intexasatthe moment

This one ?https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/William+Hill/@51.4574061,-0.071182,3a,52.5y,121h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKcfIzUDyIYTpngq7Y_7fUw!2e0!4m9!1m6!2m5!1sbetting+shop!3m3!1sbetting+shop!2s42+Hindmans+Rd,+London+SE22!3s0x487603be18b649b3:0x8381980c9759e47!3m1!1s0x4876039607b48ea3:0xb8fef3d2e09cdb7b!6m1!1e1 99 Crystal Palace Rd ,junction with Upland ?

They applied to a build a 2 storey new vicarage plus 2 x 3 storey detached houses . Refused in Oct 2012 on grounds that it would lead to a visually cramped overdevelopment of the site ,harmful and out of character with the streetscene and because the development didn't adequately address the impact on an existing Plane Tree .http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/254391_1.pdf Apparently the applicant appealed against the refusal ,*lost the appeal and a claim for costs . Interesting argument about the TPO'd Plane tree that had been felled before the planning application but resprouted and awarded a second TPO .http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/325167_1.pdf *sorry ,major error on my part ,applicant WON the appeal and was granted planning permission . They lost the request for costs of the appeal . I'm sure Robin -rch on the forum - will have been well acquainted with the application .

Southwark consults with Thames Water for relevant planning applications ,so I guess ( but wouldn't rely on it ) that this aspect is covered .

Possibly because the impact of sewer capacity being exceeded would be pretty scary ?

"Do you mean the old police station opposite?" "No, right next to actress pub" ?

Hi James and I'm so glad you've now got the point about the 2 m extension of the double yellow lines and that you're going to add that to your query . Hooray ! Sorry if you think I'm complicating things . It's just that the H bars and the yellow lines seem to me to be two different issues . I assume H bars were to keep the access over the dropped kerb free ,but Southwark maintain that the yellow lines are for safety reasons ,to allow visibilty .Hence the 2m extension . I couldn't care less if the double yellow lines didn't extend over neighbouring frontages . But anyway ,sounds like you've figured out the issue now . Thanks .

James - thank you for the link . While clearly a work in progress it's not quite the painfull process you described . "No I wouldn't expect Southwark Council to stick the absolute minimum possible timescales" - baffled by this remark .No suggestion of timescales, minimum or otherwise ,by me . I did ,however ask a question "do you know/can you find out what progress has been made in the process of creating an SPD ? " Which you haven't answered . I don't understand why ,when asked about the new yellow line policy you always respond by talking about white H bars . "I've asked for the white lines policy effecitvely to be reversed - old and new." The white lines policy is that they are no longer provided and that they will not be renewed . The yellow lines/waiting restrictions is that for new dropped kerbs yellow lines will be installed across the dropped kerb and for 2 metres either side . It is not offered as something the applicant can choose instead of a white H bar . It is not offered instead of repainting white H bars . So dropping or reversing the H bar policy which applies to existing dropped kerbs , won't affect the yellow line policy . So if you manage to get the H bar policy reversed it would mean that existing dropped kerbs could have their H bars repainted . But we'd still be left with the policy of installing double yellow lines across new dropped kerbs and over the neighbouring properties .

James - ok several probably = more than 2 . BUT the "several" referred to was in relation to an agreement on the SPD . As Mark has asked - wouldn't you expect some progress ,a draft for consultation by now ? But regardless of what you or we expect , do you know/can you find out what progress has been made in the process of creating an SPD ? Could you help those of us who are struggling to find the full SSDM on Southwark's website by posting links to the fragments ? You've obviously found them ,perhaps you could share ? "Council has a document about H-bars (white lines): [www.southwark.gov.uk] It appears to have been approved 8 May 2013. Let me work out under what governance this occurred. Eitherway I have asked the cabinet member to reconsider this aspect." I see that you've asked for the painting of H bars to be considered . Did you also ask for the installation of double yellow lines over neighbouring properties for new applications to be considered ? ( this is not H bars OR yellow lines ,it is yellow lines for new dropped kerbs ,no choice involved )

I'm sure that the best way to alieviate this would be a cycle only green light from Greendale that operated for 5-10 seconds before the lights went green in both directions. It would need to be either button operated or sensitive to the prescence of a cyclist so that it didn't operate when there was no one waiting. now that does sound like an answer

a post which had added little to the debate so I'm deleting it .

I think that would require a bit of glitter wouldn't it ?

red bonnet with the green body would look nice and festive ....or maybe you could paint it yourself ,add a few swirls and curlicues ?

Thanks for that Cathy - really good to know as I'm often passing their premises and would like to be able just to drop stuff off ,but without prior arrangements . Obvs non perishables .

It's a shame that they need you to phone and make an appointment to drop off food donations . Or have I missread it ?

Hi James "no longer allowing new white lines across dropped kerbs. People have the choice of no white line or double yellow lines" There is no published information ,or practical experience from people applying for dropped kerbs that this is a CHOICE . If you have information that we ( general public ) don't have that explains why you think the extension of double yellow lines over new dropped kerbs is a choice ,could you provide it ? "Are you willing to lead a deputation to a Council Assembly to request a change to this policy? " - talk me through how this works James . How effective are such actions ? " I think the matter has been debated hear to death. " people repeatedly asking you for updates ( which you've now provided,thank you ) is not the same thing as a debate .

James "They have not deigned to respond to my numerous requests." so annoying when people ignore repeated requests ,isn't it ?

There may be some useful info from the RNIB . They advise for people with poor sight and often their advice is helpful for people who require easy access to technology .They're very helpful on the phone or if you visit them ,near Kings Cross . http://www.rnib.org.uk/information-everyday-living-using-technology-computers-and-tablets/tablet-devices

I imagine point 3 is covered by 6.6 PROHIBITION OF WAITING AT ANY TIME 6.6 signs are no longer prescribed for a prohibition of waiting that is in force for 24 hours a day, every day of the year. This restriction is now imposed solely by the road markings. but I could be wrong . Sure we have plenty of time to figure it out .

James - back to double yellow lines across new dropped kerbs and extending 2 metres either side . I know on Oct 24th you said "I haven't had any further casework so far that would drive me spending time on this other than investigating in a more general way." I took this to mean that you wouldn't be persuing this until you had an individual who had personally made a dropped kerb application contact you . LS1234 has said on here that she has PM'd you details of her/his application and I guess must fulfill this criteria ,so I'm just wondering if you have any results to share ?

I think she ( the 13 year old ) was very enterprising and sensible to post on here about her phone . Hope her phoneless situation is sorted soon .

Thought it was terrific . Very funny indeed . But then I loved twentytwelve Olympic Deliverance spoof .

James - back to double yellow lines across new dropped kerbs and extending 2 metres either side . I know on Oct 24th you said "I haven't had any further casework so far that would drive me spending time on this other than investigating in a more general way." I took this to mean that you wouldn't be persuing this until you had an individual who had personally made a dropped kerb application contact you . LS1234 has said on here that she has PM'd you details of her/his application and I guess must fulfill this criteria ,so I'm just wondering if you have any results to share ?

The density on the site will be 525 habitable rooms per hectare ,much higher than Southwark's recommended 200-350 . http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/341017_1.pdf But the room sizes all meet the reguirements and apparently high density is ok if the standard of the design is exemplary . Though how ones balances a largely subjective criteria against an absolute ,I don't know .

Inclined to agree with first mate .And it doesn't look a mess to me .

Wow . And another not on Facebook ( work of the devil IMO ) and grateful for updates here .