Proposed 10km new double yellow lines across Dulwich

[@Woodwarde]

James

How is it permitted for Paul Gellard to communicate with Village Cllrs and and not other Ward Cllrs? The impacts for East Duliwch and College Ward are also significant.

You refer to the move of powers from the DCC and I understand that a paper has been circulated to Councillors. Are you able to share it?

[Huggers]

Ten metres of double yellow junction lines on small residential roads with multiple junctions into other small residential roads, will have a huge impact on parking.

Residents in my area (Bellenden/Adys/Nutbrook maze of small roads) have resisted residents parking and actively opposed it in two surveys. A way of Southwark changing minds would be to put more pressure on parking which is what these double yellow lines will do.

I notice there are already double yellow lines on a lot of our local junctions, but not ten meters, and to the eye this looks like more than adequate length.

We have a problem with huge lorries being directed through our small streets by their sat navs. We have asked the council to discourage this with signposting 'unsuitable for large vehicles'. They often get stuck on the corners. Are these double yellow lines an attempt to solve this, making corners clear for huge lorries to turn? We would rather have the signs.

I think the lines are a cynical attempt to bring in Residents parking by stealth.

[Abe_froeman]

Ten metres is not the standard. I'm sure James will clarify.

[katgod]

Agree - where there are multiple junctions in cross proximity - like Crystal Palace Road with Pellat, Rodwell, Heber, Goodrich, 10 metres at each of those junctions will have massive impact on a bit of road that does not suffer poor sight lines.

How do I object formally please?

[Huggers]

the reply I got to my objection, so Ive objected again. Of course they haven't had complaints about detrimental effects if they haven't yet implemented the policy!!!----

Thank you for your objection to the proposal to install double yellow lines on all junctions within The Lane ward.

Borough wide junction protection

Within The Lane ward, a majority 85% of road junctions have existing yellow line markings to prevent ?unsafe?, inconsiderate and obstructive parking. Only 15% of roads junctions in The Lane Ward remain unprotected.

In our experience, we have found that parking problems are mainly caused by out of town commuters wanting to park near to places such as railway stations, shops and hospitals. We have never received complaints about parking problems due to yellow lines installed on a road junction.

There are cost savings to be had introducing junction protection at all junctions per ward instead of doing them Adhoc individually, for the past decade we have regularly presented local parking amendments to community council, to install double yellow lines on junctions and over the past 5 years.

The reason for our blanket approach is so that there is a consistency of junctions within the Lane ward area and across the borough, hence a more efficient spend of the council's money. We accept that there are varying pressures upon parking in the area but to install it at some junctions, but not others, would mean that the council would need to re-evaluate those junctions at a future date. This would require additional funding of approximately ?5000 on each occasion.

Parking close to a junction is deemed unsafe and whilst we appreciate that parking stress in some streets may be high, road safety needs to take priority over the loss of ?unsafe? parking. It is good practise to be proactive in improving safety at junctions for all road users including pedestrians, cyclists and not just sight lines improvements for driver of vehicles.

The full rationale, explaining why we are proposing double yellow on junctions within The Lane Ward can be found in the report presented to Peckham and Nunhead community council on 6/2/16.

Controlled Parking Zone (CPZs)

Since 2011 the council has received few requests from residents for a CPZ or reporting parking problems, it is for this reason, we do not have plans to consult upon a parking zone in the area. Currently, our resources are prioritised in other parts of the borough.

The Statutory consultation closes today 14 April 2016 and as we have received other objections, your objection will be sent to the Peckham and Nunhead community council for determination at the next meeting being held 29 June 2016, this is a public meeting and if you wish to attend can find meeting details here.

Kind regards

Michael Herd

Network development officer

Highways ? Parking design

[????]

Ker-Foooking-Ching...blatant attempt to money grab by reducing parking as is but also 'forcing' people to begrudgingly accept future CPZ proposals.

Put me in the formal object pile too.

Can local Councillors please tell us, the voters, where they personally stand on this too?

[alex_b]

Huggers Wrote:

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

> Ten metres of double yellow junction lines on

> small residential roads with multiple junctions

> into other small residential roads, will have a

> huge impact on parking.

>

> Residents in my area (Bellenden/Adys/Nutbrook maze

> of small roads) have resisted residents parking

> and actively opposed it in two surveys. A way of

> Southwark changing minds would be to put more

> pressure on parking which is what these double

> yellow lines will do.

>

> I notice there are already double yellow lines on

> a lot of our local junctions, but not ten meters,

> and to the eye this looks like more than adequate

> length.

>

> We have a problem with huge lorries being directed

> through our small streets by their sat navs. We

> have asked the council to discourage this with

> signposting 'unsuitable for large vehicles'. They

> often get stuck on the corners. Are these double

> yellow lines an attempt to solve this, making

> corners clear for huge lorries to turn? We would

> rather have the signs.

>

> I think the lines are a cynical attempt to bring

> in Residents parking by stealth.

I'm also an Bellenden/Adys/Nutbrook resident and the problem is lorries and coaches (and others) using the roads as a rat-run to avoid Rye Lane not parking by residents near the intersections (most of which already have some junction protection).

Everything the council does to the roads round here seems to make lives worse for the residents whilst doing nothing to reduce the traffic volume or impact. For instance the speed bumps just mean that rather than having an large lorry drive speed past my bedroom at 11pm, I now get a lorry at speed crashing over a speedbump at 11pm (ten times the noise but no improvement in safety or reduction in traffic volume). I was in correspondence with an officer about taking action against lorries and coaches in the area, they conducted a traffic survey but have now left the council and their replacement hasn't replied to my queries about what follow up action is proposed.

I objected in writing, got a pathetic copy and paste "explanation" and renewed my objection. I've yet to hear when the public meeting will be, I intend to turn up and object if possible.

[James Barber]

This is what I've said to officers today preparing for next Dulwich Community Council meeting 22 june:

@

Hi Michael,

7.5 or 10.0m seems over the top for the junctions shown as red.

For example side roads with Handcraft Road. The average speeds along these roads is under 20mph. The crash rate is negligible and the proposed double yellow lines statistically will make no difference.

I can see a benefit in crossing the road. On this basis how can we limit the lining to 2.0m?

"

[alex_b]

So I just got a rejection notice from the council, looks like the lines are going ahead despite our complaints. The message they sent was:

---

Determination of statutory objection to H/ND/TMO 1516-041 relating to the double yellow lines on junctions proposal for BOROUGH-WIDE JUNCTION PROTECTION: THE LANE WARD.

I am writing to inform you of the council?s decision following your objection to the above proposed Order(s), notice of intent to make that order is made on 14 July 2016 .

In accordance with Regulation 13 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996[1][1] the council has considered your objection.

The decision has been taken by the relevant decision maker as set out in the Southwark Council?s constitution[2][2].

Consideration of the objection

Your objection was considered by Peckham and Nunhead community council on 29 June 2016.

Summary of decision

In consideration of the objection, the Peckham and Nunhead community council has: decided that the objections, made in relation to proposed waiting restrictions (double yellow lines) on unrestricted junctions and upgrade junctions with single yellow lines in The Lane Ward be rejected and that the proposals approved at the 4 February 2016 community council be implemented.

[Henry_17]

Alex,

Instantly contact GBOR for longest example of saying computer says no. Shoe in.

[alex_b]

Indeed. "We have received your well thought out objection (and many like it) and have decided to do what we were going to do anyway."

[goosey-goosey]

It's shocking that a Local Authority has such bad communication skills (there's no summary in the letter of the reasons our objections were rejected) let alone decision-making skills.

I also live in the Adys/Maxted/Nutbrook rat-run matrix. Couldn't have put it better, alex_b.

[alex_b]

It gets worse; having consulted on double yellows on the North East side of Adys Rd at Nutbrook, they decided to paint them on the South East side too. I've emailed the council (got the usual gibberish reply) and emailed my ward councillors (and have been ignored as per usual). Pretty sure what they've done is unlawful, but I'm not sure I can fight the machine.

[diddly28]

Who is the Peckham Councillors responsible? Is it too late to try and voice objection to this?

[sela]

alex_b most candidates/councillors ignores any email. Even before the election I tried to contact and big ignore from most of the local ones and the candidates to the mayor, but people don't care. they vote for candidates who promise what they can't fulfil.

[alex_b]

It's the Lane Ward councillors, I've emailed them and heard nothing unsurprisingly.

[MarkT]

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

[alex_b]

Which was basically the point that a dozen of us made when we objected to the double yellows. Unfortunately we were ignored and "our" councillors don't seem particularly interested in engaging with us. This is in contrast with the ED councillors (including James Barber) who blocked the stupid proposal at their community council.

[@Woodwarde]

Our Village Ward Councillor has advised that Southwark Council will start to place statutory and consultation street notices at each junction in Dulwich wards from next Monday to be completed by the start of the consultation. The consultation starts on Thursday 24 November but you can leave a response on the consultation hub from today. Everyone that makes a response to the consultation will receive an acknowledgement.

NOTE: Attached to this post are the questions that are asked on the consultation.

From: Herbert, Richard

Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 11:34 AM

EDITED for privacy:

To: Met police; london-fire; personal to local resident(s); Southwark disability forum; British Motorcyclists Federation; Road haulage association ltd; Freight transport association ltd; London TravelWatch; LT Buses network operations; TfL; LTDA; Southwark Cyclists; Sustrans; Veolia;

Cc: Herd, Michael; Hartley, Jon; Rose, Catherine; Simmons, Andy; Barber, James; Shimell, Rosie; Smith, Charlie; Kirby, Anne; Lyons, Jane; Mitchell, Michael

Subject: [LBS traffic orders] Borough-wide junction protection: College, East Dulwich and Village wards

Our ref: H/ND/TMO1617-012

Dear stakeholder

London Borough of Southwark

Borough-wide junction protection: College, East Dulwich and Village wards

The London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. *) Order 201*

In accordance with the council of the London Borough of Southwark's usual procedures on traffic and parking schemes, I wish to draw your attention to the above proposal - the effects of which are described more fully in the documents linked here:-

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/14244/borough-wide_junction_protection_college_east_dulwich_and_village_wards_-_public_notice_dated_24_november_2016

(A text version of the notice is included at the foot of this e-mail to assist reading on mobile devices).

If you wish to make any comments regarding these proposals, please send them to me using either the e-mail or postal address below by 22 December 2016.

If you have any queries or wish to discuss the matter further, please e-mail [email protected] or call 020 7525 2005.

Yours sincerely

Richard Herbert

Traffic orders officer

Highways | network development

Southwark council

Environment

Floor 3 hub 2

160 Tooley Street

London SE1 2QH

020 7525 2005

[email protected]

www.southwark.gov.uk/trafficorders

--

LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK

BOROUGH-WIDE JUNCTION PROTECTION: COLLEGE, EAST DULWICH AND VILLAGE WARDS

The London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. *) Order 201*

1. Southwark Council hereby GIVES NOTICE that it proposes to make the above order under the powers of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

2. The effect of the order would be to introduce new lengths of ?at any time? waiting restrictions, 7.5 metres in length (unless otherwise stated), in:-

College ward

ACACIA GROVE, on both sides at its junction with Alleyn Park (16 metres);

ALLEYN PARK, (i) on both sides at its junction with Acacia Grove (16 metres), (ii) on both sides at its junction with Park Hall Road (22 metres on the north-east side, 15 metres on the south-west side;

ALLEYN ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Park Hall Road (13.5 metres on the north-east side, 12 metres on the south-west side), (ii) on the north-east side at its junction with Alleyn Crescent, (iii) on the south-west side across the vehicular access adjacent to Nos. 2a-c Alleyn Road (15 metres), (iv) on the west side at its junction with Church Approach (13.7 metres on the south side);

BELVOIR ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Underhill Road;

CHURCH APPROACH, on both sides at its junction with Alleyn Road;

COLLEGE ROAD, (i) the east side, at its junction with Fountain Drive, (ii) the west side, between a point 8 metres south of the boundary of Nos. 126 and 128 and a point 6 metres south of the boundary of Nos. 128 and 130 College Road, (iii) both sides at its junction with Dulwich Wood Park (13 metres), (iv) the west side at its junction with Crystal Court;

CRYSTAL PALACE PARADE, the north-west side between its junctions with Fountain Drive and Sydenham Hill (23 metres);

DULWICH WOOD AVENUE, (i) the south-east and north side of the western end of the triangular island site opposite The Garvens, No 57 Dulwich Wood Avenue, (ii) the south-west side outside Nos. 51-53 Dulwich Wood Avenue (20 metres);

DULWICH WOOD PARK, (i) the north side at its junction with College Road (12.5 metres), (ii) the south side at its junction with Lymer Avenue, (iii) the south-west and south side at its junction with Farquhar Road (10 metres);

CRESCENT WOOD ROAD, (i) at its western junction with Sydenham Hill, (ii) the south side at its western junction with the northern access road to Countisbury House, (iii) the south side at its eastern junction with the northern access road to Countisbury House;

CROXTED ROAD, (i) on the north-east side at its junction with the service road fronting Nos. 2-10 Croxted Road, (ii) the service road fronting Nos. 2-10 Croxted Road, on both sides of between its junction with the main carriageway of Croxted Road and the boundary of Nos. 8 and 10 Croxted Road;

FARQUHAR ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Dulwich Wood Park (26 metres), (ii) on the north-east side at the entrance to garages adjacent to No. 78 Farquhar Road (14 metres), (iii) on the south-west side at its junction with the access road to Glenhurst Court, (iv) on the north-east side at the entrance to garages adjacent to No. 64 Farquhar Road (14 metres), (v) on the north-east side at its junction with Tylney Avenue (24 metres on the north side of the junction), (vi) on the south-west side at its junction with the access road to Lowood Court, (vii) on the north-east side at the entrance to garages at the rear of Nos. 1-12 Tylney Avenue (10 metres);

FOUNTAIN DRIVE, (i) the south-west side at its junction with College Road, (ii) the south-west side at its junction with Hogarth Court;

ILDERSLY GROVE, on both sides at its junction with Park Hall Road;

KINGSWOOD DRIVE, (i) the main carriageway, on the south-east side at its junction with the east to west arm leading to Nos. 12-30 Kingswood Drive (11.5 metres south-west of the junction), (ii) the east to west arm, throughout both sides (17 metres), (iii) the north to south arm fronting Nos. 12-30 Kingswood Drive, the west side at its junction with the east to west arm;

LANGTON RISE, on both sides at its junction with Underhill Road;

OVERHILL ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Underhill Road, (ii) on the south-east side at its junction with Lordship Lane;

PARK HALL ROAD, (i) on the north-west side at its junction with Acacia Road, (ii) on the south-east side at its junction with Alleyn Park (19 metres); (iii) on both sides at its junction with Alleyn Road and Ildersly Grove, (iv) on the north-west side at its junction with the service road fronting Nos. 2-10 Croxted Road;

ROUSE GARDENS, (i) the arm fronting Nos. 12-18 Rouse Gardens, on both sides at its junction with the arm fronting Nos. 6-24 Rouse Gardens, (ii) the arm fronting Nos. 6-24 Rouse Gardens, on the east side at its junction with the arm leading to garages at the rear of Linley Court, (iii) the arm fronting Nos. 6-24 Rouse Gardens, on the east side at its junction with the arm fronting Whitfield Court, (iv) the arm leading to garages at the rear of Linley Court, on the south side at its junction with the arm fronting Whitfield Court, (v) the arm fronting Whitfield Court, on both sides at its junction with the arm leading to garages at the rear of Linley Court, (vi) the arm fronting Whitfield Court, on both sides at its junction with the arm fronting Nos. 6-24 Rouse Gardens;

SYDENHAM HILL, (i) the west side at its junction with Rock Hill (17 metres north of the junction), (ii) the west side at its southern junction with Woodseyre, (iii) the north-west side at its northern junction with Woodseyre, (iv) the north-west side at its junctions with the access road to Nos. 27-32 Sydenham Hill and Crouchmans Close (15 metres in between these junctions), (v) the north-west side at its western junction with Crescent Wood Road (14 metres south-west of and 24 metres north-east of the junction), (vi) the north side at its junction with the access road to No. 41 Sydenham Hill, (vii) the north-west side at its junction with the southern access road to Countisbury House, (viii) the west side at its junction with the access road to Attleborough Court and Dunton Court;

UNDERHILL ROAD, (i) on the east side at its junction with Overhill Road, (ii) on the south-east side at its junction with Langton Rise, (iii) on the north-west side at its junction with the access road to Belvoir Lodge, (iv) on the north-west side at its junction with Belvoir Road;

East Dulwich ward

ARCHDALE ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Crawthew Grove and Frogley Road;

ASHBOURNE GROVE, on both sides at its junction with Melbourne Grove;

BARRY ROAD, (i) on the north-west side at its junction with the access road to Halliwell Court, (ii) on the north-west side at its junction with Silvester Road;

BASSANO STREET, (i) on the south and north-east sides of the bend in the road outside No. 22 Bassano Street, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Blackwater Street;

BLACKWATER STREET, (i) on the north side at its junction with Bassano Street, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Melbourne Grove;

CHESTERFIELD GROVE, on the north side at its junction with Melbourne Grove;

CRAWTHEW GROVE, (i) on the south-west side at its junction with Archdale Road and Frogley Road, (ii) on the north-east side at its junction with Worlingham Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Lacon Road;

CREBOR STREET, (i) on both sides at its junction with Upland Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Dunstan's Road;

CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD, (i) on the north-west side at its junction with the access road to Nos. 158-172 Crystal Palace Road, (ii) on the north-west side at its junction with Landcroft Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Silvester Road, (iv) on the west side at its junction with Pellatt Road, (v) on the west side at its junction with Rodwell Road, (vi) on the west side at its junction with Heber Road, (vi) on the north-west side at its junction with Jennings Road, (vii) on both sides at its junction with Goodrich Road (12.5 metres south-west of the junction on the north-west side), (viii) on the north-west side at its junction with Thompson Road;

CYRENA ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Silvester Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Pellatt Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Rodwell Road, (iv) on both sides at its junction with Heber Road;

DUNSTAN'S ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Goodrich Road, (ii) on the north-west side at its junction with Crebor Street, (iii) on the north-west side at its junction with Upland Road;

ETHEROW STREET, on the south-west side at its junction with Norcroft Gardens;

FRIERN ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Goodrich Road (9 metres south-west of the junction), (ii) on the south-east side at its junction with the access road to Nos. 343-437 Friern Road;

FROGLEY ROAD, (i) on the south-east side at its junction with Nutfield Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Archdale Road and Crawthew Grove;

GOODRICH ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Landcroft Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road (13.5 metres east of the junction on the north side, 9.5 metres east of the junction on the south side), (iii) on both sides at its junction with Landells Road, (iv) on both sides at its junction with Friern Road, (v) on both sides at its junction with Upland Road, (v) on both sides at its junction with Dunstan's Road;

HEBER ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Landcroft Road, (ii) on the north side at its junction with Cyrena Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road;

JENNINGS ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Landcroft Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road;

LACON ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Crawthew Grove (12 metres on the west side);

LANDCROFT ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Whateley Road, (ii) on the south-east side at its junction with Silvester Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Pellatt Road, (iv) on the east side at its junction with Rodwell Road, (v) on both sides at its junction with Heber Road, (vi) on the north-east side at its junction with Jennings Road, (vii) on both sides at its junction with Goodrich Road, (viii) on the north-east side at its junction with Thompson Road, (ix) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road;

LANDELLS ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Goodrich Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Goodrich Road;

MATHAM GROVE, on both sides at its junction with East Dulwich Grove;

MELBOURNE GROVE, (i) on the north-east side at its junction with Tell Grove, (ii) on the north-east side at its junction with Ashbourne Grove, (iii) on the north-east side at its junction with Chesterfield Grove, (iv) on the north-east side at its junction with Blackwater Street;

NUTFIELD ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Frogley Road;

OXONIAN STREET, on both sides at its junction with Zenoria Street;

PELLATT ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Landcroft Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Cyrena Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road;

RODWELL ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Landcroft Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Cyrena Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road;

SILVESTER ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Landcroft Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Cyrena Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road, (iv) on both sides at its junction with Landells Road;

TELL GROVE, (i) on both sides at its junction with East Dulwich Grove, (ii) on the west and north sides at the bend in the road outside No. 2 Tell Grove, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Melbourne Grove;

THOMPSON ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Landcroft Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Crystal Palace Road;

UNDERHILL ROAD, (i) on the south-west side at its junction with Victoria Close, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Upland Road;

UPLAND ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Underhill Road, (ii) on the south-east side at its junction with Crebor Street, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Goodrich Road (9 metres south-west of the junction on the north-west side), (iv) on both sides at its junction with Dunstan's Road;

WHATELEY ROAD, on the south-west side at its junction with Landcroft Road;

WORLINGHAM ROAD, on the north-west side at its junction with Crawthew Grove;

ZENORIA STREET, on both sides at its junction with Oxonian Street;

Village ward

BEAUVAL ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Townley Road, (ii) on the north-east side at its junction with Milo Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Woodwarde Road (8.6 metres on the north-east side);

BURBAGE ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Turney Road (15 metres south-west of the junction);

CALTON AVENUE, on the north-west side at its junction with Gilkes Crescent;

COLLEGE ROAD, on the east side at its junction with Frank Dixon Way;

COLWELL ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Melbourne Grove, (ii) on the north-west side at its junction with Playfield Crescent, (iii) on the south-east and north-east sides at the bend in the road outside No. 10 Colwell Road;

COURT LANE, (i) on the north-east side at its junction with Dekker Road, (ii) on the north-east side at its junction with Desenfans Road, (iii) on the north-east side at its junction with Druce Road, (iv) on the south-west side at its western junction with Court Lane Gardens, (v) on the south-west side at its eastern junction with Court Lane Gardens, (vi) on the north-east side at its junction with Eastlands Crescent, (vii) on both sides at its junction with Lordship Lane (12 metres on the north side, 19 metres on the south side);

DEKKER ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Woodwarde Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Court Lane;

DESENFANS ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Woodwarde Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Court Lane;

DOVERCOURT ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Townley Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Woodwarde Road, (ii) on the south-east side at its junction with Eastlands Crescent,

DRUCE ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Woodwarde Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Court Lane;

EASTLANDS CRECENT, (i) on both sides at its junction with Dovercourt Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Court Lane;

GILKES CRESCENT, on both sides at its junction with Calton Avenue;

GLENGARRY ROAD, (i) on the west side at its junction with Tarbert Road, (ii) on the south-west and north-west sides at the bend in the road outside No. 34 Glengarry Road, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Thorncombe Road;

HILLSBORO ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Thorncombe Road;

LORDSHIP LANE, on the south-west side at its junction with Court Lane (15 metres either side of the junction);

LYTCOTT GROVE, (i) on both sides at its junction with Melbourne Grove, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Playfield Crescent;

MELBOURNE GROVE, (i) on the west side at its junction with Lytcott Grove, (ii) on the south-west side at its junction with Colwell Road;

MILO ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Beauval Road;

PICKWICK ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Turney Road;

PLAYFIELD CRECENT, (i) on both sides at its junction with Colwell Road, (ii) on the west and north-west side at the bend in the road outside No. 4 Playfield Crescent, (iii) on both sides at its junction with Lytcott Grove;

ROSEWAY, (i) on both sides at its eastern junction with Turney Road, (ii) on both sides at its western junction with Turney Road;

TARBERT ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Glengarry Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Thorncombe Road;

THORNCOMBE ROAD, (i) on both sides at its junction with Glengarry Road (8.8 metres on the south-west side), (ii) on the south-west side at its junction with Hillsboro Road, (iii) on the north-east side at its junction with Tarbert Road, (iv) on the south-east side at its junctions with the access roads to No. 23-41 Hillsboro Road and Velde Way and Delft Way, (v) on the north-east side at its junction with Trossachs Road, (vi) on all sides of the turning head at the north-western end of Thorncombe Road (extending north-westward from a point 2 metres south-east of the north-western boundary of No. 1 Thorncombe Road on the north-east side);

TOWNLEY ROAD, (i) on the south-west side at its junction with Dovercourt Road, (ii) on the south side at its junction with Beauval Road;

TROSSACHS ROAD, on both sides at its junction with Thorncombe Road;

TURNEY ROAD, (i) the north-west side, at its eastern junction with Roseway, (ii) the south-east side, at its junction with Pickwick Road, (iii) the north-west side, at its western junction with Roseway, (iv) on both sides at its junction with Burbage Road (20 metres north-east and 15 metres south-west on the north-west side, 15 metres north-east and 18 metres south-west on the south-east side);

WOODWARDE ROAD, (i) on the north-east side at its junction with Beauval Road, (ii) on both sides at its junction with Dovercourt Road, (iii) on the south-west side at its junction with Druce Road, (iv) on the south-west side at its junction with Desenfans Road, (v) on the south-west side at its junction with Dekker Road.

The order would in addition formalise existing waiting restrictions (where necessary) in these and adjoining streets.

3. For more information contact Michael Herd of the council's Highways parking design team by telephone on 020 7525 2131 or e-mail [email protected]

4. Copies of this notice, the proposed order, a statement of the council's reasons for making this order and plans may be found online at http://www.southwark.gov.uk/trafficorders or paper copies may be obtained from or viewed at Highways, Environment, 3rd floor hub 2, 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH. Please telephone 020 7525 2005 for details.

5. Anyone wishing to object to or make any other representations regarding the proposal, may use this formhttps://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/borough-wide-junction-protection/ or send a statement in writing to: the Traffic orders officer, Highways, Southwark council, Environment, P.O. Box 64529, London SE1P 5LX or by e-mail to [email protected] quoting reference H/ND/TMO1617-012 by 22 December 2016. Please note that if you wish to object to this proposal you must state the grounds on which your objection is made.

6. When making an objection or representation, please be aware that this may be communicated to other people who may be affected. Information provided in response to this consultation, including in some circumstances personal information, may also be subject to publication or disclosure under the requirements of current access to information legislation.

Dated 24 November 2016

NICKY COSTIN

Parking and network management business unit manager

Regulatory services

[pop9770]

Looks and sounds like this is part of a grand plan to reduce available parking so drive the "need" to introduce CPZ's.

Southwark appear to be designed to fleece residents in every possible way and keep "specialists" busy.

I BET

NICKY COSTIN

Parking and network management business unit manager

Regulatory services

Is on a nice little earner together with all the others hanging on to the constant renewing of junctions parking markings and road layouts.

It's a never ending life time of change which has resulted in congestion and increased danger whilst these "improvements" are carried out.

THEY just can't leave things as they are for more than a few months CONSTANT change for Zero Gain !!!!

[James Barber]

This Traffic Management Order was issued is error and prematurely.

I immediately objected and tld the officer they must withdraw it.

I met with council highway officials on Friday and walked a sample of the East Dulwich junctions proposed to have 7.5m of double yellow lines added. I was asked to withdraw my objections to 7.5m else no double yellow lines would be placed.

Last night I appealed to the councillor in charge:

"

Hi Ian,

Speaking with officers they have an understandable programme to review all junctions en masse, rather than the historic piece meal approach, and implement double yellow lines at all junctions across Southwark that do not currently have them.

In East Dulwich this would equate to 35 junctions having double yellow lines added. The Highway Code rule 243 states people should not park within or opposite 10m of a junction (except in an authorised parking space). However no allowance or variation depending on local speed limits is included in this rule. So a rule that appears to be based on no evidence. Officers are proposing 7.5m of double yellow lines from the apex of every corner of every junction currently without double yellow lines as a compromise compared to 10m and to make some allowance for being a 20mph borough.

RoSPA suggests that where a junction has an existing accident (crash) problem measures such as improving visibility can help. They suggest a 20% crash reduction for such junctions in a rural setting. They? don?t have any evidence for a suburban setting. Looking at the Crashmap website a public database of all reported crash data we can see for these junctions that over the last 10 years crashes have occurred several times around these junction but at a much lower rate compared to junctions already with such double yellow lines. The last 3 years with 20mph sees virtually no reported crashes.

However, instinctively adding double yellow lines would make crossing these junctions safer. Too much lineage would give greater visibility and other research around Risk Compensation shows longer sight lines increases peoples propensity to drive faster.

I have suggested to council officers that 7.5m is too much and is likely to cause more harm, through longer sight lines and faster vehicles speeds, than a more limited amount of double yellow lines such as 2-3 m from each corners apex. Officers are clear it is all or nothing. They have asked whether I would request for East Dulwich that the Traffic Management Order proceeds on the basis of 7.5m or not at all.

Simple trigonometry vs. the 20mph speed limit and road widths suggest 7.5m of double yellow lines would give circa 17.5m of sightline. A 20mph vehicles needs 12m to completely stop. so 7.5m is clearly more than 20mph needs. it is likely to generate Risk Compensation from drivers i.e. they?ll drive faster. So if a crash occurs any pedestrian is much more likely to be seriously injured or worse.

Whereas 2-3m of double yellow lines would equate to a sightline of between 7.2m->8.9m which for most of these roads with less than 20mph 85th percentiles speeds is perfectly adequate and rationale.

So I would propose that the amount of double yellow lines is related to the actual 85th percentile speed limits recently recorded for each road involved in each of these junctions. But this would require direction from yourself to consider this or a change of heart from council officers.

One this basis I can no support the proposed Traffic Management Order proposing much more double yellow lines in an area with severe parking stress than appears mathematically required.

I would be happy to do the maths if officers do not have the time for this. I would be happy to spend a day with officers assessing each and every one of the 35 junctions in East Dulwich in such detail. I would then fully support a TMO based on such detailed assessments.

I therefore am approaching you to seek a compromised rational approach to this problem.

"

I await his response.

[James Barber]

Hi pop9970,

Council officers told me CPZ they always insist on 10m double yellow lines from corners. So no I don't believe this is a drive towards that.

I do think parking on some corners is dangerous so some proportionate double yellow lines would be a good thing. I can't campaign to encourage parents to let their children walk to school and not want every junction to be safe. But 7.5m appears overkill.

[rupert james]

Just how many people in the Borough have actually heard of these plans.

If you see pages of road names in the local papers do people read them to find out why they are there and then all respond, I think not.

Amazing the time many plans come out they seem to appear when a major holiday is in the offing.

Typical Southwark operating mode.

Thanks Cllr Barber for opposing this.

[bargee99]

Thank you for trying to inject some common sense into this James. I'm not holding my breath that they will listen though. I would have thought that with a 20 mph speed limit a clearance of one small cars length maximum from a junction apex, about 4 metres, would be more than sufficient.

[d.b]

Does seem rather arbitrary and ill thought-through, at least in the roads I know best.

Playfield Crescent is a completely traffic-free, relatively wide residential road with no real parking pressure.

Double yellow lines not just on each of its junction corners but seemingly at a bend in the middle are completely unnecessary and a total waste of council resources. I expect it will just serve to irritate those residents who currently park in those spots.