Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think Southwark are double yellow lines happy now. They are everywhere that they can possibly put them, and they seem to extend well back from corners now, more than seems necessary. It still doesn't stop people from parking on them though, and especially near schools.

Following intexasatthe moment?s link to Southwark?s websitel, you get another link through to Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, which says no parking by a dropped kerb except:

outside residential premises with the consent of the occupier.


Putting double yellows across a residential dropped kerb cancels that exception. Is that lawful?

Just askin.

I wouldn't have thought so justaskin .


It seems to me that the info online is very confusing and leaves loads of leeway for misunderstanding and fines to be issued . Maybe I'm dense or paranoid ,it almost seems to me that whoever wrote the pages wants them to be unclear .


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/3069/dropped_kerbs_and_driveways/3 This page seems to suggest that a vehicle with a wheel adjacent to a dropped kerb can be ticketed .


"Dropped kerbs with access to off-street areas

Vehicles parked adjacent to a dropped kerb may be ticketed and possibly removed without notice. Only vehicles that are either straddling the dropped kerb or have a wheel adjacent to the dropped kerb can be enforced."


I presume ,because the following clause specifies access to single properties , this relates only to access to driveways that serve more than one property or a carpark ot similar ? But it doesn't say so .


For ..Driveways that serve a single property "Providing there is no enforceable yellow line, you and your visitors may park close to this type of driveway without penalty. For this reason, we only enforce upon specific request of the property occupier."


If there were some clarity about the " wheel adjacent " such as a specification along the lines of " in such a way as to obstruct access " I'd be happier . As it is it seems to leave it open to the whim of the person who asked for the dropped kerb and the zeal of the parking attendant . And why say " you and your visitors " ? Why not just " vehicles " ? Owned by anyone ,like your neighbours and their visitors ?


But in any case ,this page http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/3069/dropped_kerbs_and_driveways/4

seems to leave the way clear for yellow lines to be installed adjacent to a crossover just because it's new .

And reiterates that it's an offence in most cases ( no explanation of what those most cases are ) to park ADJACENT to a dropped kerb and makes no distinction between a dropped kerb for a single dwelling or one serving a car park .


This page http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/3069/dropped_kerbs_and_driveways/5 says that the circumstances of when it's illegal to park adjacent to a dropped kerb have been explained - but I can't see where ,unless it's the distinction between access to single properties ( where you can be ticketed if the resident wants you to be )and other access .


Can someone cleverer than me come along and show that I'm being dense and paranoid ?

Hi everyone, double yellow lines are not installed where a dropped kerb is installed for someone to park on their front driveway. They are installed in other instances eg where dropped kerbs are put in, possibly with an island in the middle of the road to provide an informal road crossing point. This is done to improve safety.

Renata

Thanks Renata ,that's good to hear


. Shame it doesn't say that on Southwark's website . And shame that another poster LS1234 was misled about it

" LS1234 August 27, 06:13PM


I have been told very clearly by Southwark that all new residential dropped curbs will have yellow lines to 2m either side of the dropped curb unless there is an exceptional reason. It is a new rule that has come into force this year to give cars on the road clearer visibility of cars coming off driveways, it does not apply to current dropped curbs. I was also told that existing dropped curbs that are being redone will most likely not be white lined again in the future."


Clearer wording needed I think .

We were in the process of applying for a dropped Kerb and it is very clear in the official letter from Southwark that all new dropped kerbs even if there is no safety issue, as with our house, will have a double yellow line placed along it and for 2 meters either side. I have spoken at length to Chris Johnson and the man who bought these new rules in (Dave Farnham) at Southwark and this is now their policy. I have forwarded all of this information on to James Barber as well. It is a ridiculous rule but I'm not getting anywhere with trying to get it changed...
Renata if you speak to Chris Johnson or Dave Farnham you will be told that "improving safety" now applies to all dropped Kerb applications in Southwark regardless of their proximity to traffic islands....I can forward you the official Southwark letter if that helps?

LS1234 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We were in the process of applying for a dropped

> Kerb and it is very clear in the official letter

> from Southwark that all new dropped kerbs even if

> there is no safety issue, as with our house, will

> have a double yellow line placed along it and for

> 2 meters either side. I have spoken at length to

> Chris Johnson and the man who bought these new

> rules in (Dave Farnham) at Southwark and this is

> now their policy. I have forwarded all of this

> information on to James Barber as well. It is a

> ridiculous rule but I'm not getting anywhere with

> trying to get it changed...



Why has this not been put out for public consultation.


Southwark officers seem to believe they can do what ever they decide behind closed doors as gospel.


Perhaps it should be pointed out we pay their salaries through our Council Tax and should have a deciding vote.

There seems to be confusion between two types of dropped kerb.

Type A is where the drop is near a junction for the convenience of pushchairs etc. They are about one metre wide.I can see why this should be enforced.

Type B is to allow access to a residential forecourt. This is installed at the request of a householder. It is usually two metres wide. It would be excessive to put double yellows here. They would all be overlapping each other down our street!!

Please could our councillors clarify this.

The new rule applies to residential forecourts (I don't know what the rules are about the other). I can clarify it for you as I have applied and have an official letter from Southwark explaining that all new residential dropped kerbs will be double yellow lined over the dropped kerb area and to 2 metres either side as standard. We live in a house with off street parking but the previous owner didn't drop the kerb. I have also spoken to Southwark twice to have it confirmed. What we need from the Councillors is help to get a rule changed that is not practical for everyday living.

Renata Hamvas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi everyone, double yellow lines are not installed

> where a dropped kerb is installed for someone to

> park on their front driveway. They are installed

> in other instances eg where dropped kerbs are put

> in, possibly with an island in the middle of the

> road to provide an informal road crossing point.

> This is done to improve safety.

> Renata


Renata, is there any chance you could get this confirmed by someone at Southwark who is willing to put their name to it? What you put above is what I understood the regs say, but my neighbour is putting a drop in and the Southwark road engineer who came to measure up last week was adamant that double yellows are mandatory for every drop kerb now in Southwark - which is the same as what others appear to be being told given the above.

Sidhue - when you say regs ,which regs are you referring to ? The info on Southwark's website http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/3069/dropped_kerbs_and_driveways is clear that yellow lines may be introduced where a new dropped kerb has been installed .


"Yellow lines

The council may introduce waiting restrictions (yellow lines) in front of dropped kerbs in the following circumstances:

Parking is controlled in the street for other reasons (eg. the street is within a parking zone, yellow lines are needed to allow sufficient space for vehicles to pass, or road safety).

Circumstances would make it confusing to omit them (eg. if new yellow lines were being installed at a junction and there was a dropped kerb immediately adjacent we would probably extend the lines across it).

Adjacent to new crossovers."


What particularly worries me is the reference to markings ADJACENT to the dropped kerb . Not straddling ,but adjacent .



And statements like this " in most circumstances it is an offence, irrespective of the presence or absence of road markings, to park adjacent to a dropped kerb."


Renata has raised an official members enquiry into the issue but has warned that officers are allowed to take up to 10 working days to respond .

A councillor has done this already on our behalf and the response from Southwark was:


"SSDM design standard DS.002 confirms that new vehicle crossings that are located on non-Classified Roads (roads that are not A or B roads) must have Waiting Restrictions That Are Enforceable At Any Time extending across them and for 2 metres to either side along the carriageway. For Classified Roads the distance required to either side is considerably greater. These particular requirements apply only to new vehicle crossings (not existing). In many instances (but not all) they are likely to be met by extending continuous "double yellow line" road markings through a vehicle crossing and for the specified distance to either side."


This new rule is in place. We need to know how I get it changed...

LS1234 is right . http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200456/southwark_streetscape_design_manual_ssdm


and this from DS.132 " 3.7 Parking restrictions around Vehicle Crossings

a. See standard DS.002 about providing No Waiting At Any Time restrictions through and in the

vicinity of Vehicle Crossings.

NOTE: Broadly, in most instances restrictions are needed through and to 2m either side of each

Crossing. However, for Vehicle Crossings on Classified Roads (A and B roads) restrictions are

normally needed to the entire extent of related visibility splays (for which see standard DS.114)"


But installing yellow lines requires a Traffic Management Order ,which can be appealed against . Maybe some hope there ?

This is clearly all about making parking on local streets increasingly impossible, by blanking out large areas of kerb every time a new dropped kerb is installed - how quickly before the clamour for (charged for) residents parking arises, as peope are squeezed out of parking options in 'their' streets - no wonder we have had such silence from at least one of our elected councillors, although fair do's to Renata for trying to bottom this out - but then she doesn't have history, does she?

I think you could be right Penguin ,there has to be some logic behind this . It certainly isn't the desire to promote safety or the clearly stated right for visitors and relatives to park close to dropped kerbs wouldn't appear .


"Driveways that serve a single property

Providing there is no enforceable yellow line, you and your visitors may park close to this type of driveway without penalty. For this reason, we only enforce upon specific request of the property occupier."


And I agree about the echoing silence from some quarters .

Safety considerations rightly pervade all traffic management thinking, and the solutions are rarely simple.


Here, I understand, safety is cited specifically as the reason for the new double yellows requirement, by ensuring permanent sight lines around the vehicle crossing point. If it is a compelling reason, then why does it apply only to new applications? Why is it not retrospective?


If these extra sight lines are required to reduce the risk of collisions between cars at crossing points, then surely the same logic would apply to the sight lines at all points at which a pedestrian might cross, which under the council?s current rules might be anywhere on a residential street. Double yellows on all residential streets? Restricting pedestrians? freedom to cross?


Just askin

Further thoughts on the safety issues. Clear sight lines are not always a net gain, as a belief by drivers that they have a clear view can encourage speed, plus a disregard for stop and give way signs. Are drivers not taught to proceed, particularly on a residential street, with the assumption that they do not have clear sight lines? Would the increased space around the dropped kerb also encourage the resident to emerge onto the road at greater speed and greater risk?


Just askin

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

Mark - thank you so much for this .

So there needs to be pressure to produce an SDP ( which would involve consultation ) and once in place dropped kerbs would be dealt with on an individual basis as planning applications ?


I thought I'd have a quick look at the Southwark Streetscape Design Manual to see if I could work out what weight the current info re yellow lines/dropped kerbs has .

But it looks pretty complicated - a task for later .


But very many thanks for your comments ,the situation ,and how it's arisen , makes more sense to me now .

Bit worrying though that this has come about ...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...