Category Archives: Our Street

Lambeth looking to roll out 191 new parking bays for e-scooters and bikes

The excellent Brixton Buzz news site has a detailed report, based evidently on a press release from Lambeth, stating that the Council has decided to introduce 191 new dedicated parking bays for e-scooters and dockless bikes. The estimated cost is £97,150.

This amounts to an extension of the existing e-scooter trial, and seemingly echoes a similar scheme inaugurated earlier this year by Southwark Council.

The initiative is part of Lambeth’s Kerbside Strategy Implementation Plan approved by the Cabinet earlier this year, which has the goal of repurposing a quarter of the borough’s kerbside space for sustainable uses. [Snarky comment: In their little world, “sustainable” simply means not using fossil fuels, but clearly does not take into account the environmental, economic and indeed human impacts of extracting rare metals for lithium batteries, building heavy bikes in China, and shipping them over here in fossil-fuelled cargo ships.]

The proposed expansion aims to address concerns about e-scooters and dockless bikes cluttering footways: there has been some discussion about this on our street WhatsApp recently.

Lime bike on the pavement on Fawnbrake Avenue this morning

By introducing dedicated parking bays, Lambeth Council claims it will offer a more organised solution, reducing street clutter and making the environment more pedestrian-friendly.

Currently, 56 parking bays are operational as part of the trial in the borough. The proposed plan seeks to make the Experimental Traffic Management Orders supporting these trial schemes a permanent fixture in the borough.

The long list of proposed sites or such parking bays identifies, for the most part, new bays for e—scooters and dockers bikes, for which an ‘experimental traffic order’ will be made and eventually published.

Nearby sites for dockless bikes

Most of the streets listed  – Lambeth is of course a very big borough – will be of little interest to us here, but some streets named are quite close:

Deepdene Road (just off Ferndene Road, near Ruskin Park)

Bicknell Road (quite close to the bottom end of Ruskin Park)

Lowden Road (just behind Fawnbrake Avenue, where Jessop School is based)

Railton Road (two sites)

Brantwood Road (two sites)

Rymer Street (near Herne Hill station)

Hurst Street (near Herne Hill station)

 

The Brixton Buzz report is worth a careful read. But to some of us, the ambition of corralling all dockless two-wheelers in specific licensed sites has a fundamental weakness. What has made the dockless bikes such a rapid success is the fact that riders can leave them anywhere their journey ends. And for that matter, using the clever app, can often pick up a new bike at random locations. (I have a friend who, after a festive evening in Soho, can easily find a Lime bike within three or four minutes and ride it home to Nunhead. Rather her than me, but she has survived so far. And much cheaper than and almost as fast as an Uber.)

If the rider or the company is to be penalised unless the bike is deposited in some “official” location, I’m not sure how this will work. For example under the Lambeth scheme just announced, the nearest official site would be either in Brantwood Road or one of the streets near Herne Hill station.  Are London boroughs trying to make dockless bikes work in the same fashion as Santander bikes?

If I can find a similar statement of policy from Southwark Council, I will amplify this report accordingly. To date, Southwark has marked out two such sites on Half Moon Lane.

Dockless bike issues

Dockless semi-electric bikes are cropping up more regularly on our street – sometimes parked correctly, sometimes blocking the pavement. They are surprisingly heavy, and can be dangerous, e.g. to children,  if knocked over.

Our ever-helpful ward Councillor Deepak Sardiwal tells me that some Fawnbrake Avenue residents have been in touch with their understandable concerns over the proliferation of poor bike parking in the neighbourhood. He has shared with me the response he gave them, following a discussion with the council team involved. He explains that the council ultimately intends for the dockless bikes to be placed on kerbside space allocated for this purpose, as part of its new Kerbside Strategy. (I don’t know whether they intend to make dedicated kerbside spaces on every street…). Meanwhile I thought it might be helpful if I shared this position more widely.

Lambeth policy

The statement reads: “Lambeth recognises the conflict since Dockless bikes reappeared in numbers on the streets earlier last year. Currently, we have no legal lever to control them or licence them in the borough as no such legislation exists although it is expected in the coming years. In terms of confiscating the bikes and returning a fee, we have come to a temporary arrangement with the operators requiring them to move a bike within 2 hours of it being reported if it poses a clear obstruction. Our enforcement officers will also remove a bike if it is deemed to cause a danger or threat, in this case, we would charge the operator for the costs of confiscation and storage.

“We have recently come to an agreement with all the operators and developed a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This MOU and associated agreements will address Lambeth’s concerns on footway impediment and the serious accessibility issues they cause., whilst ensuring the bikes can still be used by the public.

“Once we have allocated kerbside space for the dockless bikes all bikes [presumably they mean all dockless bikes] in the borough will be required to be parked in dockless bike bays. If a resident sees a bike parked inappropriately, blocking the footway, falling, preventing or making it difficult to walk, please report this to the Operator, quoting the location and its serial number, This can normally be found on the QR code used to book the bike.”

I am trying to find out whether there is a number within Lambeth Council where we can report dangerously parked electric bikes.

Community Road Watch – request for volunteers to monitor speeding traffic

Reacting to residents’ concerns voiced in the Herne Hill Ward Safer Neighbourhood Team panel meetings, the police have proposed holding some more Community Road Watch exercises this summer. They will focus principally on Milkwood Road and Herne Hill Road, both of which are particularly notorious for badly driven vehicles, often exceeding the 20 mph speed limit and putting pedestrians, cyclists and other road users at risk. Both roads of course have schools on or very close.

The Community Road Watch  exercise involves a Police Officer or Community Officer standing alongside local neighbours who operate a handheld speed camera. Photographic evidence of dangerous driving does not automatically result in a prosecution, but does provide evidence for the police to send a serious warning letter to the driver concerned. The programme requires a member of the public to hold the camera alongside the Metropolitan Police representative. I think we all recognise (the police certainly do) that an immediate speeding fine would be a stronger deterrent, but the law does not apparently permit this at present.

The Safer Neighbourhood Team for this Council ward (I am one of several local members) would like to find some local volunteers to allow this project to take place this summer. For Herne Hill Road it might make sense to look for support among parents whose children attend Saint Saviour’s School. For Milkwood Road, I am looking for volunteers who live perhaps in Fawnbrake Avenue or maybe on Milkwood Road itself, although I have no contact details for that particular community.

When?

The police have proposed the following dates. Note that they are not expecting people to volunteer for all of these dates! This is just a start to find people who might be available for one or two dates – which might need to be adjusted depending on police rosters nearer the time.

Dates proposed by the police:

Friday 14th July – between the hours of 14:00 – 18:30

Monday 17th July – between the hours of 14:00 – 18:30

Tuesday 18th July – between the hours of 14:00 – 18:30

Wednesday 19th July – between the hours of 14:00 – 18:30

Monday 24th July – between the hours of 08:00 – 15:00

Tuesday 25th July  – between the hours of 08:00 – 15:00

Wednesday 26th July  – between the hours of 08:00 – 15:00

Thursday 27th July – between the hours of 14:00 – 18:30

Friday 28th July – between the hours of 14:00 – 18:30

Can you help?

Thank you for anything you can do to circulate this request or mention the project to people that you think might be interested.

It would be great if anyone seeing this message who may be interested and available could please to get in touch direct with me at cognispr@gmail.com or mobile number 07774 424 410. I appreciate that we are not giving people much notice.

CPZ PROBLEM

Temporary parking suspensions, announced through notices stuck on lampposts, trees etc, are legitimately used to reserve spaces for utility works, removal vans, skips and so on. But problems arise when our cars, innocently parked on these spots when owners go away on holiday or on business trips before the notice goes up, are deemed to be in contravention of the suspension if it comes into force in their absence and attracts a parking fine.

In response to a discussion about this issue on our street WhatsApp conversation, I offered to write to our councillors to see whether they could offer a solution. I have now emailed the two most active of our ward councillors, Jim Dickson and Deepak Sardiwal.

 

Here is the text of what I have written:

Dear Councillors

Several of my neighbours here have asked me if I could raise an issue with you, in the hope of finding a pragmatic solution. I’m guessing that you yourselves will not know the answer either, but perhaps you can ask the appropriate team for their advice. The problem, you will see, is not unique to our street and probably not to this borough.

We are in a CPZ zone, which works pretty well. From time to time, notices are fixed on lampposts or trees announcing that parking is suspended at specific nearby areas, for a variety of reasons – utility works, removal vans, skips etc. We are supposed to take note of these warnings and make sure not to park our cars there during the prohibited times. We all understand this, even though sometimes people don’t realise that the notice applies to parts of the street somewhat distant from where the notice is a fixed. But that is not what worries us at the moment. We are learning to be vigilant.

The real problem arises when car owners are absent both when the notice is affixed and when the ban comes into effect. This can happen quite easily. People can go away on holiday or travelling on business for two or three weeks (or even longer) legitimately leaving their cars behind, parked in such an area in all innocence. They can easily be away both when the notice goes up and when the ban comes into effect.

This gives rise to two problems. The parts of the road earmarked for use by, for instance, utility companies, skips, removal vans and so on will inadvertently remain blocked, thus frustrating the original purpose of the parking suspension. Secondly however, any cars parked entirely legally and in good conscience in that spot automatically become liable for a parking penalty without the owners knowing or having the opportunity to avert the situation. They can come back to find an expensive penalty notice on their windscreen.

But attempts to appeal the penalty almost always fail. And naturally the traffic enforcement officers cannot judge whether the car they are ticketing was just parked there carelessly the night before, or had been put there innocently in advance of the ban being announced.

This strikes us as unjustified. It causes great resentment towards the Council.

We have seen suggestions that parking authorities sometimes advise that, to avoid this situation, residents planning to be absent from the street for more than one or two days should empower family members or neighbours to move their cars if the need arises. But this is not a practical solution. It may even be illegal. Many people would not be insured to drive other people’s cars, or would be reluctant to do so for numerous reasons.

So we would like to ask if you could raise this with the parking teams and see whether they can advise on a possible solution, or arguments that could validly be advanced for making an exception in the case of an appeal.

Thank you in advance for looking into this issue.

Artists’ Open House in our streets

Dulwich Festival is back again soon, and with it the wonderful Artists’ Open House opportunities. It’s thrilling to realise how many artists are now active in our street and just a few steps around the corner. Who knew? Surely we are fortunate to live in such a talented and creative area!

The actual dates for visits are 13-14 May & 20-21 May. A list of all the Open Houses in SE 24  –  and more widely  – is on the festival website.

Open Houses on Fawnbrake …

We can enjoy Open House visits to two artists here on Fawnbrake Avenue

Jorge Sanchez
73 Fawnbrake Avenue

website

Oxley Bank Wood by Jorge Sanchez

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Courtenay Kusitor
115B Fawnbrake Avenue

website

Going Out by Courtenay Kusitor

And just a few steps away …

There are several other artists a few minutes away, including …

Camilla Gray
136 Lowden Road

Carola Mathers
4 Ferndene Road

David Whyte
28 Ferndene Road

Chrissy Silver
28 Ferndene Road

Louise Tappin
hosted by Jess Walton & Simon Webb
36 Kestrel Avenue

Elena Blanco
Top Flat, 48 Herne Hill Road

More details about each of these artists (and many others of course) on the Festival website.

New rules for dogs in Lambeth parks & public areas – consultations close tomorrow!

Lambeth are planning to introduce a Dog Control Public Spaces Protection Order. A consultation is in progress but – apologies – I have only just heard about this and the consultation closes tomorrow, Sunday 26 March.

I guess this will be welcomed by most dog owners and park users who have seen that dog walkers often have too many dogs to care for and sometimes lose control.

There is also an explicit warning on dog fouling and penalties for owners who permit this.

The rules would extend to all public places in Lambeth including roads and pavements.

Four’s Your Max

One element of the PSPO proposal is that maximum number of dogs a person can be in charge of is four. An exemption will be in place to allow any official licensed commercial dog walks to continue walking up to six dogs.

In addition they propose that there should be no more than two dogs off their lead at any one time.

 

 

 

 

The consultation details are online, and there is a survey which residents are invited to complete.  If you agree, or want to suggest amendments, why not do do today?

As always, of course, the challenge will be enforcement.

Safer Neighbourhood Panel

The Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction Safer Neighbourhood Panel held its quarterly meeting on 6 December in the boardroom of King’s College Hospital. I attended on behalf of Fawnbrake and neighbouring streets; there were representatives from Coldharbour Lane, Rollscourt Avenue/Woodquest Avenue and Sunset Road. Councillor Dickson attended, as one of the councillors for the ward, as did Police Sergeant Obiola (our Ward Sergeant), Police Constables Keita and Paterson, and PCSO Mo, who has been a familiar face in the streets for several years often to be seen on his bicycle. The panel is chaired by John Frankland.

The police talked us through their crime reports for the three months August – September 2022. These are not deeply detailed, but show an increase (in October) of robbery (i.e. theft from persons or premises with the implicit or explicit threat of violence) often of mobile phones; theft, e.g. of bicycles and shoplifting; and a small increase in burglary.

Compared with the same period the previous year, the aggregate number of recorded incidents was down by two, but theft and robbery offences had risen. In current economic circumstances, these numbers can be expected to rise further. Drug offences were down but I suspect that this is because the police seem not to interfere with the very visible drug addicts such as we might see, for instance, around Herne Hill station and in Brixton, in instances where it isn’t obvious and provable that an offence is taken place. Where serious drug users (who are often troubled by mental illnesses as well) become a public nuisance, often the only remedy for the police is to arrest them and section them to a mental hospital, which will then release them after a day or so.

That said, the police did obtain a warrant for the search of a known drug distribution operation on Mayall Road, though on this occasion no evidence was collected. The house is reportedly very active again and it is possible that another raid could take place, as the neighbours and other residents are of course troubled and distressed by the presence of this activity on their doorstep. Bicycle theft does continue, and the police are very keen to advise bike owners to register their bikes with bikeregister.com  and immobilise.com.     In addition, the police managed to arrest and charge a male exposing in Ruskin Park; he was released on a bail condition not to be in the park.

A number of other issues were raised and discussed, not all of them matters for the police (so not mentioned here). Some people were worried about the rise of E-scooters being driven (usually illegally) at speed on roads and sometimes even on pavements – amounting in practice to antisocial behaviour. The police representatives sympathised but explained that a foot patrol or even a patrol in a police car could normally not physically stop and warn/arrest the scooter drivers: an operation involving several units would be needed and this seemed not to be very high priority – though some of us warned that if this phenomenon continued unabated, there would eventually be severe injuries or maybe even deaths of pedestrians or other road users. It is very much a London-wide or maybe even a national problem, exacerbated by the government’s ambiguous rules.

Another issue was organised night-time drug dealing on the corner of the Rollscourt Avenue and Kestrel Avenue, near the doctor’s surgery. This normally attracted some drug users on foot to be supplied from a car. There seemed to be no threat to other members of the public but it was disturbing to residents. The police said they would keep an eye on this.

I mentioned the phenomenon, familiar on our street, of parked cars being opened and disturbed overnight. The police thought that this was often conducted by drug users looking for small amounts of cash or something to sell. They offered no remedy except, obviously, to keep the cars locked and empty of stealable property.  Another issue was the regular sighting of discarded nitrous oxide gas cylinders, presumably left by abusers who seem to be graduating to much larger cylinders.

Traffic speeding generally was a concern, as in the past. The small team responsible for the Community Road Watch seemed to have been dispersed but needs to be reinstated. Mr Frankland will pursue this.

The next meeting will take place in March 2023.

Lambeth coyly reveals its policy on Electric Vehicle charging points

Neighbours may remember our report in June about an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging point being installed, with no clear warning or explanation, outside a resident’s house. He protested – not at the concept of an EV charging point, which of course no-one could really object to, but at the lack of consultation, given that a crumpled laminated notice replete with official jargon hanging from the lamppost just like another appeal for lost cats, could scarcely be regarded as consultation.

In response a senior officer of the council – having in due course ordered the demarcation of a dedicated EV parking slot outside our neighbour’s house – has just sent him a lengthy statement which explains their approach.

 

 

 

 

 

This is an attempt to summarise and simplify what they are saying.

Free bonus

Any reader with a thirst for more information and a capacity for council jargon can spend a happy hour or so ploughing through a report and appendices buried deep on the Lambeth website.

Meanwhile, here goes…

1. Lambeth assume that the EV market and user demands will rise and that the council should therefore cater for existing and potential EV users. But preserving normal CPZ parking bays adjacent to a new charging point could create difficulties and conflicts, hence the need for dedicated areas. The council assume that internal combustion engine (ICE) users and non-recharging EV users should still be able to find a permit space elsewhere locally (noting correctly that residents have no automatic right to park at their preferred length of kerbside).

2. Lambeth aim to increase the number of lamp column charge points across the borough, and as the EV market develops the council will need to keep their policy under review in supporting the increased demand for recharging. They say that not every lamp column would automatically be appropriate for a charge point installation. But even if almost all suitable lamp columns were to be converted into a charge point, they say, there would still be the risk that ICE vehicles could obstruct access to EV users wishing to recharge their vehicles – hence the need to provide dedicated EV charging bays, barred to other vehicles including even EV cars when they are not being charged. (Comment: if, at some future point, all cars were electric, demand for charging points could not be met simply by converting lamp posts, of course. What then?)

3. Lambeth have a general target to achieve. Particularly in roads with minimal off-street parking, no EV vehicle owner should be further than five minutes away from a charge point. Once this aim is met, additional charge points (e.g. in this case) can be provided to cater for known demands. (Er, how do they assess demand?) They rather defensively pointed out that a notice was erected explaining their intention – but our neighbour’s robust response to this feeble excuse points out, as mentioned above, that while there is general public support for the electric charging policy, Lambeth’s failure to properly communicate their policies and decisions typifies, unfortunately, the council’s tendency to impose policies with negligible explanation: “a half decent consultation programme would have dissipated a lot of the current unhappiness”.

The big unknowns

No-one seems to know whether the take-up of electric cars will accelerate or stagnate. Obviously there is no exhaust pollution from EVs, which is a huge benefit. But there is ample doubt about the wider economic and environmental benefits and costs, when you take into account the need for much additional electricity generation (by what means?), the painful cost of securing the rare ingredients for the batteries, which in addition cannot be safely recycled when they expire; and the gigantic environmental and financial cost of disposing of perfectly efficient modern diesel and hybrid vehicles in order to comply with government targets.

So I suppose Lambeth can be forgiven, in this sense, for keeping options open and proceeding step-by-step.

They are still rubbish at communication though.

Lambeth Country Show 2022 – parking restrictions and street closures

After a two-year break, like Glastonbury (er, perhaps not quite the same …), Lambeth Country Show is back this year, on Saturday 16 & Sunday 17 July. It will run from 12 noon to 8pm on each day (last entry 7:30pm). Click here for the publicity blurb.

The consequential street closures and parking bans near to Brockwell Park are pretty comprehensive. Even for those of us who live just a little further away from Brockwell Park, one inevitable impact is the complicated series of temporary traffic orders which impose one-way traffic systems on certain nearby roads and road closures, and parking suspensions too. And not just for the weekend of the Show.

Although the Country Show runs for only two days, the numerous traffic orders extend from 7 July until 24 July.

The list of temporary traffic and parking restrictions has been published in a recent issue of the South London Press newspaper. They are probably also published on Lambeth Council’s website but we haven’t found them there yet. On the other hand there are the usual laminated A4 notices attached to lamp posts all over the place, like this one spotted on Milkwood Road.

Traffic Order on Milkwood Road, 30 June 2022

It would be unbelievably tedious to list all the orders here. But the South London Press have also posted the full legal Order on their own website .

Impact on Fawnbrake and neighbouring streets

Just to pick out two or three details that might affect us living in this corner of Herne Hill:

  • In Gubyon Avenue there will be one-way traffic system for all vehicles in the direction towards Herne Hill
  • There will be one-way traffic on Milkwood Road between the bridge in Herne Hill and Gubyon Avenue
  • Vehicles driving on Herne Hill will be banned from entering Gubyon Avenue
  • Vehicles driving down Fawnbrake Avenue towards the centre of Herne Hill will be banned from turning right into Gubyon Avenue

However there is a sort of opt out. The Notice says that the “one-way traffic systems, bans and suspensions would only apply at such times as shall be indicated by the placing or covering of traffic signs and ‘no parking cones’”.

So, as ever, we will need to be sharp-eyed looking for such signs.

Electric Vehicle recharging bays in Fawnbrake Avenue

Who knew? It appears that Lambeth’s policy is to “introduce Electric Vehicle recharging bays adjacent to all of the lamp column EV charge points across the borough”. Rather like the markings on disabled parking bays. Which sort of makes sense. But these spaces can only be used by cars actually on-charge and, crucially, also have a permit for the Parking Zone in which they are located.

After all, an EV charging point embedded in the lamp post isn’t much use if a boring old diesel vehicle is thoughtlessly parked there for days on end, blocking your shiny new electric car desperate for a top up.

What isn’t clear – unless we have failed to drill down deep enough into the baffling depths of Lambeth’s website – is how many lamp column charge points, and thus reserved parking bays, we can expect to be introduced in this area.

Meanwhile another parking hazard has been introduced: presumably our parking enforcement officers now have access to software which will tell them (by reading the number plate?) if a non-electric vehicle is erroneously parked in a space reserved for an electric car  in which case they can issue a penalty notice without further ado.

There are 20 lamp columns on Fawnbrake Avenue, if we have counted correctly. There is already one electric charging point outside number 10, and now another one has arrived, with little fanfare or notice to the adjoining houses.

Shall we shortly have the whole street wired up for electric vehicles?

No-one is saying. What is clear on the other hand is that the system for siting these charge points – and the corresponding reserved recharging bays – is pretty opaque. Once the list of charge points (they proceed by successive batches based on no known criterion) is agreed by the councillors, a short period of “statutory consultation” is launched by council officers.

To be fair, it must be difficult to balance the requirement for electric charging points with the actual number of electric cars arriving on our streets. But as these points can only be used by electric car users who have a permit for our Parking Zone, and as there can’t be that many electric cars in this area, we won’t need that many points at this stage.  So, numbers of points and siting are important.

Meanwhile, how is one to know about this “consultation” process? Either by assiduously reading the very, very fine print of notices published biweekly in the South London Press (which few read) or by studying an A4 notice limply attached to a lamppost where the charge point, and thus the reserved Recharging Bay are to be introduced. As in the above photo of a notice outside number 86.

We all applaud the idea of electric cars, and would welcome a widespread installation of charging points, balanced to need, within sensible distance of our homes. If you have an electric car, and more and more neighbours are thinking along those lines, more charging points are obviously highly desirable. Ultimately the introduction of electric vehicles could be the most decisive intervention to reduce street pollution and would bring other environmental benefits. We are only at the beginning of this process, one assumes.

However, the siting of these points, and consequent loss of regular parking spaces, are matters of concern to all residents. Some would love to have one near their house and others not.

It is annoying for any person not yet the proud owner of an expensive electric car whose house has been arbitrarily chosen for such a benefit. And irritating for someone with such a car who would love to have EV point near them.

A well hidden appeal

Consult us, Lambeth!

So, a diplomatic public consultation seems essential to explain the formula for selecting posts for adaptation (and the consequent loss of a parking space) and gives those affected a chance to have a say.   The views of everyone else should be sought to ascertain who actively wants one.   A brokered solution should be possible that balances everyone’s views.  There also needs to be assent to the total number of points in the street as parking is already tight and we can’t lose too many spaces.

Simply writing “Have your say” on a document lodged deep out of sight in the Council’s website doesn’t do the trick.