Extended Double Yellow Lines

[Bubbles]

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),

[ianr]

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].

Edited Friday at 11:33 by ianr

[Bubbles]

Oh right, thank you. So this would mean the DYLs would be from LL extended right along to 3M pass no 2 Bawdale, if I’ve understood it correctly.
That’s one hell of an extension! 

[CPR Dave]

Is this the council supporting local businesses like what they said in their Melbourne Grove parking consultation?

[march46]

How do you know the businesses haven’t asked for this, so they have somewhere for their loading?

[Penguin68]

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

[CPR Dave]

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

 

[march46]

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.”

 

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).

[Moovart]

Loading restrictions are indicated by kerb lines

Lines on the road are for parking 

[malumbu]

5 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

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

It's a yellow card Now, bookings went in the 70s.  Unless you are talking about Hawaii.

Edited Thursday at 22:10 by malumbu
Added image from Hawaii 5-0, younger readers wont understand

[tiddles]

I do not believe for one moment local businesses asked for more yellow lines and the removal of available parking for customers. This is part of the ‘creep’ of removing parking - ultimately to introduce paid for parking (which is their policy).  

[Bubbles]

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.

[Penguin68]

2 hours ago, Bubbles said:

, but having DYLs would permanently remove parking spaces for shoppers and residents.

... So job done. And the possibility of fines (rubs hands together) and a CPZ!

[Bubbles]

22 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

... So job done. And the possibility of fines (rubs hands together) and a CPZ!

😂 Yes, Dastardly would be proud of this manoeuvre! (Laughs in Muttley voice)!

[march46]

Sounds as though a CPZ is already needed if the current parking pressure can’t cope with just a few spaces at one end of a road being removed. 

[Bubbles]

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?

[ianr]

18 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

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

 

 

At what times of day do you pass?

[march46]

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. 

[Moovart]

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.

[Rockets]

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.....?

[first mate]

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 Friday at 15:17 by first mate

[Bubbles]

“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! 

[Rockets]

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 😉