Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I do not know from the posting above, the precise questions posed in Cllr Lyons Members Enquiry, but I wonder if she is enlightened by the response from Mr Walker, Senior engineer.


Consultation is mentioned twice. The first reference is to individual cases of the optional addition of yellow lines to existing dropped kerbs. The Consultation referred to in the last paragraph however relates to the creation of the entire set of rules - the Southwark Streetscape Design Manual.


Mr Walker's statement: "the Southwark Streetscape Design Manual (SSDM) was approved by Individual Decision by the relevant Cabinet Member in December 2012 after a public consultation" is chronologically true, but, in my opinion, is not very informative. More can be gleaned from the Council website.


The Consultation in 2011 was not on the SSDM, which had not then been written, but was on "the draft Framework Plan (formerly known as the SSDM Summary Guide)". This included one-line policy statements such as "SD03: Improved road safety and reduced road danger".


Following that consultation, the Individual Member Decision in December 2012 gave the go-ahead for officers to write the SSDM. As Mr Walker states the sections cited were agreed in 2013 by the Head of Public Realm.


The contents of the SSDM, such as the policy on road markings adjacent to crossovers, have therefore not been subject to consultation with the public or with ordinary councillors, and have not been formally approved by the Cabinet member.


I would prefer that officers would quote documents rather than "summarise". With regard to that specific policy, Mr Walker states that the Council "will" apply double yellow lines across new vehicle crossovers, and "will" extend those markings for not less than 2m beyond the extent of the crossovers. However, the SSDM, in each instance, actually says "should".


The SSDM clearly distinguishes the words "will" and "should". Each Section of the SSDM cited includes the introductory Note: "See standard DS 900 for definitions of terms used in this design standard. Note in particular the definitions for 'should', 'will'."


I can't find DS 900, perhaps it will be published in due course. Meanwhile all the sections cited clearly indicate that "should" and "will" have different meanings.


While Mr Walker's letter focusses on parking management. DS 002 (cited) is concerned specifically with the use of double yellow lines "for road safety purposes". To that purpose it too specifies that double yellow lines should be provided for the entire length of the Crossing plus at least 2m to either side. The road safety issue is, of course, visibility.


In this context I think the importance of the word "should" is clear. It avoids possible contradiction between different Standards: DS 114 "Highway visibility" identifies a conflicting consideration: "research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at."


I suggest that enhancinging sightlines with the 2m extensions might tend to increase the speed of vehicles crossing a pavement, thereby increasing danger to users of the pavement as well as the road. This might be the case for a crossover that would in other respects, such as location, be considered acceptably safe. The safety considerations for or against improved sightlines should be weighed perhaps on a case by case basis. This would fit with the actual wording in the SSDM


MarkT

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The cynic in me suggests they're waiting til after

> the election



Do you think they are still waiting ?


Soooo quiet, hope the officers have forgotten this hair brained scheme

  • 2 months later...

So


Here is an interesting development.


The introduction of 30 minute parking restrictions near shopping parades starting this Friday (21st) in the areas that they were to be consulted on concerning the introduction of 1 hour free parking


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/12305/consolidation_of_free_parking_places_order_-_public_notice_dated_20_august_2015


Is this a move to say that they can increase parking in these areas from 30 minutes to one hour as part of the consultation that hasn't happened yet.


It will be in place for many roads including Barry Road parade, Lordship Lane, Northcross Road to name a few.


Have our local councillors had sight of this and agreed to the changes in parking in East Dulwich?


Were local businesses and residents consulted on the changes?


Or is it just Southwark council pushing forward with their agenda for a borough wide CPZ by pushing shoppers to park in the side roads thus making it harder for residents to park near their own properties?


Not sure how this relates to the concept of Southwark supporting local shopping parades!!!

Well, isn't this interesting.


The order that Artful lists above includes Melford Road close to where I live - 12 metres of new, 20 min only parking restrictions. As someone who looked very closely at the one hour parking consultation when it came out in 2014 and subsequently, I can tell you that Melford wasn't listed as one of the streets where one hour restrictions would be put into place. So this list of new 20-30 min restrictions is wider than the one hour consultation. It's going to cause issues for residents on a part of the road which is heavily parked up due to the buildings at Melford Court. Looks like I will have to go on a hunt to find out when/where this particular restriction was consulted on...

No, the orders in question will have been left clearly in the council offices in Alpha Centauri for anyone to visit and comment on, more fool you for not so doing.


Anyone who thinks that this isn't part of a wide design to reduce car ownership and usage in ED (and to make, now through fines, in the future through CPZ charges) car owners into the new funders of council extravagance and unlimited beverages for the staff in Tooley St is misguided.


'Consolidation' orders, particularly those running to tens of pages are notorious vehicles for the undemocratic introduction of new restrictions. It's amazing how much change can be achieved when you 'tidy things up'.


Whether the councilors themselves are in on this, or even aware of the nitty gritty of it, is a moot point - but the apparatchiks are having a field day and I am sure they believe they are dancing to the tunes they have been given by their political masters.

A ruse used for introduction of the 20mph.


This was buried in the manifesto on page 7 of 10 under heath benefits.


By the time you had waded trough all the first papers you gave up the will to live and I doubt many people even got that far.


Government is particularly good at this when they want to slip bad news etc through. Local Authorities are learning fast.

So, sad person that I am, I've been back through 7 years of Southwark traffic orders to try and understand where this existing restriction on Melford Road is. And I think I've found it. In 2009 and then again in 2014, there was an order which provided for the conversion of "an existing loading bay adjacent to No. 481 Lordship Lane to 20 minutes maximum stay free parking". I know where that bay is, it isn't signposted (if it ever was) but it exists - you can see the road markings. However, it's definitely not 12m long and it doesn't start 10 metres from the kerb line with Lordship Lane.


The restriction which is being put in place by this new consolidation order says the restriction will be "the south-east side, from a point 10 metres north-east of the north-eastern kerb-line of Lordship Lane north-eastward for a distance of 12 metres."


The interesting thing will be whether this is actually just referring to the existing loading bay or whether it will extend the loading bay further up the road. It could just be the drafting of this latest order (which is difficult to understand compared to the simple "convert loading bay" language of the other orders) so I guess I will need to wait and see if any changes are made to the existing bay.

Hi Siduhe,

That really helpful Siduhe. I will ask why this is changing and whether having been assured no changes were occurring it appears one has and are their any others.



Hi Richard tudor,

Are you referring to the Southwark Labour Party 2014 council election manifesto?

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Siduhe,

> That really helpful Siduhe. I will ask why this is

> changing and whether having been assured no

> changes were occurring it appears one has and are

> their any others.

>

>

> Hi Richard tudor,

> Are you referring to the Southwark Labour Party

> 2014 council election manifesto?



YEs

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

    • OOOOooooOOOooohhhHHHHHH 👜 👜 👜 
    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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