Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I’ve just seen this notice for extending DYL’s but I’m confused as to how long the extension will be. Is it going to be from LL to no.2 Bawdale Road? Or 3M from no 2 Bawdale Road?

i) add new lengths or extend existing lengths of ‘DYLs’ (i) in ASTBURY ROAD west side opposite Nos. 3 and 5 Astbury Road (5m), (ii) in BAWDALE ROAD on both sides south-east of its junction with Lordship Lane (22m on the side of No. 157 Lordship Lane, 3m o/s No. 2 Bawdale Road, and 10m opposite No.2 Bawdale Road),

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/362681-extended-double-yellow-lines/
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I surmise, taking into account the existing markings, as on this from https://geomap.southwark.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main, that the 3m on the south side of Bawdale ouside No.2 might well be a continuation of the proposed segment along the side of 157 LL.  You could ask Highways Dept.

[Added 6/6 : Select "Parking Bays (Traffic Restriction Orders)" from the map's RH menu to enable the mark-up of the current yellow line etc  locations.  Click on actual location for textual details to appear in a LH panel].

crop.png.030ce8e8d45821ef1bccf60245d0adb2.png

Edited by ianr

I pass here almost every day and have never seen the local business struggle to load. There's plenty of space as things are. 

 

Seems to me this is just the meddling council being ****heads yet again.

These are their reasons:

"BAWDALE ROAD Goose Green add a total of 35m new 'DYLs' on both sides south-east of its junction with Lordship Lane (22m on the side of No. 157 Lordship Lane, 3m o/s No. 2 Bawdale Road, and 10m opposite No.2 Bawdale Road) to protect access for large vehicles coming to collect from and deliver goods to the nearby businesses"

 

Consultation here:

https://consultation.appyway.com/southwark/order/1c3a8926-8f51-47e1-8460-2727fec6d895

 

  • Thanks 1

Here is the decision document. I’m sure we will all agree that it’s great Southwark is listening to businesses.

“This request came from the businesses on Lordship Lane, informing Highways that they have large vehicles coming to collect and deliver goods from the business which causing an obstruction as vehicles are parked both sides of the entrance and opposite resulting into the vehicle having to block the whole road and cause obstruction.”

“Officers attended site and met with the local business to discuss what would be the best solution to allowing the large vehicles to drop off and collect without obstructing and blocking the road off. As a result, it was agreed that double yellow lines will allow space for loading/unloading without obstructing the road.”

IMG_2987.thumb.jpeg.7b95704d6b5eba131a64352c7c8d8d2c.jpeg

 

a Officers attended site and met with the local business to discuss

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

You can't load on double yellows, you'd be booked

That isn’t true, so long as the driver is actually loading (ie not shopping nearby).

Reading the Decision Document, it does seem like the DYL is being implemented for the benefit of just one particular business that blocks the road with their large vehicles, whilst loading and unloading building materials.

I’m pretty sure that the road isn’t usually blocked for extended periods of time, but having DYLs would permanently remove parking spaces for shoppers and residents.

  • Agree 1
1 hour ago, Bubbles said:

I’m not sure how a CPZ or DYLs is the solution for large Lorrie’s/vehicles blocking a road loading and unloading? 
 

I believe that was the reason stated for requesting DYLs at the end of a road. How has it progressed to a CPZ being needed?

Local businesses and Highways officers have agreed a solution to provide space for loading via double yellow lines. 
 

Maybe a CPZ isn’t needed but it sounded as though you were complaining at the loss of a few parking spaces - this suggests parking pressure is already high, if so a CPZ could be a solution for that. 

  • Haha 1

I'm guessing this is all type roofing in Bawdale road.  At least the roofers will able to stop and load more easily if they put DYLs in.  I presume there won't be no loading lines on the kerbs as that wouldn't make sense.

But no doubt once the cpz comes in on the Melbourne grove side and people living and/or working on lordship lane move their parked cars to the east side of LL, the cpz will come in on Bawdale and other side roads. 

It will be interesting to see if those living in flats above shops on lordship lane will be able to get permits as I don't think those on the west side can apply in the Melbourne grove scheme.  Bit unfair imo.

59 minutes ago, march46 said:

Maybe a CPZ isn’t needed but it sounded as though you were complaining at the loss of a few parking spaces - this suggests parking pressure is already high, if so a CPZ could be a solution for that. 

"Parking pressure" - catnip to the LTN fan bois......it's almost as if the council do things just to create "parking pressure". Well fancy that...why on earth might that be.....?

Posted (edited)

Yes, all part of the wider plan to CPZ East Dulwich, which will happen, slowly but surely. It really only takes a couple of people to suggest extending double yellows or installing a CPZ to ignite the Council into full installation mode.

The Melbourne Grove South CPZ is well on its way, due in October. Despite overall and clear local opposition as laid out in the council report on this ED CPZ consultation results, the Council are nonetheless going ahead with a reduced model anyway on MGS, Colwell and Chesterfield- that'll do nicely for starters and will ensure parking pressure elsewhere. Ever helpful, and in anticipation of (knowing full well there will be) parking pressure on adjacent roads, the council say they won't wait as long as they normally would for yet more ED CPZ consultations.

This will play wonderfully well for the ambitious Councillor McAsh and his CPZ-besotted base.

Edited by first mate

“Maybe a CPZ isn’t needed but it sounded as though you were complaining at the loss of a few parking spaces - this suggests parking pressure is already high, if so a CPZ could be a solution for that. “

let’s be fair and balanced here! It would appear that the “complaint” was initiated by a local business whose large vehicles were blocking a road, due to loading/unloading.

The council’s response to this local business’s complaint is to permanently remove the parking facility for other vehicles, to enable said business to load/unload in that very location!

My point and observation was that DYLs appeared to be a fixed, permanent solution to what I thought was a temporary problem! (As in the Lorrie’s/vehicles don’t usually block the road for hours/days/weeks on end to load or unload and could be viewed as a temporary inconvenience to motorists).  I could be wrong, but that was my initial thought.

To allude that there may already be “parking pressure” based on my post and suggest the solution to this non-verbalised problem is a CPZ, seems a little mischievous to me! 

Mischievous is a wonderful description for our council and their approach to such things. How many parking spaces have they managed to remove?

 

@march46 I think the council misled you with their clever misuse of plurals.....look how the decision document talks of a request coming from " the businesses on Lordship Lane" (which implies more than one) and then in the very same sentence it very quickly switches to...."that they have large vehicles coming to collect and deliver goods to the business" (implying a single business).

And then later it said the council officers met with "the local business".

- although, to be fair, the whole thing is so poorly written it could well be that the council officer who wrote it struggles with sentences and basic grammar 😉 

  • Agree 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What outcome would you like? Disciplinary action? Not to have the driver back? Retraining? I know there is alot of pressure on drivers to deliver within a set day. if he slams the gate, is it evidence he is causing damage, or is the noise a irritant to yourself? You could put a sign up or buy a signing asking to close the gate gentle???? can you hear the door bell from the door? he might be ringing, not hearing and therefore knocking. In trhe notes section of the be livery page, there is a note section, although there is not 100 per cent these notes would be read as these drivers are constantly rushing.  I did a google search for you, i found this and you can try the envri website Contact Us | Evri   To complain to Evri, you can follow these steps: Contact Customer Service: Call Evri's customer service at 0330 808 5456 for assistance with your complaint.    1 Write a Letter: Address your complaint to Capitol House, 1 Capitol Close, Morley, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS27 0WH.    1 Use the Official Website: Visit the Evri complaints page on their official website for detailed instructions on how to submit a complaint.    2 Email or Call for Specific Issues: For issues like missing or damaged parcels, you can email or call 0800 988 8888, which is free to call.    1 These methods will help you effectively communicate your concerns to Evri.   My driver is called anthony, he is brilliant to be honest. I cant fault him.
    • When I have more time and energy, I will look up the actual number of votes cast for each party in that election, rather than the number of seats won. I'm interested to see that you apparently  think that  Boris Johnson did a good job of "leading the country through Covid." Is your memory really that short? I won't stoop to calling Johnson and his cronies names in the way that you seem to think is appropriate for left wing politicians. At least the left wing politicians have some semblance of morals and a concern for people who aren't in some over privileged inner circle and/or raking in money for themselves on the back of an epidemic. I'm not going to open a can of worms on here  by commenting on the disgraceful so called "purge". 
    • Can’t imagine what it must be like you have your doorbell rung harshly.
    • Hi all, Wondering if anyone else in/around SE22 is also having the unfortunate luck of having Evri parcels delivered by a very rude individual? Whenever we have parcels delivered, our front gate is being slammed open and closed, ring doorbell is harshly banged (not pressed) followed by simultaneously banging on the door knocker and slamming the letter box multiple times. Someone is normally home by the time they come in the evening and never has to wait long for an answer. If we’re not home, we speak to them on the doorbell so we do find the actions of this individual unreasonable and rude.  We have tried a couple of times politely asking that they not do this but they are very dismissive and gives a passive-aggressive “have a nice day” reply.  Has anyone been able to contact Evri and successfully had any issues similar to this resolved? We have enough evidence through our doorbell footage but we are lost with what else we can do. We’ve tried asking politely but don’t want our gate or door damaged by someone who simply doesn’t care and lacks basic manners.    If anyone else is having this issue or has any advice on how we can report this, it would be much appreciated. After another dismissive reply to my concern this afternoon, I will be calling Evri tomorrow to raise a complaint. I have lost my patience with them 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...