intexasatthe moment

But Penguin ,the situation you describe " vehicles stopping for a short time in order to make deliveries, strangers stopping to drop people off etc. etc... a 'universal' short-term stopping place - which assists my neighbours with heavy loads, people dropping off children etc." would exist without you having a dropped kerb ? And ,more importantly , how do you format your post to italicse words ?

Carol - that's a very generous view of people's behaviour . My neighbours ( who I have no disagreement with ) view their dropped kerb as theirs . They don't allow the world and his wife to park there . And there's an application for a dropped kerb that I'm aware of that involves removing a resident's parking permit place . So ,if you live in the street in question ,you carry on paying the same amount to park in the road but have less spaces available to you .And your neighbour ( quite legitimately ) has bought the parking space outside their house .

Mustard - this thread suggests that various people have been contacted ,councillors ,environmental health etc but no one has said that they've contacted the planning enforcement team . Someone may have done this and had no luck .In which case I guess the next step would be to make a formal complaint . http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200025/comments_and_complaints/1958/corporate_complaints

I think the Ombudsman would require you to exhaust the existing complaints procedure first . I do think you should complain http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200500/planning_enforcement/3256/how_to_make_a_complaint to Southwark that one of the planning conditions ( no 17 ) is not being met . All the conditions are listed here http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/243799_1.pdf

Slightly off topic ,but I'm a bit confused as to whether Community Councils still consider planning applications . James B. is clear that they don't . Perhaps they consider some categories ,like dropped kerbs ? Off to look at C.C. agendas ......

Here we go ,from http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200500/planning_enforcement My capitals "Planning enforcement Works carried out without permission Effective planning enforcement is vital to ensuring that planning permissions and consents are correctly implemented and unauthorised developments are remedied. In order to safeguard the integrity of the planning system, the Council?s Compliance and Monitoring Team has discretionary powers to investigate breaches of planning control. Such breaches include unauthorised building works to listed and other buildings, advertisements, residential conversions, changes of use,NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING CONDITIONS , untidy land adversely affecting the amenity of an area and unauthorised works carried out to protected trees." and how to make a complaint http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200500/planning_enforcement/3256/how_to_make_a_complaint

Maybe draw Southwark's attention ( presumably they have a planning enforcement procedure ) to this condition " A detailed specification of demolition and construction works at each phase of development including consideration of environmental impacts and the required remedial measures. Engineering measures, acoustic screening and the provision of sound insulation required mitigating or eliminating specific environmental impacts. Arrangements for publicity and promotion of the scheme during construction. A commitment to adopt and implement of the ICE Demolition Protocol and Considerate Contractor Scheme registration. All demolition and construction work shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved management scheme and code of practice, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that and occupiers of neighbouring premises do not suffer a loss of amenity by reason of pollution and nuisance in accordance with saved policy 3.2 'Protection of amenity' of the Southwark Plan 2007 and SP13 'High environmental standards' of the Core Strategy (2011). " This condition ,nos 17 ,is given in more detail in the Decision Notice http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/243799_1.pdf Oh ,and this bit ( from the officers report http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/348662_1.pdf ) is good for a laugh " Concerns raised by neighbours regarding the noise impacts of any excavation works is not a planning matter ,however given the restricted area of the site a construction management plan has been added as a condition of any planning permission to address these concerns ." Words .Paper . Written on . Worth it . Not .

So if the neighbours object on grounds of loss of amenity would the application be rejected and no dropped kerb allowed ? Though presumably Southwark could argue that the neighbours never enjoyed the ability to park outside their home as anyone could park there . So reject the loss of amenity claim ?

Borderlands - was there something in Friday's SLP ? I looked but couldn't see anything ? What papers do you mean ? ( don't mean to sound abrupt ,sorry )

Of course you're right rahrah . i'm just in awe of the work teachers do . I don't think Curmudgeon, or me on their behalf, are making bloody silly excuses . Just explaining the way it is . Bloody hard physical work teaching little ones . If it were me ,my choice would be to drive .

I agree with Curmudgeon's last sentence . For the teachers it's going to make a tough job even tougher if they have to rely on public transport .I've seen the amount of stuff a primary school teacher lugs in to work and believe me I wouldn't want to grapple with it on public transport .

I agree with Curmudgeon about the parking ,it is going to be a nightmare . I happened to be in Elsie Rd yesterday and saw all the freshly painted white H lines acroos the many ,many dropped kerbs . And the laminated signs from Goose Green Primary asking parents not to park across driveways . I know many parents work and are driving so that they can drop child/ren off before whizzing on to somewhere else . And the poor teachers .

Southwark are clear that the yellow lines are for SAFETY .Which is why they are extended across the frontage of neighbouring properties . There is no suggestion that they are being installed to keep the access to the driveway clear .It is ALREADY illegal to park across a dropped kerb ,even if there are no yellow lines . Having yellow lines doesn't make it more illegal . Or easier to enforce ,or increase the resources to do so . It's all madness . If ,as Southwark say ,it's for safety they should be assesing existing dropped kerbs . I don't really care whether a dropped kerb has no markings ,a white H bar or double yellow lines across it . I DO care if the yellow lines extend 2 metres either side of the dropped kerb .

Longshanks - the opportunity for serious considerations will be during the planning consultation . It doesn't really matter if people want to moan on here or not .

I appreciate your point of view and as a parent who only secured a place for a child at both primary and secondary several weeks after the start of term ,I know how painful it can be and how focussed on the issue one becomes . I don't understand however why you are equating good design with an undersized school/ poor use of the site and a plain and fuctional design with good use of the plot . The build of the school has been delayed ,I'm afraid it's not at all uncommon . The process of producing a building will involve applying for planning permission and this will allow the standard 21 days for people to formally comment . Although " good design " is a planning consideration it is only one of many ,and most of them are a good deal more objective . It is extremely unlikely that an application would be delayed because of objections merely to the look of the building . A new school isn't just for one year's intake ,it will have an impact on many people for many years . I don't think you should trivialise people's concern about the form it will take as " hand wringing " .

Sounds like an argument for building warehouses - they're strong, secure, well-lit and reasonably attractive . And the kids won't notice will they ? "An eight year old, unless s/he is precocious and of a prodigious design sensibility" clap trap . And arrogant . And sounding like an opinion based on prejudice and lack of experience with children. "the baby of good education to be thrown out with the bath waters of design-fetishism" clap trap and what exactly is insincere /wrong about saying "You can still work to a tight budget, yet be thoughtful about aesthetics" ? And it's certainly not solipsistic.

The plans show main ehtrances for children on both whateley and Landcroft . I imagine the entrance on LL will be for visitors ,staff etc .

Understood .

For the record ,I think that you are brave being so available on this forum .It leaves you open to lots of slings and arrows and must result in untold levels of work . But ...there are bound to be some issues which are not up your street ( see what I did there ? ) and which you lack the interest or ability to get to the bottom of . Which is fine . What I find difficult is being teased with " watch this space ,will have something by Monday " " colleagues are on it " ,and shifting the question on to something else .

Absolutely bemusED and first mate . I think it's a crime . So many of us will view this building every day . So many children will spend formative years with this awful piece of work imprinted on their minds . Aren't planning laws meant to protect us from this sort of travesty ?

James - the issue here is not retaining white lines but addressing the crazy policy that now enables Southwark to install double yellow lines which extend well beyond the dropped kerb . How strange that you seem to have missed the point . Southwark advise that parking across dropped kerbs is ( in most circumstances ) an offence regardless of road marking or their absence . Helpfully they give no detail on the " most circumstances " . The enforcement procedures they refer to includes parking tickets and need not involve police time . What steps are being taken by the colleague who has offered to get action started on this crazy policy ? I know that Renata is also talking to Southwark about the yellow lines issue ( not ,for clarity ,reinstatement of white line ) are you going to be working together ?

I think antanant might mean that if a new application for a dropped kerb were considered as a planning application ( no idea if they already are ) then a legitimate objection from consulted neighbours would be loss of amenity .

I know you've been tied up with the issue of school/s on the Dulwich Hospital site which I appreciate is more pressing ,but ..... still anxious to have this sorted and to know how/if you or other councillors can help .

Mark - I have been looking at garage court developments and also some backland developments and the issues around vehicle access ,particularly fire engines.( Have also been looking at dropped kerb/waiting restrictions ,but that's another story .) It seems to me that Southwark Planning need to develop/hone their guidance relating to access when considering applications . Maybe they don't feel it's necessary as ( I think ) the access for fire engines comes under building regs ? The Manual For Streets has guidance and says that local Fire Officers should be consulted where accesss falls below a certain standard . But planning applications where narrow access is involved don't seem to get referred to Fire Officers by planning . They are referred to the internal Southwark " Transport " but the comments back seem mainly confined to refuse and bike storage . Perhaps it's a problem of streets/transport not being sufficiently integrated with planning ? Perhaps planning don't involve themselves because it's a building regs thing ? Whatever it doesn't seem right to consider a piece of land for development in isolation of fire access . I would imagine that each application would need to be considered individually by fire officers which I guess makes a nonsense of me thinking Southwark needs to produce more explicit guidance . For instance,maybe sometimes access is possible in an emergency from neighbouring sites . From the applicants point of view I think it's hard for them to know where they stand and from the neighbours point of view I think there is fear about fire in a confined plot ,particularly with timber framed and the current fashion for timber clad ( which Southwark seem to favour for garage/backland etc developmemts ) buildings .

Spider - I don't think planning applications get passed " on the nod " in Southwark . And my experience of community Council meetings has been that applications are refused ,not passed on the nod ,or any other way . But I think developers are getting ever more skilled at spinning and presentation and that individuals who are affected by applications need to look carefully at the proposals and try to ensure that things aren't slipped past planning officers who are not familar with the site . I also think there are some issues which are grey areas in applications and allow clever applicants to wriggle round specifications for things like access for Fire Engines .