MarkT

Ward boundaries old and new here: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/5979

Every individual bay has to accommodate the longest cars plus manoevering space. A google search indicates a standard 4.8 M, which may be historical, along with individual parking meters. Cars are getting bigger. Wikipedia lists a load of family cars over 4.8M in length so bays installed now would need to be comfortably over 5M in length. What if there is less than 10M Between adjacent dropped kerbs? Sorry, only room for 1 bay. Furthermore, while the Council is marking it out, they would certainly apply the 2M extensions to dropped kerbs. 5 + 2 + 2 = 9M. Less than 9M between dropped kerbs? sorry, no parking bay. That is clearly the logic they apply in a CPZ. Double yellow lines everywhere. Rahrahrah, are you sure that your strategy would be better than allowing most people to be co-operative?

Bargee wrote: "This is simply a CPZ without a yearly charge. I suspect it would not be enforced because there would be no money to pay the wardens." Outside of any CPZ, are not single and double yellow lines enforced? Income comes from fines. If in fact CPZs have greater enforcement, might it be that resident parkers alert the traffic wardens?

Thanks Inkmaiden for the alert. It continually amazes me that the Council Planning Dept will validate applications that are clearly contrary to Policy. In this case the Dulwich Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is explicit. This is previously undeveloped backland so the application must be refused. I have just submitted an objection as follows: Here's an extract from the Dulwich SPD. Note that ALL the criteria have to be satisfied for a backland development to be permitted. This seems to be a previously undeveloped back garden, so that alone should be grounds for refusal. 5.4.2 Back-land development can have a significant impact on amenity, neighbouring properties and the character of the area. Dulwich is generally not considered to be a suitable area for back-land development due to the character of the area and the large plot sizes which are characteristic of the area and contribute to its historic value. Dulwich is characterised by being leafy, open and green, with mainly low-rise suburban buildings. Building new dwellings or garden buildings that are disproportionately larger than the plot size in back gardens would alter and harm the character of Dulwich. 5.4.3 However, there may be some exceptions where back-land development is acceptable. We may permit back-land development where proposals meet all of the following criteria: i. It is on previously developed land. ii.The development would not compromise historic plots that reflect the heritage of the area, including the historic patterns of development and the cumulative impact of similar developments. iii. There is adequate convenient and safe access, suitable for the entry and egress of vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. iv. The development would not contribute or add to parking problems in the area (we will usually require a local parking survey to demonstrate this). v. There is no loss of privacy and amenity for adjoining houses and their back gardens. vi. Schemes larger than 1 dwelling will require space for refuse storage and collection and the separation of pedestrian and vehicular access. vii.Suitable consideration is given to the retention of tree canopy cover and mitigation of any loss. viii.It can be demonstrated that proposals sustain and enhance the character and setting of designated or undesignated heritage assets. ix. An archaeological assessment has been provided, where appropriate, that demonstrates how the development proposal will preserve in situ, protect and safeguard scheduled ancient monuments and important archaeological remains and their settings. MarkT

That's Tomorrow Tuesday 12th September. East Dulwich Community Centre in Darrell Road. Meet the animals anytime from 11am to 2pm MarkT

possibly "Mirabelle". MarkT

Well done Chazzle MarkT

Side wall of 141 Crystal Palace Road, facing East Dulwich Community Centre Playground.

Yesterday a car on Goodrich passed a stop sign and collided with another coming down Friern Road. Friern Road has build outs on all four corners, but Goodrich is usually parked up close to the junction. At the time of the accident, Goodrich was clear of parked vehicles, for some distance from the crossing, giving far better site-lines than would be guaranteed by the proposed yellow lines. This is of course anecdotal. Who knows if the unusually good sight lines contributed to that accident, but Southwark's own Streetscape Design Manual warns that increasing sight-lines can increase speed. No one was injured and I don't know if such accidents are recorded. For those that are, I wonder if the immediate state of parking is recorded. MarkT

We are trying to contact Robin Lambert and Rashid Nix to invite them to a Hustings at the East Dulwich Community Centre next Tuesday 30th 7-9pm. Can anybody help to get a message to them? All the other local candidates are planning to be there. MarkT

James, The parks maintenance team have been alerted on this, MarkT

I've sent a link to this thread to one of the Council's project management team who, I think, were involved in setting up the playground. MarkT

Bels123, High levels of pollutants anywhere is indeed cause for concern but, I suggest you focus on the roads, ie the source, rather than individual schools and nurseries. From the articles that you cite it appears that the pollution measurements have been done on roads, not on premises. Where, therefore, have you found out that the two premises that you name ?have both measured levels of emissions which breach the EU level?? The articles in your links don?t name the roads, but taking, as examples, the two premises you cite, the roads identified by Greenpeace are presumably East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane and Grove Vale. Neither article provides any reason for choosing a bandwidth of 150 metres either side of a particular road, but to put that in context for your two examples, taking just the area surrounded by those roads, ie just one side of those main roads, that would include all of Zenoria Street, Tintagel Crescent, Elsie Road, Derwent Grove, Railway Rise, the south section of Melbourne Grove and the Dulwich Hospital site. It includes every house on those streets. Greenpeace is quoted here: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/5-schools-8-nurseries-bristol-18281 They say it is a snapshot; they have not measured pollution levels on every road. I would think that a 300 metre-wide corridor around any road added to their list would include a lot more educational premises. Your child spends more time out of school.

It was announced at last week?s Community Council meeting that there was about ?50k un-allocated for the Cleaner Greener Safer Fund. This was due to a shortage of applications. A late application is being prepared for large scale outdoor board games for open spaces around Dulwich. The games will include chess and draughts and scrabble, played on permanent walk-on ?boards? made up of 18 inch concrete squares. It is hoped that the initiative will encourage inter-generational play and keep older minds active. Scrabble, in particular, is very popular with older residents, and it is hoped it will improve literacy in younger players. In support of the grant application the applicants will be inviting sponsorship for the playing pieces and help in making the bags for the scrabble tiles. MarkT

Thanks Texas, MarkT

MarkT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James, > 203/205 Crystal Palace Road, on the corner with > Silvester Road, has been demolished. Southwark's > planning map shows no planning history. Has an > application been submitted? > MarkT James, Southwark's planning map seems to be out of action. Do you have any info on this? MarkT

James, 203/205 Crystal Palace Road, on the corner with Silvester Road, has been demolished. Southwark's planning map shows no planning history. Has an application been submitted? MarkT

I think that the DHFC area is South Camberwell Ward - Councillors Octavia Lamb, Peter John and Sarah King. MarkT

Pugwash, you say that the night time only signage was not "incorrect" as is claimed now by TFL. Do you know if there was a publicised ruling such as a Traffic Management Order? If such a public order supported TFL's claim, why do they not now quote it? The TFL letter states that changing the sign will "allow the stand to be used as it was originally intended." and "our agreement with LB Southwark to site the stand here was based on the understanding it would be in use at all times." Were Southwark and TFL agreed or is this carefully worded to give a false impression that Southwark shared with TFL that understanding and intention? Who erected the sign? Is TFL now saying that Southwark is incompetent? Think if the lost opportunities for parking fines. Is TFL now consulting the public on this matter? Why would they need to do so if they have the right to change the sign? MarkT

Here's the Court record of the Reading Appeal: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/441.html The policy in question is described in the first witness statement: 2(1) "Developments of 10 units or 1000 sq m or less (including annexes and extensions) would be excluded from affordable housing levies and tariff based contributions;" Is that an accurate record of Reading's policy or is it a verbal description of the policy as presented in court and interpreted by the judge? Excluding 10 units or less is not the same as including 10 or more. Southwark's policy, by comparison, requires affordable housing for 10 units or more, ie excludes 9 units or less I have not examined this court ruling, but it seems to me that the issue considered is whether the threshold, per se, is fair to small developers, and the appropriateness of a blanket threshold. I don't think that it determines that the threshold should be 11 rather than 10. MarkT

The Appeal case was in Reading. Maybe the wording of Reading and Berkshire policies was open to interpretation. If they use the word "threshold" for example, this could be open to interpretation. Does a rule apply at the threshold or at 1 more than the threshold? Southwark's Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document Draft 2011 states that, apart from a few bits in the north of the Borough, all developments of 10 or more units must include 35% affordable housing. Southwark's website doesn't indicate any more recent policy. "10 or more" seems clear enough to me. The rule applies to a development of 10 units. I haven't checked out the London Plan on this matter, but the Dept of Environment website shows the current national rules: Draft Planning Policy Statement 22 - Affordable Housing Policy AH1 "for all development applications containing 5 units or more on sites outside land zoned for social housing the planning authority will seek the provision of affordable housing and/or commuted sums..." Repeat: 5 units or more. The issue in this specific case is that the developer never applied for 10 units. Having got permission for change of offices to 8 dwelling units on the existing 2 floors, the developer then made a separate application for 2 dwelling units on the roof, showing the existing 2 floors as offices. Southwark Council did not decide the application within the prescibed time limit, so the applicant appealed against non determination and, before the appeal was heard, Southwark officers approved the application, ignoring loads of well argued objections. Officers, on delegated powers, could have refused it, but under Southwark Council's Constitution, with so many objections, the decision to approve should have been taken by Councillors, not officers. Objectors had pointed that the additional floor was higher than was permitted by policy; that 8 + 2 = 10, so the development must therefore include 35% affordable housing and that the Council has a specific policy to refuse applications that appear to be attempting to circumvent the affordable housing requirement. The offices are now being sold as flats. 10 in total, none affordable, and the building is a floor above the permitted height.

The Southwark Streetscape Design Manual advises that increasing visibility does not always improve safety, because it can increase speeds. A case by case approach would therefore be better than a blanket application of bouble yellow lines. Southwark Streetscape Manual DS114 1.2 Discussion a. Providing adequate visibility between street users is important to everyone?s safety. Visibility should generally be sufficient to allow road users to see potential conflicts or dangers in advance of the distance in which they will be able to break and come to a stop. b. Stopping distances vary with vehicle type and speed. However, research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at. MarkT

The latest planning application was refused 26th July, MarkT

"Isn't the top and bottom of a road about numbering? Lowest number is at the bottom, where the roundabout is." Or lowest number is at the top, as in any written list. MarkT

I've put a comment on the M&S thread re listing MarkT