One hour free parking in the area...

[MarkT]

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

[TheArtfulDogger]

This has gone quiet, the initial questionnaire went out, people responded and as yet no update on what is or is not happening.

Anyone heard anything?

[nxjen]

The cynic in me suggests they're waiting til after the election

[TheArtfulDogger]

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

[TheArtfulDogger]

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!!!

[Penguin68]

But of course there will be those who regularly post on here who will swear blind there are no conspiracies or (barely) hidden agendas

[Siduhe]

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...

[first mate]

James, were you consulted on these changes, did you okay them? Please give specifics and details.

[Abe_froeman]

It's supposed to be a consolidation order so there shouldn't really be any changes to existing restrictions.

[Siduhe]

Abe_f - I agree, but I can't for the life of me see where these existing restrictions are on Melford Road - maybe they just aren't clearly marked/signed?

[Penguin68]

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.

[richard tudor]

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.

[Siduhe]

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.

[James Barber]

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?

[richard tudor]

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