Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dropped kerbs have always been a little bizarre in Southwark. Our neighbours (both sides of the road) have dropped kerbs (old ones) that come out at speed bumps. Our (4 flats) application for a dropped kerb (about a decade ago) was rejected by Southwark - despite taking 3 cars off the road because it was too close to the speed bumps. Our across the road neighbours (in Lewisham) were allowed one in exactly the same place.


The fact that you're not supposed to park on/near bumps anyhow - and in theory, having a driveway there would be less likely make people park near them (as they do currently). In the real world, poor parking (bumps/crossings/white or yellow lines/pavement) doesn't get policed in most residential streets unless you live near shops/stations.

So if the neighbours object on grounds of loss of amenity would the application be rejected and no dropped kerb allowed ?


Though presumably Southwark could argue that the neighbours never enjoyed the ability to park outside their home as anyone could park there . So reject the loss of amenity claim ?

Renata wrote (October 9 above) that Councillors, at Community Council, had over-ruled officers with regard to the double yellow line extension. One dropped kerb: "was approved but only with the stipulation from Councillors that it can't extend outside the dropped kerb to a neighbouring property which doesn't have a dropped kerb."


A question for Councillors therefore is if they can reject a part of the yellow line, why not all of it, and still approve the dropped kerb.


If that one case has gone ahead with the Councillors amendment, then it challenges the officers' assertions that the whole length including 2 metre extensions is a safety requirement.


Perhaps some potential applicants have dropped their applications because they did not want to impose a parking restriction on neighbours. If Councillors can vary the rule, then officers must advise applicants accordingly.


Mark

Slightly off topic ,but I'm a bit confused as to whether Community Councils still consider planning applications .


James B. is clear that they don't . Perhaps they consider some categories ,like dropped kerbs ?


Off to look at C.C. agendas ......

Texas,

dropped kerbs are not planning applications, they are "Traffic Management Orders".


On the Council's Website, search for "traffic orders" (double 'f') ignore the website's helpful query "Did you mean ..." where they always offer you a miss-spelling. Follow through to "Traffic Order Consultations". Find a list of PDFs including some titled "Local Parking Issues".


It is my contention that such road changes ought to be planning applications. (I am also arguing elsewhere that all minor local planning applications should be dealt with by Community Councils, as specified in the Council's published "Statement of Community Involvement"


The Decision to bring the Streetscape matters under an SPD, ie a planning document, was taken by the appropriate Cabinet Member 2 years ago.


The Draft New Southwark Plan is peppered with policies that relate to these issues eg: DM17 on Travel and Transport specifically includes car parking; 39.1 is about Streetscape; 43.1.1 and .4 on safe ease of movement, and safety in the public realm.


The point about this is that as an SPD, the streetscape "rules" would have to dovetail with other planning policies and would be subject to public challenge at the policy making stage.


Mark

I think dropped kerbs are an overall improvement to the parking situation for the residents of a road ?? without 2m of yellow lines I hasten to add.

One, or more cars off the road plus space in front of the dropped kerb for visitors, neighbours, tradesmen, neighbours? tradesmen, neighbours? visitors and deliveries.

Of course, it is a pain if you are not resident and are doing a spot of shopping and can?t find anywhere to park because of all the dropped kerbs!

Carol - that's a very generous view of people's behaviour . My neighbours ( who I have no disagreement with ) view their dropped kerb as theirs . They don't allow the world and his wife to park there .


And there's an application for a dropped kerb that I'm aware of that involves removing a resident's parking permit place . So ,if you live in the street in question ,you carry on paying the same amount to park in the road but have less spaces available to you .And your neighbour ( quite legitimately ) has bought the parking space outside their house .

They don't allow the world and his wife to park there .


I have one, and neither do I, but I don't mind e.g. delivery vehicles stopping for a short time in order to make deliveries, strangers stopping to drop people off etc. etc. My dropped kerb therefore creates a 'universal' short-term stopping place - which assists my neighbours with heavy loads, people dropping off children etc. If I'm about (hardly matters if I'm not) I may go out to check how long people will be stopping - if I need to go out or am expecting someone back, but otherwise I'm reasonably accommodating - as most people around me seem to be. Of course, occasionally someone (often in a white van) may 'take the mick' - but over the last 25 years I have rarely had a problem.


On occasion I have been asked by neighbours if I would mind a longer use of 'my' dropped kerb space - i.e. more than a few minutes for, e.g. engineers etc. to visit - if I can I do. I am sure I am not unusually generous in so doing.


However, and in general, street parking is normally reasonably easy around me, so maybe fewer problems have had to present themselves.

But Penguin ,the situation you describe " vehicles stopping for a short time in order to make deliveries, strangers stopping to drop people off etc. etc... a 'universal' short-term stopping place - which assists my neighbours with heavy loads, people dropping off children etc." would exist without you having a dropped kerb ?


And ,more importantly , how do you format your post to italicse words ?

Mark - thanks for your post . Which as usual clarifies things for me .


The TMO aren't very visible to people at the moment . By coincidence I had spotted a planning notice in Highshore Rd . But it was very high on the lamp post ( certainly too high for me to comfortably read as I'm short and wear varifocals ,so much tilting of head involved ) and included a whole list of orders .


From looking at the TMO on Southwarks website I wasn't able to spot any specified length of yellow lines for dropped kerb applications . I suppose more info might be available if one scans the barcode ( forget it's name ) as invited . But I don't have a phone that's capable of that .


So yes I totally agree that it would be helpful to treat dropped kerbs as planning applications .And that then the policy around them would be open to public consultation as would the granting of individual applications .


And yes - street policies to dovetail with other planning policies . Seems obvious .

which assists my neighbours with heavy loads, people dropping off children etc." would exist without you having a dropped kerb ?


Not if it was in a parked-up street where people were parking through the day - the dropped kerb creates a (short) no-go area for permanent parking, thus allowing this type of visitor.


Edited to add - put (no spaces) at the start of the section to be italicised, and at the end - you can do the same with b to get something in bold, to answer your second point. It's HTML.

I guess we'll need a secret masonic type indicator to show which dropped kerbs are available for others to use .But it would have to work on parking wardens so that they didn't inadvertently issue tickets .


thank you for the advice .


Though I notice that using that method on my laptop now means that everything following also appears in italics . But I think this is particular to me as it's a problem I have if I copy and paste anything into an email . Following text then adopts the style of the copied stuff . But that's all off topic !

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> I guess we'll need a secret masonic type indicator

> to show which dropped kerbs are available for

> others to use .But it would have to work on

> parking wardens so that they didn't inadvertently

> issue tickets .

>

No need to worry about that - parking wardens need to park up, get out their ticket book etc, all of which takes time. Throughout the day various people use my drop kerb space to deliver goods, drop off children, elderly relatives, make a phone call on their mobile etc. As long as they are doing just that, not parking up and leaving the vehicle, then I have no reason to mind and nor will a parking warden have a chance to write a ticket. The purpose of a drop kerb should simply be to stop anyone blocking vehicle access (so visitors can park as I can get them to move immediately) but it shouldn't be a permanently empty space. Putting double yellows across it is utter madness.

Thanks, Jeremy, for closing off the second set of 'open italics' commands - I hadn't seen this developing. Intexas - you 'opened' italics twice (once whilst trying to close them) - every command needs a counter command to stop it working - if you open twice you have to close twice. Efectively, although you see posts in a thread as being individual, each thread acts as a continuous run of HTML embedded codes - and you can influence anything 'below' you if you don't stop what you start.


Sorry, admin, all off-topic, but to a good cause (I hope).

I've enjoyed that diversion. Boringly perhaps back to the topic, I can?t think of any other situation where an individual can get exclusive rights over a section of the public highway. By comparison a parking space outside the house of a disabled driver gives no exclusive right. The sign says it?s open to all badge holders.


With no double yellow lines, even antisocial occupiers can at least allow parking to their select few, thus reducing the parking load elsewhere. It is arguable that a dropped kerb can have a neutral effect on overall parking space.


The new parking restriction gives the beneficiary a guaranteed clear stretch of road to the detriment of everybody else. The Council has cancelled any possibility of good neighbourly negotiations over short term parking. The extension of 2 metres each way will in many cases remove 2 street parking spaces to provide for 1 off-street space.


This is justified by the Council as a safety measure to provide clear sight lines. I think that is a debatable point. It may encourage speedy entry and exit, to the possible endangerment of anyone on the footpath.


I think that traffic management should have a net communal benefit as a primary aim, which will include a general discouragement of car use and improved safety of all road and footpath users. Where is the communal benefit in this new rule?

If they put double yellow lines you would get a ticket for parking in front of the dropped kerb to your own house.

I occasionally park in front of mine when I know I?m going out again soon.

I also parked in front when we had a skip in the parking area.

Come to think of it - are you allowed to put a skip on a double yellow line? If not where would people put their skips - not all off-street parking areas are big enough/accessible enough to put a skip on.

This is all clearly madness - unless you accept that it is part of the war against cars by the anti-car brigade (which includes, as I recall, the Lib Dems and Greens - happy to stand corrected if I am wrong here). Taken in this light, such a stupid idea, which will cause upset and distress with 'cars' seen as the trigger, may all be part of a cunning plan (and a Tojan Horse, again, for CPZs - nice little earners as a punishment tax on car ownership).


If it is, basically, anti-car, then don't expect any quick or sensible resolutions - oh, and we don't seem to be getting any of those, do we?.

I don't think it's explicitly anti-car. I think it's simply an exercise in reducing the amount of parking space so that residents cry out a CPZ across the area ? a nice little earner for the Council with no long-term benefit to the residents. In these times of 'savage cuts', many Council activities are primarily geared up to revenue-raising.

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...