former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[fazer71]

planning nonsense ..

What do you expect it's Loony Southwark !!!!!

[intexasatthe moment]

I'm sure an example of an agrieved neighbour - presumably only time before there is one - would make a nice little story for the local press .

Then more people will be aware of it and maybe there will be more hope of putting pressure on Southwark to review this situation .

It's a nonsensense as it stands . Having a policy that seeks to extend double yellows to improve safety while at the same time telling people who have dropped kerbs that it's ok for friends and relatives to park next to their dropped kerb and that enforcement will be only actioned on the residents say so .

[Penguin68]

As regards dropped kerbs and yellow lines and (implied) draconian enforcement - there is clearly an agenda here - it may be about reduction of available parking space (which dropped kerbs on their own with minimal white lines don't really do, but an additional 4 metre exclusion zone would) - therefore as a Trojan Horse for parking zones (in which case, don't expect a rushed response on this thread) - or it may be that officials have been give confusing and contradictory requirements and are demonstrating the madness of these.

Either which way, requiring yellow lines on new build dropped kerbs and (in effect) no lines on existing ones (as white lines won't be replaced) is clearly both mad and perverse.

(Which is not to say that yellow lines on dropped kerbs around crossing points etc. or on corners are unreasonable ? these would contribute to safety.)

[intexasatthe moment]

Penguin - the requirements are quite clear .

The presence of a new dropped kerb is only cited as one circumstance where yellow lines may be installed . So yes ,perhaps I am imagining a draconian reaction .

Apparently it's illegal and can now be enforced to park across a dropped kerb with or without markings .

But yes I think the advice to residents that it is in their power to sanction parking close to their dropped kerb is contradictory . And open to abuse by those with a grudge .

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/3069/dropped_kerbs_and_driveways/4

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/3069/dropped_kerbs_and_driveways/3

"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."

As for an agenda ,I don't know .

[AbDabs]

intexasatthemoment, I wonder if you it might help to clarify if you read section 86 of part 6 of the Traffic management act 2004 (London is a 'special enforcement area'). You'll see that property owners allowing visitors to park alongside a dropped kerb is not a gift given by Southwark but simply the law. the reason that Southwark give home owners the choice as to enforcement is that it would be too time-wasting for the traffic wardens to work out if someone has been given permission or not. So it is a money saving matter not something devious.

But the bit about double yellows which will stop people like me allowing visitors (or anyone who politely knocks on my front door) from parking across my dropped kerb - well, that is frankly stupid and the reason why I have always been against CPZs (as yellow lines were stated to be obligatory).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/part/6

[intexasatthe moment]

That's very interesting thank you .

I would read

"Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.

(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where?

(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of?

(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or

(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge;

This is subject to the following exceptions.

(3)The second exception is where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises."

as meaning the resident ( of the house with the dropped kerb ) can allow people to park across his dropped kerb outside his residence .

Southwark's website has this "you and your visitors may park close to this type of driveway without penalty. "

I don't read " close to this type of driveway " as the same as " outside residential premises ."

Maybe it's just my reading but to me " park close to this type of driveway " is different .

I understand that it is an offence to park across a dropped kerb ,what I'm concerned about is parking either side of that dropped kerb .

[AbDabs]

I'm certain that Southwark's term 'close' means at the point where there is a dropped kerb*. i.e. the moment there is no drop kerb then it is open season (although high sided vans/lorries parking right up to the end of a drop kerb can cause a sight/access hazard** which would be in breach of the law simply as dangerous parking).

To be fair to Southwark I think they were just trying to use normal language, and minimal words, ie 'driveway', instead of 'dropped kerb that has been installed for the purposes of allowing vehicle access across a pedestrian, or cycle path to a residence', which gets a bit of a mouthful every time you say it.

*(but only if there is no yellow line as that trumps everything).

** I think this may be what is causing the current thinking - some of the older dropped kerb resident accesses are too short such that if wide high sided vans/lorries park either side you can be boxed in.

[intexasatthe moment]

" ** I think this may be what is causing the current thinking - some of the older dropped kerb resident accesses are too short such that if wide high sided vans/lorries park either side you can be boxed in."

Well if it were informing their thinking it would make more sense to paint yellow lines giving adequate site lines over existing dropped kerbs that are deficient as opposed to making new dropped kerbs the ( possible ) target of yellow lines .

James - what are your views ?

[traveler2]

Hi James, have you heard anything about an approval given for allowing the Nunhead Primary School to share the site with the new secondary school where the Dulwich Hospital currently is?

Trav

[MissusF]

Thanks James. Will email you.

[James Barber]

traveler2 Wrote:

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

> Hi James, have you heard anything about an

> approval given for allowing the Nunhead Primary

> School to share the site with the new secondary

> school where the Dulwich Hospital currently is?

>

> Trav

Hi traveler2,

Only one free school is currently approved awaiting confirmation of a site - the second East Dulwich Harris Primary school which bizarely they've given a working title of Harris Nunhead Primary school.

The application from both Haberdashers' Aske's Federation and Charter Federation have been submitted to open local secondary schools were submitted last Friday 10 October and we won't hear the result until around late January time at the earleist.

So as the only approved free school the Dept for Education and Educational Finanace Agency is at this time minded to put the junior school on a small part of the Dulwich Community Hospital site. Primary schools typically need 1,800m2 as a minimum. The NHS are expecting to release 19-21,000m2 of land after they've put all the planned health services into one super new building (where the currently flattened land is at the eastern end of the site).

A secondary school would ideally have 19,550m2 of land. So it is possible to house both schools there with proper travel planning reducing the number of teacher car parking spaces and perhpas having secondary school buildings as high as the current Dulwich Hospital buildings. I'd prefer the primary school be placed on an alternative site but it is Southwark COuncil zoning another site such as 520 Lordship Lane that is the determining factor.

but a bigger problem is that Southwark Council in 2005 before any thought we'd need more school places zoned the hospital site for health, HOUSING and possibly educational use. So the land valued for housing redevelopment is so hightly valued that only a small amount could be afforded for new schools. 19,550m2 would cost more than ?65M. It would be the most expensive state secondary school of all time.

BUT if Southwark re zone the land solely for health and educational use the land values would be significantly lower at around ?12M i.e. affordable. The current book value of the site is ?18M of which 2/3rd would go to educational use).

I have repeatedly asked Southwark Council to re zone this site but so far they have not acted on these.

[James Barber]

Hi pipsky2008,

Bike removed.

With your help I've match maked Southwark, Veolia and a bicycle recyclnig charity. In future bicycles disposed of by residents wont be sold for metal scrap but recycled. Embarassed this wasn't taking place.

Many thanks for your help in making this happen.

Regards james.

pipsky2008 Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Hi pipsky2008,

> > Isn't that immediately outside the entrance to

> 12

> > studio flats above the Coop/

> > Are you absolutely sure it hasn't moved in any

> > way?

> > When I lock my bike up I always do it in

> exactly

> > the same way with the same locks through the

> same

> > points.

> > I'd hate for a resident to get entangled with

> > Southwark Council about as bicycle being

> removed

> > that they had legitemately parked.

>

> Hello James

>

> You are correct about the location of the bicycle.

> I spoke to a road sweeper this morning who says he

> hasn't seen it being moved, either arriving or

> departing, in a long time, since the end last

> summer, he says. I would agree with that

> timescale.

>

> Have a look at it's condition and road worthiness

> when you past it next and see what you think.

[pipsky2008]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi pipsky2008,

> Bike removed.

> With your help I've match maked Southwark, Veolia

> and a bicycle recyclnig charity. In future

> bicycles disposed of by residents wont be sold for

> metal scrap but recycled. Embarassed this wasn't

> taking place.

> Many thanks for your help in making this happen.

>

> Regards james.

Hello James

Yes, it has gone. Thank you for attending to it and for taking up the suggestion.

There needs to be, and I am surprised not to have seen this, a sticker or notice applied to the cycle, from the council/police, to the cycle owner, notifying them that the machine will be removed within 28 days.

The issue needs to be raised in the first place of course.

>

>

> pipsky2008 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > James Barber Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Hi pipsky2008,

> > > Isn't that immediately outside the entrance

> to

> > 12

> > > studio flats above the Coop/

> > > Are you absolutely sure it hasn't moved in

> any

> > > way?

> > > When I lock my bike up I always do it in

> > exactly

> > > the same way with the same locks through the

> > same

> > > points.

> > > I'd hate for a resident to get entangled with

> > > Southwark Council about as bicycle being

> > removed

> > > that they had legitemately parked.

> >

> > Hello James

> >

> > You are correct about the location of the

> bicycle.

> > I spoke to a road sweeper this morning who says

> he

> > hasn't seen it being moved, either arriving or

> > departing, in a long time, since the end last

> > summer, he says. I would agree with that

> > timescale.

> >

> > Have a look at it's condition and road

> worthiness

> > when you past it next and see what you think.

[James Barber]

Agreed Pipsky2008,

Fortunately I'm told this doesnt happen often - we're not like Cambridge railway station.

apparently most council recovered biycles are via the bulk collections services.

[LS1234]

James, could you let us know if there is anything we can do about this new double yellow line/dropped kerb issue? I emailed you all the information we received from Southwark and would just like to know if you think there is anyway of fighting it? Thanks.

[tiddles]

Ditto

[James Barber]

Hi LS1234, tiddles,

Yes we can. A colleague has offered to help us get this started. It does seem a barmy set of changes.

[intexasatthe moment]

"Yes we can." How ?

"A colleague has offered to help us get this started." What action is the colleague going to take ?

Will you and Renata be co operating on this ?

Could you give more detail ? It's frustrating after such period of silence to have so sparse a reply .

[intexasatthe moment]

I know you've been tied up with the issue of school/s on the Dulwich Hospital site which I appreciate is more pressing ,but ..... still anxious to have this sorted and to know how/if you or other councillors can help .

[James Barber]

Cross-overs.

Southwark Council has changed it policy. It no longer installs new white lines across cross-overs.

White lines mean a resident can ask for a vehicle blocking a cross-over/drive to be removed if blocked in by them. It means residents can choose who parks across their own driveways.

Resolving blocked drives is a low level response from the Police unless extentuating circumstance. One local case was an on-call surgeon who was required urgently in theatre and the Police were stunningly quick and rightly so.

But seeing people parked across driveways where white lines clearly tempts some to try it themselves.

Instead Southwark Council now offer double yellow lines to keep driveways clear. Clearly this is much more enforceable. But it means residents can;t choose who parks across their driveway. So overall parking capacity is down.

The yellow lines are extended to 2 metres either side of the driveway. That removes another 2 x 1/2 car parking spaces.

So I don't see why Southwark Council would want to add to parking stress across Southwark. Removing so much car parknig capacity clearly hasn't been thought through.

IF you have a current white line. I woudl suggest you collect all the documentation you can about it and take some photos of it. Where they've been removed in East Dulwich and I've been told I've been able to get the white lines reinstated. This was where residents had paid for the whitelines, had a signed a legal agreement with Sotuhwark Council and paid money for it.

If anyone needs help getting a white line put back under these circumstances please get in touch.

[Penguin68]

My dropped kerb is at least 26 years old (there when we bought the house) and is white lined - last time it was white lined by the council was when my road was re-surfaced 2 years ago - all dropped kerbs were then so treated. I have no documentation but can certainly photograph it.

White lines are only ever 'advisory' - are really there to give guidelines as to how close a car could park without blocking the exit (and risk being knocked by an exiting vehicle). The ones painted in extend no more than 2 feet past the exit - pretty well matching the 'sloping' small kerb-stone as it rises to the normal pavement height.

There are some house which are visited by (regular) ambuslances, for either elderly or child disabled/ invalids - I can imagine that they might want to preserve space if necessary using yellow lines - otherwise since white lines carry no legal rights (and could be painted in/ restored by ordinary citizens if they want...)

[intexasatthe moment]

James - the issue here is not retaining white lines but addressing the crazy policy that now enables Southwark to install double yellow lines which extend well beyond the dropped kerb . How strange that you seem to have missed the point .

Southwark advise that parking across dropped kerbs is ( in most circumstances ) an offence regardless of road marking or their absence .

Helpfully they give no detail on the " most circumstances " .

The enforcement procedures they refer to includes parking tickets and need not involve police time .

What steps are being taken by the colleague who has offered to get action started on this crazy policy ?

I know that Renata is also talking to Southwark about the yellow lines issue ( not ,for clarity ,reinstatement of white line ) are you going to be working together ?

[edc]

Hi James,

If possible can you please look into the road/parking problems in the East Dulwich Station locality.

Rather then what's already wrote - you can have a look at :

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1414112

Thanks for your help.

[intexasatthe moment]

For the record ,I think that you are brave being so available on this forum .It leaves you open to lots of slings and arrows and must result in untold levels of work .

But ...there are bound to be some issues which are not up your street ( see what I did there ? ) and which you lack the interest or ability to get to the bottom of .

Which is fine . What I find difficult is being teased with " watch this space ,will have something by Monday " " colleagues are on it " ,and shifting the question on to something else .

[James Barber]

HI IATATM,

No lack of interest. Lack of time - and I short change my family too much as it is. And my new day time job is more demanding that the previous two.