intexasatthe moment

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 .

I expect there will be a resubmission but I don't feel as negative as the last two posters . Possibly because ,unlike First Mate I've not seen residential developments where something totally and utterly illegal and in clear breach of planning regs being built . And also because endlessly resubmitted schemes seem to end up with much more palatable developments than originally put forward . Personally I don't think 21 Hindmans Rd is suitable to build a house in the garden ,I don't know what specific reasons made the developer withdraw or whether the drawbacks of this site could ever be overcome .

The problem with these yellow boxes is that cars queue to turn right down Peckham High St plus there are often parked cars suddenly reducing the 2 lanes to one ,this causes congestion . Cars pull out into the right hand lane to avoid the parked/delivery vehicles and stop the previously moving traffic . It's very easy to get caught here , the traffic is moving and you think that you'll exit the cross hatching ,only to find it suddenly stops .

I'm afraid I'm in the thumbs down category . Had expensive Swedish wooden clogs that needed a few nails replaced where the leather was attached to the wood . Complete failure .

"Yes we can." How ? "A colleague has offered to help us get this started." What action is the colleague going to take ? Will you and Renata be co operating on this ? Could you give more detail ? It's frustrating after such period of silence to have so sparse a reply .

" ?4.5M bill being picked up by central government " - it's not picked up by central government ,it's paid for by taxpayers - US . " Southwark Council could zone another site to house any primary school BUT IS REFUSING. That the hospital site being zoned for housing will mean the size of land we all won't for it won't be affordable because Southwark IS REFUSING TO REZONE the site. " Are there two issues in this quote ? Another site for a primary if Southwark re zoned it ? Is the reference to East Dulwich Harris Girls on Homestall Rd . Where the head says there's not enough room ? And which is MOL ? Which Southwark can't change . "Without re zoning we may well see a secondary school with minimal land." - is it being admitted now that this would be a bad thing ? East Dulwich Harris Boys is on a tiny site ,so small that although specialising in sport students are transported to other sites for this function ,so small that the original planning application suggested that students could have staggered start times to mitigate the crush . All concerns about lack of space were argued away .And it's getting the results - which seems all that matters in this current climate of tick box education .

Not been caught as I rarely drive this way ,but I know the junction you mean and wholeheartedly agree with you . It's a tricky bit of road with the bus garage as well ,I'd like to think the phasing of the lights could be reviewed ,but might be difficult .

Mark ,I feel that I am developing an obssesion with planning and am ridiculously thrilled to read your posts which I find very helpful . I have noticed the heirarchy diagramme that you refer to - I must take a proper look . Regarding streets - it seems faintly odd for Southwark to consult with " Transport " as an internal consultation and when " transport " present no ojections ,and no explanation for their lack of concern at a missmatch with the SSDM then to go with the Institute of Civil Engineers . The latter body being quoted by the applicant but not ( apparently ,as not appearing as a Statutory consultee ) approached by Planning . Mmm . and for anyone else reading - this all sounds complicated ,and I guess it is but don't be put off as it is understandable . And planning has such an effect on us all .

A very kind person has trawled the organisations other vavancies and sent me a link to a word application form .

Help ,help - has to be in by midday tommorrow . When I try and save the on line application form it appears as a blank form and I can't therefore send it . Any ideas ?

Absolutely bawdy -nan. This current debacle certainly highlights that . Bring back ILEA .

To be fair ,a councillor ( well known on the EDF ) also complains that Southwark WONT let a well known school provider build a primary school on MOL . Not that it's in Southwark's gift anyway .

Thanks MarkT - that's really helpful and makes sense .