intexasatthe moment

monkey - Southwark's guidelines on car parking on forecourts/front gardens says ", private land owners are required to enter into one or more legal agreements with the Borough Solicitor agreeing and undertaking to ...to exit (and in most instances) enter the Vehicle Crossing in forward gear " so cars shouldn't be reversing onto roads . Though don't ask me how that's enforceable .

Absolutely agree with Loz . I was amazed after someone had reversed into the side of my car to get a letter accusing me of dangerous driving and trying to claim for additional existing damage on a different part of the car . This was after I'd submitted drawn pictures .I just refuted their version and left my insurance company to argue with theirs and all was well . It does seem to be standard practice ,but pretty shocking .

St Dunstans ? http://www.stdunstans.org.uk/

James as usual you skirt round actually answering the questions asked .But never miss the opportunity to try and make political points . So depressing . You'll be glad to learn I'm washing my hands of directing questions to you .You carry on you're own sweet political point scoring way . Politicians !

James - back to my concern over double yellow lines 2 metres either side of dropped kerbs ,can you help mw with the following How did this policy come into being with no one seemingly aware of it ? My reading is that there should be consultation which at a very early stage involves Community Councils . Did this happen ? Given that DCC have already tried to have applications with this rule modified approved and failed ,what are the chances of it being reviewed ? And the time scale ? And how can we influence this process ? Thanks

Good news indeed . But as chazzle says ,further applications will made ,if not appeals . Keep up the good work chazzle and keep us posted .

Quite .What are the schools supporting ?

And actually it ( the patronising stuff ) rather implies " the children's voices must be heard " that their parents are deaf/non existent/not interested .

Have just reread qoute posted by hopskip . I was at DCC mtg and read this orginally then .Am I the only person stupid enough to be confused ( Haven't been following this quite as carefully as others ) but ....all the schools supporting " the scheme " . Which scheme ? Which proposal exactly ,there were several ? Although pointless question I know as Southwark have decided to go with an option not favoured by the residents .

Good and accurate accounts of the CC meeting . I wondered if the spokesperson for Safe Routes to School had spent much time practising her speech or whether the tone was habitual to her . Like mockingbird ,I couldn't work out who she was addressing . All parties have failed massively here ,ignoring people's wishes regarding preferred options , Calton Avenue not part of the modelling exercise ,the coaches will have to swing out cutting into oncoming traffic ,JAG's new building plans ignored . But no doubt the filter for " nervous " cyclists can be used as evidence of the safe and caring environment that the private schools provide for their priveleged pupils . Why can't measures be put in place so that the coaches use the the drive at the front of Alleyns to pick up and drop off ? ( as suggested at the mtg )

James - back to my concern over double yellow lines 2 metres either side of dropped kerbs ,can you help mw with the following How did this policy come into being with no one seemingly aware of it ? My reading is that there should be consultation which at a very early stage involves Community Councils . Did this happen ? Given that DCC have already tried to have applications with this rule modified approved and failed ,what are the chances of it being reviewed ? And the time scale ? And how can we influence this process ? Thanks

James what I don't understand is how this policy came about with out councillors ( or anyone else it seems ) being aware of it or having the opportunity to object or suggest modifications . Doesn't Southwark have decision making process about such traffic issues which involves community councils fairly early on in the process ? What's your view on this James ?

Very pleased that there was unanimous agreement that a request for the director to review the 2m extension of double yellow lines ruling should be made .Current applications to be deferred pending outcome . Though I've no idea who the director is ,the likelihood of the request for a review being succesful ,the possible outcome or the timescale .

Forest Hill Rd - blimey I see what you mean about the fish and chip shop sign ! You can look by location etc on the map here http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?mapcfg=Planning&banner=planning&tooltip=Plan_tips ,you need to tick a box under the legend column ,eg decided applications without legal agreement and then go to the geographical location on the map . I've never had any luck by typing in the address ,I don't know why . I did look for you but there are multiple applications for advertising by the Fish and Chip shop ,mainly some years ago but the link to the actual case won't open so it's not possible to tell whether this latest sign has been approved or not .

I'm not doubting that there are instances where more than one car can be parked ,just that it's not true in the majority of streets .

Penguin - I may be wrong but it seems to me that the majority of dropped kerbs only give space for ONE ( not going to risk more elegant formatting involving HTML ) vehicle .So generally doesn't increase parking space .

Quite agree rahrahrah . I loathe seeing what was once a front garden become a car park .And the appropriation of public land by a householder . To add no waiting/parking to the road outside neighbouring properties is really rubbing salt into the wound .

Amongst other items of interest I see that several applications for dropped kerbs to allow parking on forecourts are up for approval at tonights Dulwich Community Council ( St Barnabas Church Hall ,Tuesday 17 March 7pm ) meeting . http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=176&MId=4840&Ver=4 And I remember JB hoping to address the 2 metre yellow lines either side of new dropped kerbs ruling at this meeting . Mark T's earlier comments ,especially this one I think " I suggest that enhancinging sightlines with the 2m extensions might tend to increase the speed of vehicles crossing a pavement, thereby increasing danger to users of the pavement as well as the road. This might be the case for a crossover that would in other respects, such as location, be considered acceptably safe. The safety considerations for or against improved sightlines should be weighed perhaps on a case by case basis. This would fit with the actual wording in the SSDM " http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1457948,1485776#msg-1485776 raise good points which I hope JB will take on board and raise . Plus the strange "consultation " which was connected with this piece of policy . "Mr Walker's statement: "the Southwark Streetscape Design Manual (SSDM) was approved by Individual Decision by the relevant Cabinet Member in December 2012 after a public consultation" is chronologically true, but, in my opinion, is not very informative. More can be gleaned from the Council website. The Consultation in 2011 was not on the SSDM, which had not then been written, but was on "the draft Framework Plan (formerly known as the SSDM Summary Guide)". This included one-line policy statements such as "SD03: Improved road safety and reduced road danger". Following that consultation, the Individual Member Decision in December 2012 gave the go-ahead for officers to write the SSDM. As Mr Walker states the sections cited were agreed in 2013 by the Head of Public Realm. The contents of the SSDM, such as the policy on road markings adjacent to crossovers, have therefore not been subject to consultation with the public or with ordinary councillors, and have not been formally approved by the Cabinet member." http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1457948,1485776#msg-1485776 I hope it will be a productive meeting and that some steps will be taken towards preventing the routine installation of double yellow lines over neighbouring properties .

" The Charter School East Dulwich The ?outstanding? and heavily over-subscribed Charter School will be opening a second school in 2016 on the site of the former East Dulwich hospital. Catering for 1220 students, the school will meet the huge demand for new places in the Dulwich area. Charter School East Dulwich will encourage all students to become creative, confident and caring citizens. The school will also offer work-related learning through a partnership with King?s College Hospital, the largest local employer." from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-announces-landmark-wave-of-free-schools

D'oh ! Getting this thread confused with Dulwich Hospital Site one .Must try and keep up !

Ummm - a lot of posts seem to have dissapeared . Why ?

JohnL - I think you're exaggerating . I'm in Rye Lane every day and I don't see what you're describing re car sized pallets on the pavement .Fruit boxes and cartons stacked on the edge of the pavement I'll give you . And I did see a car pause and pick someone up opposite MacDonalds .No ensuing chaos .

Thanks ,though I'm still trying to picture this .Do you mean the bit that runs past Boots ? Where the "shared" bike lane is ? Though the bike lane is flush with the road so no curb to mount . Where are there cars parked on the pavement in Rye Lane ?

"buses damaging the pavement on Rye Lane" what do you mean ? Tell me more please .

The retention of these 2 cottages ,especially as part of a terrace where only one will survive is important and the point well made . But I think additional points where the application might be contrary to planning policy need to be made . My concerns would be - change of use from residential to commercial "8.2.5 Saved Southwark plan policy 1.8: Location of developments for retail and other town centre uses, states that outside of the town and local centres, developments for retail, leisure, entertainment and other town and local centre uses, will only be permitted where the need for the development can be demonstrated."( from Dulwich SDP ) Figure 7 in DSDP shows Railway Rise as being outside the Lordship Lane town centre - loss of family housing .There is an emphasis throughout the DSDP on retaining family housing and guidelines against both subdividing large properties and smaller ( 130 sq m.or less ) into flats . 5.3 Subdivision of large properties 5.3.1 There is a presumption against subdivision of large properties in Southwark. This is especially relevant to Dulwich as Dulwich is an area with a lot of family housing which we wish to maintain. This is because we have a large need for more family housing and large houses form an important element of the character of the area. - does the proposal meet requirements re amenity space ,accesibilty as per Southwark's Lifetimes Homes standards etc as found in the Residential Design Standards ? http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s22935/Appendix These guidelines apply to all developments ,not just those exceeding 10 units "These standards apply to all residential development, including new dwellings, conversions, extensions and alterations. " - it's too high ,however many other buildings in the vicinity are referred to .