Dropped Kerbs DCC mtg Tuesday 17th St Barnabas Church Hall 7pm

[intexasatthe moment]

Amongst other items of interest I see that several applications for dropped kerbs to allow parking on forecourts are up for approval at tonights Dulwich Community Council ( St Barnabas Church Hall ,Tuesday 17 March 7pm ) meeting .

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=176&MId=4840&Ver=4

And I remember JB hoping to address the 2 metre yellow lines either side of new dropped kerbs ruling at this meeting .

Mark T's earlier comments ,especially this one I think

" 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 " http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1457948,1485776#msg-1485776

raise good points which I hope JB will take on board and raise .

Plus the strange "consultation " which was connected with this piece of policy .

"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."

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1457948,1485776#msg-1485776

I hope it will be a productive meeting and that some steps will be taken towards preventing the routine installation of double yellow lines over neighbouring properties .

[Earl Aelfheah]

Drop kerbs effectively amount to privatisation of public space. It also leads to the loss of front gardens, which is undesirable in both environmental and visual amenity terms. I would like to see a general policy of refusing drop kerb applications except in exceptional circumstances.

[intexasatthe moment]

Quite agree rahrahrah . I loathe seeing what was once a front garden become a car park .And the appropriation of public land by a householder .

To add no waiting/parking to the road outside neighbouring properties is really rubbing salt into the wound .

[Penguin68]

Drop kerbs effectively amount to privatisation of public space. It also leads to the loss of front gardens, which is undesirable in both environmental and visual amenity terms. I would like to see a general policy of refusing drop kerb applications except in exceptional circumstances.

And I am sure all those in the council wanting to implement revenue generating CPZs will be entirely in favour of this approach - after all, you don't want the suckers escaping your claws, do you? A dropped kerb takes the space of a parked car. Parking 2 cars on your forecourt (if you have 2 cars, or allow a neighbour to park) increases available space for others (although the loony 2 meter double yellows on both sides would negate this).

[tiddles]

this is my 'beef' penquin68. I do have a dropped kerb as do my neighbours (they were existing we did not put them in) however, we have an informal agreement with all our neighbours that they can park there. It also is a good spot for large lorries to unload, scaffolders, the post vans, and of course visiting tradespeople. I do not have a problem with people parking across it, if they leave a note on the windscreen saying where they are should I need to get out. If double yellows are introduced, what happens then? complete chaos looking for a parking space, fleets of wardens looking to meet their targets, and no doubt a council looking 'solve' the problem (and line their pockets) with a CPZ. I know that apparently the costs of the CPZ are admin or parking related, but I really do not buy that. I have a colleague who pays approx ?400 for a parking permit in west norwood. It still does not quarantee a place to park.

[MarkT]

Double yellow lines across a private dropped kerb, with or without the 2 metre extensions, give exclusive benefit to one household to the disadvantage of every other vehicle user.

By contrast a disabled parking space, sited directly outside the applicants house, is not exclusive. It is open to any other badge holder.

[intexasatthe moment]

Penguin - I may be wrong but it seems to me that the majority of dropped kerbs only give space for ONE ( not going to risk more elegant formatting involving HTML ) vehicle .So generally doesn't increase parking space .

[Penguin68]

Well, I have a dropped kerb (there when I bought the house over a quarter of a century ago), and can park 4 cars (regularly park 3). In my street most neighbours have room for 2. But smaller houses (with smaller or narrower frontages) are more limited.

[intexasatthe moment]

I'm not doubting that there are instances where more than one car can be parked ,just that it's not true in the majority of streets .

[Earl Aelfheah]

MarkT Wrote:

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

> Double yellow lines across a private dropped kerb,

> with or without the 2 metre extensions, give

> exclusive benefit to one household to the

> disadvantage of every other vehicle user.

>

> By contrast a disabled parking space, sited

> directly outside the applicants house, is not

> exclusive. It is open to any other badge holder.

Exactly this. It is privatisation of part of the highway for the exclusive use of the householder.

[MarkT]

The requirement for double yellow lines is specified in the Streetscape Design Manual. The effect, if not the purpose, of the 2M extensions is to increase visibility.

Section 114 of that same Manual warns that increased sight-lines can increase danger by encouraging speed.

Will our councillors tonight give their approval to those extended yellow lines given such a warning?

[intexasatthe moment]

Very pleased that there was unanimous agreement that a request for the director to review the 2m extension of double yellow lines ruling should be made .Current applications to be deferred pending outcome .

Though I've no idea who the director is ,the likelihood of the request for a review being succesful ,the possible outcome or the timescale .

[James Barber]

Hi ITATM,

It goes from silly to ridiculous. WE had approved new dropped kerbs in Jan uary IF officers only implemented them with 1/2m double yellow lines each side. They've refused. They've tried to bounce us again last night into Southwark Council absurd positino of 2m double yellow lines and we've said no with one exception where the ward councillor doesn't think it will make a difference.

The same street guide is against active speed signs, cycle hoop cycle parking, etc. Weird to see Labour councillors campaigning against this design guide when they introduced it two years ago. What a waste of public money all round.

[intexasatthe moment]

James what I don't understand is how this policy came about with out councillors ( or anyone else it seems ) being aware of it or having the opportunity to object or suggest modifications .

Doesn't Southwark have decision making process about such traffic issues which involves community councils fairly early on in the process ?

What's your view on this James ?