Proposed 10km new double yellow lines across Dulwich

[@Woodwarde]

Southwark?s full proposal with details for the 123 plus junctions is at:

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/borough-wide-junction-protection/

You can input for each location or road at:

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/borough-wide-junction-protection/consultation/intro/

You need to categorise each response & you can choose from one of 5 options:

Only comments submitted with objections need to be addressed by the Council. Options 4 or 5 are appropriate if you want the Council to say whether it accepts or rejects your feedback. The options are:

1. I wholly support this proposal; 2. I support this proposal, but would like the council to consider additional or alternative measures; 3. I neither support or object to this proposal, but would like the council to consider another related matter in this area; 4. I object to part of the proposal, but support or am neutral to other elements of it; 5. I wholly object to this proposal

Consultation comments from April:

1. They are unnecessary ? no history of accidents or bad parking

? This is not evidence based ? either on grounds of safety or traffic flow

? There is no history of requests for road markings, or complaints received about obstructive or inconsiderate parking or accidents that have occurred in Woodwarde Road.

? 20 MPH speed limit is working/preventing accidents.

? Raised junctions, white road markings are a sufficient alternative measure.

? Residents? experience is that cars park at a sensible distance from junctions and that cars slow down at junctions to see if side roads are clear. Installing over 15 metres of DYLs at junctions may encourage cars to take corners faster.

2. They destroy the residential character of the street ? turning a quiet conservation area into an urban thoroughfare

? Having nearly 100 metres of double yellow lines is out of keeping with a quiet residential street in a conservation area. This is not a main road and making it look like one will not only spoil the visual aspect of the streetscape but might encourage drivers to treat it as a highway.

3. The changes are too sweeping at a time of so many other local traffic and parking changes

? With the new Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in N. Dulwich; proposed QuietWay (for which no modelling has been done on traffic diversion from Court Lane to Woodwarde Road should priority change to Calton Avenue); proposed reserved parking for electric charging points; houses unable to install parking in front gardens, there is a high risk these changes could have unintended consequences.

4. They are a waste of taxpayers? money ? because ?this costly exercise? isn?t needed

? It is Kafkaesque ? spending taxpayers? money on a solution to a problem that doesn?t exist

? The proposal is based on the false premise that it would save the Council money to install DYLs at every junction in the Dulwich area, because the unit cost of each set of road markings would come down. However, there is no evidence that requests for DYLs would be made for any of these junctions (the current reactive basis on which junctions are assessed). So the total cost of installing DYLs at 123 junctions ? estimated at over half a million pounds in total ? is based on an entirely speculative hypothesis.

? Although the unit cost may be marginally more expensive to do them individually, it would be more logical to spread the cost over years rather than incur such a massive hit to the Council?s budget.

? It also assumes that all 123 junctions need them. However, not all junctions are the same and, unsurprisingly, most of the 238 junctions in the Dulwich area that have them already are main roads and most of those that do not are residential ones. It is therefore a false assumption to suppose that every junction needs them and, consequently, the financial argument doesn?t stand up to scrutiny

5. They remove parking spaces ? making parking a future problem when it?s not at present

? This is a residential street with few garages and a ban on future off-street parking.

? Even at 7.5 metres it removes nearly 100 metres of kerbside space in Woodwarde Road alone

? The Court Lane, Calton, Beauval , Townley and lengths are even longer - up to 28m.

? Painting yellow lines makes parking illegal. (Currently, although Highway Code advises against, it?s not illegal).

? Elderly residents are concerned they will not be able to park near their homes, preventing them from going out, especially after dark. Those hampered by poorer mobility are at more at risk of tripping and slipping.

? Parents are also concerned - carrying babies/ supervising toddlers is difficult if they have to park some distance away.

? It would create extra noise and pollution as cars drive round and round looking for spaces.

? It will put off visitors to local amenities ? shops, park, church and library - at a time when these are under threat from online shopping and, ironically, council funding cuts.

? There is concern that this could lead to, or force, controlled parking when it doesn?t have to.

6. They ignore residents? views , making a mockery of consulting the public, increasing public distrust of local politicians

? Despite, in the words of the Traffic Officers, ?the vast majority of responses opposed to proposals? in the April general consultation, ?officer recommendations remain unchanged?. Residents understandably feel their views are being ignored and that the public consultation is undemocratic and disingenuous.

? There is a strong and growing concern that proposals to eliminate parking spaces by making parking illegal near junctions is part of a systematic plan to target cars and car owners as a source of Council revenue and that once DYLs have been installed at every junction, the next step will be to make every part of Dulwich a Controlled Parking Zone. With residents? parking permits costing ?125 per car and charging for vans on service visits to houses, this is a major tax-raising revenue earner for the Council.

[Nigello]

I'm all for clamping (!) down on bad driving and illegal parking but this looks like a form of bullying with the desire to pave the way for a CPZ. I'm sure that some junctions would need a certain length of DYL extension it not all. Much better to employ PSOs or traffic wardens consistently at problem junctions and ask local schools/churches to do more to ask parents/congregation etc to act more responsibly.

[James Barber]

Hi @Woodwarede,

This consultation is proceeding against the express wishes of two of the East Dulwich councillors - myself and Cllr Rosie Shimell.

We've become embroiled with the council legal department as the consultation has proceeded in direct contravention of a minuted recommendations of the Dulwich Community Council.

Whether you support or object to each individual proposal you need to formally respond to the consultation. Posts here wont count!

And officers are clear each junction will be assessed seperately based on responses for that junction.

Officers did say the decision would come back to ward councillors but have since indicated it will be made by the cabinet councillor.

[Zebedee Tring]

James, perhaps you could give us more detail about your involvement with the Legal Department on this issue. If you get nowhere with them, you could take the matter up with the Monitoring Officer on the ground that the Council's decision to proceed with the consultation was illegal.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Seriously, at a time of financial constraints on local authorities, you have to wonder how stuff like this is still happening. It's absolutely crazy.

[pebs]

Done. This proposal is ridiculous.

[Dr De Soto]

I've registered my objection to this absurd proposal, and would encourage others to do the same.

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/borough-wide-junction-protection/consultation/intro/

[Bobby P]

Have also listed in my formal complaint the utter wastefulness of taxpayer money, the total lack of need for this, and the fact that it will actually degrade the quality of life for many, not help it. Anyone who thinks this is an absurd proposal should get their objection in very quickly. 22nd is nearly upon us. It's not a hard form to fill out - took me less than 5 minutes.

[consultations.southwark.gov.uk]

[@Woodwarde]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi @Woodwarede,

> This consultation is proceeding against the express wishes of two of the East Dulwich councillors - myself and Cllr Rosie Shimell. We've become embroiled with the council legal department as the consultation has proceeded in direct contravention of a minuted recommendations of the Dulwich Community Council.

Whether you support or object to each individual proposal you need to formally respond to the consultation. Posts here wont count! And officers are clear each junction will be assessed seperately based on responses for that junction.

Officers did say the decision would come back toward councillors but have since indicated it will be made by the cabinet councillor.

Hi James

Very helpful and can you help us all to understand what the process will be?

Many people are concerned about this and have been querying through Village Ward ? but of course the issues are common to all Dulwich wards affected. Questions same in nature as yours have been posed by Village Ward Councillors to Southwark about how the decision on this will be made.

We have been advised by them:

>>Officers are preparing papers which they expect to put in front of the DCC on 1st Feb. As to the status of the DCC in the decision making we now have conflicting advice. At one time it was expected that the DCC would be the decision making body as this process was initiated before the new centralised system was operational. However Jon Hartley read out advice from a senior council legal officer last week that the decision would be taken by Cllr Wingfield and any input by the DCC would be purely advisory. This is a matter for Constitutional Officers and the Labour Group to sort out. >>

If Officers are now advising that this is a Statutory consultation only with no prior requirement under the former DCC process then they are arguably working the system to achieve their desired outcome. Are you able to help us understand if the process falls under the old DCC process or the new and what the reasons for that decision are?

[holymoly]

Xmas present for Cllr Wingfield perhaps?

http://www.banksytshirts.net/mens/tshirts/banksyyellowlinesflower.html

Just registered our objections - and it is easy to fill in but not clear how input will be handled.

So we decided it is best to name all the roads that form the arms of the junctions that we are concerned about.

Messy compared to a single junction consultation. Why have they done it this way?

[tomskip]

I know Admin doesn't like duplicate threads, but I wonder if the title of this could be amended so that EDF readers who have so far ignored the thread, or who read it in its early days and don't know about the new developments (like me), are now alerted to the fact that that the proposal is getting closer to happening and there is little time left to object (should you wish to) ?

[Siduhe]

Interestingly, when you file a response to consultation this is what the follow on page says:

The decision of how to proceed will be determined by the community council at a later date.

So they seem to accept the DCC should be the decision making body.

[hopskip]

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> ed_pete Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Consultation closes on 22/12. Don't sleepwalk

> > into this one. Register your objections to

> your

> > Councilors and on the Southwark website.

>

> Or support. We are allowed to hold independent

> opinons!

Not quite so straightforward now that there are 5 choices. You might support but with some caveats. Officers are only obliged to respond to comments made with Objections. So even if you support but with some modifications, it is better to use option 4 and note what you want to see changed.

You need to categorise each response & you can choose from one of 5 options:

Options 4 or 5 are appropriate if you want the Council to say whether it accepts or rejects your feedback. The options are:

1. I wholly support this proposal; 2. I support this proposal, but would like the council to consider additional or alternative measures; 3. I neither support or object to this proposal, but would like the council to consider another related matter in this area; 4. I object to part of the proposal, but support or am neutral to other elements of it; 5. I wholly object to this proposal

I agree about the point about not sleepwalking into this. Whether you support or object, you need to respond.

[worldwiser]

Done.

[Scootingover]

Done

[James Barber]

DOn't forget to respond before midnight tonight - after midnight email me your comments and I'll ensure they're included.

[mockingbird]

Good offer because the online consultation now says it is closed.

[James Barber]

I've had several emails with peoples response to this idea of lots more double yellow lines across East Dulwich.

whether for or against please pass your thoughts me about this and I will ensure the correct officer takes them into account.

[alex_b]

James - whilst you're talking to the legal department could you ask them why my complaint that double yellows appeared on the north side of the Adys/Nutbrook junction despite not being in the consultation was ignored?

[James Barber]

Latest news UPDATE 16 May - Southwark Labour have ignored Lib Dem ward councillors and their Labour ward councillor and the 85% of the 77 responses objecting to the implementation of double yellow lines across East Dulwich. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50013476&Opt=0

See 14th page onwards of this appendices 1-7 document -http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s68318/Appendices%201%20to%207.pdf

The officers could provide no evidence of any crashes for the junctions involve in this mass double yellow line rollout. The Labour councillor agreed the recommendations. Expect to see a LOT of extra double yellow lines across East Dulwich.

A great deal of money is being frittered away on this.

I will attempt to get this decision called-in for a review by thE overview and Scrutiny Committee.

To compound the issue Labour Southwark have also decided to remove 6.5m of parking on Worlingham Road - also for spurious road safety concerns. The sight lines were not considered a danger when 30mph. Now the speed limit is 20mph they want longer sight lines - http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50013480&Opt=0

What should cost around ?10,000 officers are now saying will cost ?31,000. You could not make this up. I will try and get it cancelled.

[edhistory]

> The Labour councillor agreed the recommendations.

Does this person have a name?

[bargee99]

Good luck James. I appreciate you trying but I don't hold out much hope. They will never listen to anyone who doesn't agree with their dogma. I do wish the Lib Dems could take control of the borough from this labour lot. The Conservatives never will.

[James Barber]

Hi edhistory,

Yes the cabinet member/councillor who has taken this decision, that is subject for potentially being called in, is Cllr Ian Wingfield the for Environment and the Public Realm [email protected]

[first mate]

James, please fight this as hard as you can and it is hoped it can be called in. The process of arriving at this decision is undemocratic. It is clear most people don't want them.

[daveybigpotatoes]

Not voting labour this year for pretty much the first time in my life. This proposal is another nail in the coffin.