Jump to content

Recommended Posts

James Barber Wrote:

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

> HI IATATM,

> No lack of interest. Lack of time - and I short

> change my family too much as it is. And my new day

> time job is more demanding that the previous two.



4 years too far?

Hi spider69,

This issue was raised a few weeks ago after I put in considerable time getting all the white lines re installed on Ashbourne Grove and Elsie Road. I haven't had any further casework so far that would drive me spending time on this other than investigating in a more general way.

Instead Southwark Council now offer double yellow lines to keep driveways clear. Clearly this is much more enforceable. But it means residents can;t choose who parks across their driveway. So overall parking capacity is down.

The yellow lines are extended to 2 metres either side of the driveway. That removes another 2 x 1/2 car parking spaces.



James, were council officers clear with you that this is an option which can be chosen or not by residents who are putting in a drop (which is what seems to be suggested by your "Southwark Council now offer double yellow lines...)? If so, that's totally inconsistent with what I and my neighbours (who are putting in a drop) have been told by the Council. We have both been told double yellows are now mandatory on "safety grounds". Appreciate you're not only focused on this issue, but if we could get some clarity around option/mandatory that would be really helpful.

Southwark are clear that the yellow lines are for SAFETY .Which is why they are extended across the frontage of neighbouring properties .


There is no suggestion that they are being installed to keep the access to the driveway clear .It is ALREADY illegal to park across a dropped kerb ,even if there are no yellow lines .


Having yellow lines doesn't make it more illegal . Or easier to enforce ,or increase the resources to do so .


It's all madness . If ,as Southwark say ,it's for safety they should be assesing existing dropped kerbs .


I don't really care whether a dropped kerb has no markings ,a white H bar or double yellow lines across it .


I DO care if the yellow lines extend 2 metres either side of the dropped kerb .

In response to the latest message about Fellbrigg Road dog mess.

Officers on receipt of my requests inspected Fellbrigg Road and the surrounding area on Monday and found two instances of dog poo. These were cleared during Monday.

Council officers are aware of the general problem in the area. Dog poo is removed by litter pickers and street cleaners as part of their normal scheduled activities. Fellbrigg Road is litter picked every Monday, Wednesday and Friday and receives a full detritus sweep every four weeks. They have confirmed all litter pickers and sweepers have been reminded of their responsibilities regarding the removal of the dog poo. How unpleasant for them.


My request for two more litter bins - one each side about a third of the way in has been accepted and they will be installed in the area with stickers on them to inform people that they may be used for bagged dog poo.

My request for more anti dog poo stencilled markings on the pavements where the worst is occurring has also been accepted and will soon be installed on the pavements.

James, there is also a helluva lot of dog poo in Beauval Road these days. Either we have a new particularly incontinent dog in the area or the general problem is getting worse. Perhaps something could be done about this as well.

Hi theboycj,

Yes WRT to the 185. From 1 November Mon-Sat more 185's will run such that isntead of every 10mins they will run ervery 8mins. Quite a hefty service improvement.


We also raised the 176 frequency and will raise again along with P13, 40 and 484.

Hi, James. There is new dog poo in Beauval Road most days on the stretch between Townley and Woodwarde Roads (Lordship Lane side). There was a particularly large dollop between about 25 Beauval and Milo Road junction which happily seems to have reduced in size - probably trodden on by numerous pedestrians.


I am sure that the only real way of stopping this is to reintroduce the stocks or some similar punishment (irony alert).

James,


Ticketing parkers who park illegally outside the Sainsbury's (Dulwich Plough) would really help prevent tailbacks there between 1600 and 1900. Just one parked vehicle can really make the traffic back up at already busy times. Can you work on this and let us know what action will be taken?


Thanks.

Yes, first mate. I am a very liberal and fair minded person. But the stocks punishment would serve as a deterrent since they would be much less likely to do it again.


Of course, if they were executed, in public or private, they certainly wouldn't do it again.

Hi Lynne,

Can you please email me your concerns.



Lynne Wrote:

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

> Hi. Have a look at the section about the

> second-hand furniture shop on Upland Rd and give

> it a thought about whether the trading standards

> people would be interested. I'd be glad of your

> opinion

Hi Nigrloo,

Have reported but without constant parking warden attendance during those hours it will happen.


Hi

ZT have reported and asked for supprot for Beauval Road.

tricky. With less street cleaning and litter pickering - it's now the least it been - others see an example of dog poo and it appears the 'broken window effect' applies - they're more likelyto not clear up and it accelerates.

Eitherway will try and get bins and stencils on pavements to minimise.


Hi Lynne,

Have reported to trading standards for them to investigate.

Re.Lordship Lane road junctions

1/ Northcross Rd. Is this a consultation? It's listed as one on the council's website, but, as pointed out on the other thread, there is no facility for anyone to contribute an opinion.

2/ It is now a year since I raised the issue of poor visibility at the Whateley Rd junction. At the time, you said you were already dealing with this. Later on, when I asked what, if anything was happening, you said it was "a work in progress". In fact, nothing is any different. Removal of the railings and all the items lined up against them would improve the visibility at this junction. The council seem unconcerned about road safety at this junction. Could this be because they intend to close this end of Whateley Rd to traffic once the school is built, as they did with Friern Rd, once the Harris Boys' Academy had been built?

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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