MarkT

Thanks Texas, Perhaps I'm a little ahead of you with regard to planning processes, but I think we are unpicking the streets issues together. If anyone else out there can help us make sense of it, please chip in. Without studying the actual case you are describing, I recognise the scenario: An applicant presents a slick case, backed by "expert" evidence; busy case officer deciding the case; no objections from members of the public; application passed on the nod. By the way was the applicant?s supporting evidence provided by yer actual Institution of Civil Engineers or by an individual member? I like the ?expert? consultant. Typically going for the fast buck, they use the scatter gun strategy, dressed up as expert opinion. I always look up the laws or policies they cite and I read them. I frequently use their own references to demolish them. Unfortunately such lack of rigor is not limited to the private sector. Look up dropped kerbs on the Council website and you will find a direct link to a Section of legislation. I suspect the officers responsible for the new double yellow line rules have not read their own legal references. MarkT

Yes, Well done Renata, and all who sent in objections. We do not of course know why the applicant withdrew, but it might have been the realisation that it would have been refused as it was simply contrary to policy, as was mentioned by objectors. So, well done to all those citizens who contributed in the creation of those policy documents, particularly the Dulwich SPD which provides such a clear veto to new buildings on previously undeveloped gardens. MarkT

Texas, Your opening question relates to streets, which, as you point out, does not currently come under planning. The Council has already taken the Decision to create a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) though it seems a long time coming: 23 October 2012 - Decision Taker: Cabinet Member for Transport, Environment, and Recycling. Report title: Adoption of Southwark Streetscape Design Manual. The SSDM is an interim arrangement. Once it is a part of the planning system I think the weight issue will be clearer, if only because the contributions to a particular application are published. Southwark's planning documents such as the Dulwich SPD include a diagram showing a hierarchy of published policies, National - London - Borough - local. These are all reviewed on their own time scales, and policies evolve, so a local document might be due for review, and is contradicted and outweighed by higher authority. The Council publishes a list of statutory consultants and national and local interest groups, and on receipt of an application, the officers will notify those on the list to whom it is at first sight relevant, along with the general public notification, appropriate to the scale of the proposal. Of course, the applicant will not volunteer the potentially controversial aspects of the proposal, so, subject to the policies, it is frequently local individuals who can make the best contribution to the consultation.

The Council's statement of Community Involvement (SCI) paragraph 2.6 quotes the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Section 38.6 with regard to the Development Plan "the determination must be made in accordance with the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise" The SCI, in its opening paragraph, states that the SCI is "a Legal (statutory) document that must be complied with by all planning processes)" I think we can therefore expect the Officer's decision reports, in each case, to justify the comparative weight they have given to different considerations. The letters after the name of an consultant or objector should not in themselves carry any weight at all.

Texas, think above the kerbstone. This game is bigger than double and drop. Few may have made the connection, but when the Dulwich Community Council discusses a parking scheme, you can't get in the door. Add speed bumps etc and, Borough wide there's more interest in the contents of the SSDM than in Heygategate. I'm not campaigning for or against any specific item - but I'm definitely for Community Involvement and transparency. Watch this space, Mark

Intexasatthe moment Following on from our posts on the East Dulwich Councillor thread, thanks for your quick response. The Cabinet Member's Decision (instruction to officers) was to proceed to produce a Planning Document which, apparently, has not yet been done. Once that is done then I understand an application for a dropped kerb would be a ?planning application? to the planning department. The SSDM was to be an interim arrangement. A planning document typically includes statements of policy presented as guidelines with reasons, to guide the decision on each planning application - guidelines rather than rigid rules, because a judgement on a specific case may need to balance a wide range of factors. A planning document is first published in draft form and after a statutory period of consultation, minimum 6 weeks, an amended final version can be adopted as policy. (See SCI ? Statement of Community Involvement). A planning application has its own consultation of at least 3 weeks. I think that the Traffic Management officers would be automatically consulted over any relevant application. Grounds for a neighbour?s objection might include loss of ?Amenity? eg freedom to park in your own street, which would have to be balanced against the safety arguments put forward by traffic management officers ? case by case. The historic consultation, I referred to in my suggestion to James Barber, seems to have been brief and only on the headings, eg the aspiration to improve road safety. It pre-dated the Member?s Decision to develop the SSDM, and an SPD, so could not be considered as a full consultation on either. (The Members Decision Report, on the Council website, says that the review of the consultation is attached as an appendix, but it isn?t). The statutory consultation for an SDP would require publication of the entire Draft document and publication of comments. Mark

intexasatthe moment, let's not hijack James' thread. I'll respond to you on the dropped kerb thread. MarkT

James, dropped kerbs not only have a dedicated thread on the forum, but have now been separately raised (so to speak) with regard to school parent parking. May I suggest a way forward? The new rules are contained in The Southwark Streetscape Design Manual (SSDM) which has been written by officers. The Authority for the writing of that Manual seems to have been granted by: the Cabinet Member for Transport, Environment, and Recycling on 23rd October 2012 - Report title: Adoption of Southwark Streetscape Design Manual, from the Strategic Director Environment & Leisure. The SSDM now being applied seems to have been finalised over a year later. There was some public consultation leading to that Report, for the Member's Decision, but to illustrate the degree of detail that was left for officers to fill in, here are one of the Policies and one of the Objectives, that were directly agreed by the elected Member through that Report. They seem to be rather broad brush strokes: Strategic Design Policy SD03: ?Improved road safety and reduced road danger? Strategic Design Objective SDviii: ?Road danger reduction: Require proposals to tackle safety concerns by addressing the things that are the root cause of actual or perceived danger (rather than restricting users likely to be impacted by those dangers). Require that safety improvements provide enhanced conditions for pedestrians, pedal cyclists and social activities, rather than solving safety issues by designing these users and activities out.? I don?t think anyone would disagree with those aspirations, but the resulting rules are being questioned on this Forum. My suggestion of a way forward relates to the abbreviation ?SPD? (Supplementary Planning Document) in Paragraph 21 of that Report: ?21 Notwithstanding the recommendation to progress the Framework Plan as a SPD it is recommended that Interim Highway Strategic Design Objectives and Strategic Design Policies in appendix 1 be agreed by the Cabinet Member. This will allow the Highway Authority to use these to permit the further structured development of the SSDM whilst awaiting the agreement of the SPD in several years time. These Interim Highway Authority Strategic Design Policies and Strategic Design Objectives will be superseded by those contained in the Framework Plan SPD once this is agreed.? That means that the Decision has already been taken to put it all in a Planning Document. As an SPD, it should go out in draft form, for a statutory period of public consultation as set out Southwark?s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The policy could therefore be tested in the public domain, eg for safety, practicality, legality and community relations. The whole process of finalizing an SDP may indeed take years, but as this would be a new, rather than a replacement SDP, it would have initial ?weight? from day one, with no competing rules, in deciding each application. As a planning application, open to public comment, each case would be decided, under that policy, on its own merits. Perhaps double yellow lines would be judged appropriate in one case, and not in another. The rules now causing consternation on the ED forum were supposed to be ?interim?. The Decision to produce an SDP was taken nearly 2 years ago, why has this not already happened? MarkT

Kate H, Examples of past developments cited by a planning applicant may not be relevant, as the policies might have been different when those were approved. Each application is supposed to be judged against current policy, not on ?precedent?. See the ?Dulwich SPD? ? you?ll need to download it from the Council website: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2252/draft_dulwich_spd See the sections: ?Our Vision for East Dulwich? and ?Back-land Development?. Mark

It's a protected shopping frontage, so any redevelopment should include shops: http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?mapcfg=ProposalsMap2012&info=Core_Strategy12 There's no planning application yet published: http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?mapcfg=Planning&banner=planning&tooltip=Plan_tips Mark