private organisation is bound to be incentivised to produce profits and by giving them this legal power they are taking advantage of law abiding citizens and abusing their privileges."

  7. THey can't cut the trees at this time of year! There might be birds nesting and it's the wrong time to cut trees!