MarkT

TEX, Yes, I did, and I received acknowledgement of receipt. On past cases, I have asked the case officer why objections have not appeared, even after the 10 days promised in the letter of acknowledgement. On one occasion, having received no acknowledgement, I followed up with an email to the other address (.applications or .consultation) I was informed that the inbox advertised for objections had been full with other cases. That would suggest that some objections may not have got through at all. For the record I objected on the grounds that as the garden is a previously undeveloped, the proposal is contrary to policy MarkT

Yes, and hard to prove deliberate intent by an unidentifiable passenger, who might have carelessly emptied the unwanted remains of a drink out of the window. In my case, I believe that the speed of the vehicle provided enough momentum for a lump of ice to cause my injury. I don't think many people shoot guns out of vehicles, but I think loads of people casually toss the remains of their lunch. I think it is that common that I don't assume I was a target, I just happened to be in the way. MarkT

I was hit by a projectile from a white van in July 09, in Underhill Road. I was cycling just past Henslowe Road. It was quite a blow, but I was going slowly, and I was able to stop and keep my balance. The van hardly paused to cross Friern Road, and speeded away. I was to get the number and wrote it down. Then I looked around and found a lump of ice, on the road, such as from a drink, which I assume was tossed out of the passenger window. If the van was going at say 20mph even if it was not deliberately thrown forwards, the projectile would be moving forward at 20mph. I reported it to the police, got a swift response from our community policeman. Photographs were taken of the lump and cut behind my ear, and the owner of the van was interviewed. I opted not to pursue the matter because they might find out where I live.

The building facing the actress, opposite, on the other side of Crystal Palace Road, was indeed, originally, a police station. It is marked as such on the Council's on-line 1896 map and on the 1914 OS map. MarkT

Thanks James, Your enquiries with regard to the SSDM section of the Council?s website, seem to be reaping rewards. The available ?downloads? now include 30 or more sections of the SSDM that, I think, were not there last week. I am eagerly awaiting the addition of Section DS 900. Each Section seems to include the introductory note: ?See standard DS.900 for definitions of terms used in this design standard. Note in particular the definitions for ?should?, ?will?, ?may?, ?level 1 departure?, ?level 2 departure? and ?approving officer? as used to describe requirements.? It seems to me that the word ?must? is not used in the SSDM. This allows the balancing of various factors in a specific instance. So the use of granite, for example may not be obligatory, as you suggest. Neither, it would appear, is there an absolute requirement for double yellow lines, extending 2 metres either side of a crossover. The argument I understand for the 2 metre extensions is to increase sight-lines, in the interests of safety. Now I find that there is a whole section DS 114 of the SSDM devoted to Highway Visibility, which includes: ?research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at.? MarkT

Andrew 1011 wrote: "I suggest people lobby their councillors in the wards of East Dulwich, College and Village, who are the people who will be making the decision on this at Dulwich Community Council." Is that correct? Is it Community Council who will be making the Decision? MarkT

James, the Cabinet Member's Decision anticipated "agreement of the SPD in several years time". After 2 years, would you not expect some progress on this such as a draft SPD open for consultation? In the meantime I have put in a Freedom of Information Request, asking that the full SSDM is published on the Council's website. They will, no doubt, use the full 20 days allowed by law to do this, but we might see it by Christmas. MarkT

James, The link you gave, a few posts above, is to a Section of the Southwark Streetscape Design Manual (SSDM). That Section, DS007, relates to the redundancy of white T bars on pavement crossovers. For the rule on double yellow lines see DS132 paragraph 3.7 and DS002 paragraph 2.1.3. The Decision to create the SSDM was taken in October 2012 by the Cabinet Member for Transport, Environment, and Recycling. Report title: Adoption of Southwark Streetscape Design Manual. That Decision included the following paragraph: ?21. Notwithstanding the recommendation to progress the Framework Plan as a SPD it is recommended that Interim Highway Strategic Design Objectives and Strategic Design Policies in appendix 1 be agreed by the Cabinet Member. This will allow the Highway Authority to use these to permit the further structured development of the SSDM whilst awaiting the agreement of the SPD in several years time. These Interim Highway Authority Strategic Design Policies and Strategic Design Objectives will be superseded by those contained in the Framework Plan SPD once this is agreed.? So the current SSDM is part of an interim arrangement. It is now 2 years since that Decision to create a Supplementary planning Document. What is the progress of that SPD?

Elsewhere on the forum yesterday, a post included a link to an outside source, with the comment: "Not sure about the voracity of the piece though." Mark

.

Another point about the Dulwich SPD. It is not a NIMBY document, created by locals. It is a part of the Borough- wide plan, written by the Borough Planning Department, in accordance with the London Plan, approved by the whole Council and passed by a Government Inspector. All political parties contribute. Mark

I?m with P68 on the contribution of architects and engineers with regard to what is possible. However, the fact here is that the Dulwich SPD rules out building on a previously undeveloped back garden. This is not about the expertise of architects compared to that of planners; it is a matter of community choice. Planning Policies ? London wide, Borough wide and local ? define what is permitted, such as heights and densities, in different zones. In this part of the Borough, gardens are protected. All sectors of the community had an opportunity to contribute in the making of the Dulwich SPD 2013. It therefore takes due account of history; buildings and nature conservation; transport, health and educational infrastructure, etc. Legally it required a long process of consultation, with wide publicity. The law requires that individual applications are decided in accordance with the policies. There is now a fresh opportunity for anyone, including this architect, to influence policy in years to come. The New Southwark Plan has just been launched for consultation. We have 4 months to contribute. Yes first mate, visions of Walled City of Kowloon. Mark

technotom, The deadline for submitting objections to the No 30 application is 22nd November. There's no benefit in getting your comments in early, so it's wise if you can to use the time for research to put together a good objection. The Decision should be according to Policy. Southwark Council webpage has a section on planning policy. There's a range of documents; you could start with the Supplementary Planning Documents "Dulwich SPD" and "Residential Design Standards SPD". They may not need your consent with regard to the party wall, but that does not mean they have a right to damage your property. Check the "Party Wall Act"; google it and find the .gov.uk site. I believe they must pay the costs of a survey before and after and cover the cost of any damage to your property resulting from the works. Mark

Thanks Al-candraw for this alert, and good to see you're on the case Tex. Other considerations: Access - they plan to build on the access route. Density. I can't find a figure for the density in the proposal. I think the Council should routinely ask applicants to provide a figure because the Residential Design Standards SPD gives a set of "Key Considerations" and the first is ?Does the development - fall within the appropriate density range??. I count 14 rooms habitable rooms in their drawings and the site area seems to be about 300 square metres, so I estimate about 470 rooms per hectare. That is well outside the policy limits. Mark

The applicant's Design and Access Statement states: "The existing building stands out on the street scene as being of a different scale to its neighbours. It appears that this building was built at a different time to much of the other housing stock on the street and as such appears incongruous on the street." Because it looks different is not a justification for tearing it down. Does anyone know the age of the existing house? The 1914 OS map shows a building of the same footprint, which is probably the same house. The garden is previously undeveloped so according to the Dulwich SPD this should be an automatic rejection.

Thanks AbDabs. I understand that the new rule is being applied only to new dropped kerbs, which is why I thought that the occupier's agreement to the full parking restriction was necessary. There seems to be no plan to roll it out to all existing drops as road markings get renewed. Is that simply not to antagonise too many people at once? In the quiet backwaters informal arrangements seem to work for existing unmarked or white lined drops but what if, close to a shop or school, a particular occupier frequently calls on the traffic wardens to deal with unwanted parkers. The occupier might wish to allow friends to park, but could the Council unilaterally solve the problem, case by case, with double yellow lines? I accept your analysis that the Council is legally entitled to do this, but I think it does not justify it. "Because we can" would not be an acceptable reason. The Council has of course given a reason - safety.

Another thought on the legal aspects. In a CPZ I think that double yellow lines are put across all dropped kerbs ? pre-existing. AbDabs mentioned this in an earlier post on this thread, so may be able to enlighten. Does the Council get permission from each occupier with a dropped kerb? Are there cases of such occupiers registering opposition, either specifically to that bit of double yellow or to the CPZ in general? Is there some specific legislation that covers CPZs and cancels Section 86(3)?

Is the Council?s new rule lawful? It seems to cancel an occupier?s legal right. The Traffic Management Act 2004 86 Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc. ?(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. This exception does not apply in the case of a shared driveway.? The Council might argue that it is not cancelling the occupier?s legal right to allow someone to park, because the new rule applies only to new applications for which the applicant has agreed to the full package including the parking restrictions. The applicant has thereby given, in advance, a blanket refusal to any potential parker as is the applicant?s right in law. It?s a sort of catch 22. However (1) the law gives the right to allow or refuse parking not to the applicant but to the ?occupier?. What if the premises is subsequently sold or let. Can a new occupier, who has not made any agreement with the Council, disregard the double yellow line and park, or give consent to others to park, in accordance with the above law? (2) the legal clause above uses the phrase ?outside residential premises? without definition, but I think the implication is that it relates specifically to the access over the dropped kerb ? so what about the extensions 2 metres each way? Can a private individual stop anyone parking in front of the house next door? Or pay the Council to do so? Could a group of residents collectively sue the person who paid the Council to do so?

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?

PaulaBianca, I think you might find the answers to your questions if you follow the links provided by intexasatthe moment in the previous post. It might be a productive strategy to go through the 17 planning conditions specifically attached to the approval for this development and quote them in your complaint to the Council's Compliance and Monitoring Team that the approval has not been correctly implemented. MarkT

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

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

James, the Council's "Statement of Community Involvement" (SCI) specifies Community Councils as Decision Makers for planning applications. It also specifies the 3 objector threshold. The SCI states that it is a statutory document that must be followed. The SCI was subject to full statutory consultation as a component of the planning policy framework and examined in detail by HM Inspector. Why does the Council not obey the SCI? Mark

Community Councils no longer consider planning applications. It is now done by Borough-wide Planning Committees. Applications of up to eg 10 dwellings are dealt with by officers, unless they are controversial - more than 5 objections, where officers are inclined to approve. Those arrangements are specified in the Council?s current constitution. However, the Council?s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) requires most applications to be decided by Community Councils, with a threshold number of objections of only 3. There are pros and cons with regard to both the threshold number of objections and in the predominance of local knowledge and interest in the decision making body. However, those matters were thoroughly examined in the preparation of the SCI which was subjected to full public and expert consultation and to public examination by a Government Inspector. The SCI in its opening words states that it is a statutory document that must be followed. There appears to be a direct conflict between the SCI and the Constitution. It is the applicant who writes the description of the proposal and the location, including the street address, as it appears on the public notification, and therefore has an opportunity for a huge degree of spin. Why would the applicant volunteer the shortcomings in the proposed development, or that it will destroy some historic artefact or wildlife habitat. That?s why we have to be alert. Once matters are brought to the attention of officers and Councillors, I am confident that they receive proper consideration with reference to the relevant policies.

Tex, the requirement for the individual instance will be site-specific, and the policies must be thorough enough to ensure all aspects will receive appropriate consideration. Some aspects of policy may be prescriptive; sometimes guidelines are more appropriate. For the specific application you mention, the access/exit route is both long and narrow and I would expect such to be refused. There must, however be opportunity for creative solutions, so a good policy would allow for specific expert consideration. Planning and building regs should coordinate. The creation or review of a policy is the opportunity for input from experts, statutory bodies, professionals, and amateurs, and the plain common sense views of regular citizens. Safe solution should be obvious, once in place. Southwark is about to launch a 4 month public consultation - 31st October - on the "New Southwark Plan"; see the Planning Policy section on the Council website. This can be an opportunity to make sure all these matters are properly covered and integrated. Mark