Parking on pavement outside Forest Hill Library

This car has been parking right on the pavement at the bottom of the steps on a regular basis for the last few months. Always around the school pick up times.

image4032×3024 3.99 MB

Suggest let tyres down

— depending who the driver is, I should add…

Perhaps a polite note under the wipers

This picture alone should be sufficient for them to get a ticket

What would it say? Perhaps: “Please don’t so something which very few other people do and is not acceptable / desireable to others”

I found some (oldish) info suggesting to report an illegally parked vehicle please call 08452 185248 (option 5) or email lewishamparkingshop@nslservices.co.uk.

Once again the culprit has parked outside the Library!

image4032×3024 5.72 MB

image4032×3024 4.43 MB

Sums up our council,given the evidence yet they do nothing.

It’s probably a parent picking up from school. Some people think it’s OK to park the other side of double yellows on the pavement.

Nice to see they’ve chosen a little run around to lower their carbon footprint, as they drop the kids off 5mins down the road.

Yeah I’ve seen this advertised, every new Range Rover comes with 12 months’ sense of entitlement as standard.

I have no idea why anyone would think owning a car like that in a city was a good idea. I grew up in the country on a farm and we managed with an ordinary family car.

Definitely worth contacting Lewisham Parking Enforcement to notify the vehicle as being a persistent offender. This is selfish and unreasonable behaviour.

For any questionable parking you can contact:
traffic@lewisham.gov.uk
Parking Services: 08452 185 248 or 0208 787 5397
& PLEASE TELL our local Councillor: (Thorpewood Ave is having a LOT of parking issues right now - Councillor Gibbons says that he only hears from a handful of folk, so it is not an important issue to him unless he hears from more people)
Cllr Leo Gibbons - his email is:
Cllr_Leo.Gibbons@lewisham.gov.uk

I get the impression people rarely contact Lewisham as they are not interested including our councillors. It seems a shame that the millions spent on Dartmouth Road are being ruined by a lot of on-pavement parking especially at night. Although I hate the concrete balls on some sections, they do seem to work.

Very strange that Councillor Gibbons has never heard of parking issues on Thorpewood Avenue but perhaps people have given up complaining to the council. It is Forest Hill’s third car park so I can’t see any votes in upsetting the current situation. I’d say most of the residents have resigned themselves to pollution, not being able to park, lower house prices, anti-social behaviour from entitled parents and interest from politicians only at election time. The innocent are the kids who walk to Trinity and Eliot Bank who have to breathe in the pollution from all the cars. I can understand there being no votes in keeping the residents happy but I think we should do something for the next generation or maybe the kids will block the road demanding clean air.

THANK YOU EmmaJ for that concise & pertinent comment on the SE23 forum. I am cc to Thorpewood neighbours for whom I have email addresses (with permission for those to be made public; others in Bcc). We have been battling for years on this issue, but this is the 1st time I have seen Thorpewood described as the 3rd FH car park! Sadly true. Cllr Gibbons is well aware of the problem, but says that complaints from ONLY 3 residents is not enough to trigger further action - although he has set up a Working Group. Thank you again for your support & I agree with all your thoughtful and comprehensive comments. Maybe you could fwd to Cllr Gibbons (email address above) to help the cause? All best, Sian

Hi Sian, thank you for your misleading message.

After I was elected in 2018 I heard from such a large number of people regarding the parking pressure on Thorpewood Avenue that myself, Cllr Davis and Cllr Bernards made it one of our priority issues to look into in the ward.

I set up a working group via the Forest Hill library with residents from Thorpewood Avenue and local stakeholders to discuss the matter and work with the Council to try and find a solution.

I’ll try and keep this brief, but the lower section of Thorpewood Avenue suffers from significant parking pressure. However, this parking pressure eases ‘somewhat’ towards Kirkdale and in part due to a large number of properties with driveways in the area, a Forest hill CPZ covering this area was resoundingly rejected during a consultation a couple of years ago. A very small CPZ on the lower section of Thorpewood Avenue alone would not be feasible for several reasons.

The “three residents” comment was SPECIFICALLY related to the matter of inconsiderate parking and congestion during school drop offs (primarily outside Eliot Bank school). This is related to general parking pressure (there are not many available parking spaces for parents etc) but it is primarily caused by the sudden large volume of arrivals generated by parents driving their kids to school and not using sustainable transport. It is a problem outside almost all schools across the borough.

Three residents have ceaselessly complained about congestion outside Eliot Bank school at drop-offs and my remark was related to this matter. Intervention such as road closures at school drop off times will only be considered when observations and complaint numbers reflect a very serious case.

On the school time congestion, further action has been triggered. I have kept on pushing the matter onto the agenda of our Highways Team. Those in our working group, for example, will know what work I have done in putting ‘School Streets’ on Lewisham Council’s Agenda. https://lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/roads-and-transport/closing-roads-to-traffic-at-school-drop-off-and-pick-up-time-school-streets

Our next meeting of the working group will be on Thursday 10th October at 7pm, in the Community Room in the Forest Hill Pools. Any resident impacted by concerns in this thread are welcome to come along.

Lewisham Council is very aware of the parking pressure on the lower section of Thorpewood Avenue and understands its severity. However, a solution to the problem is difficult. Residents need to vote in favour of a CPZ to tackle legitimate parking pressure, and enforcement will always be hit and miss for illegal parking, as we do not have the budget to have wardens on every corner, every minute of the day.

I will certainly contact officers about this vehicle and see if we can ticket it, the next time it appears.

Cllr Leo Gibbons

It’s no longer just outside the library. For the last few weeks numerous cars have started parking outside the job centre all over the pavement and playing loud music/shouting for hours on end late into the night. What can be done about this?

image4032×3024 2.19 MB

I attach this as an example - they were there for around 2 hours from 11:30pm to 1:30am on Friday

I walked back on Friday night about 22.00/22.30 and similarly noticed several cars parked on pavement along that patch of road, albeit at that point not playing music. Unfortunately didn’t take pictures as evidence.

The parking on pavement issue is one that Lewisham don’t address. I have been banging on to LBL about parking on pavements for years - literally years - but Lewisham say they can’t enforce against it. I fear that the nice new pavements outside the library will go the way of our neglected and frankly dangerous pavements on Kirkdale. Here are just a few of the images I’ve sent to Lewisham over the years …

vehicles%20on%20pavement%20Costcutter%20area2592×1552 715 KB

20171213_1703165312×2988 3.83 MB

IMAG15042592×1552 514 KB

No-one has suggested that this should happen, but we would like something more than we have currently. There’s a deficit when it comes to enforcement of nuisance like this. Look at other threads in this forum, and noise enforcement is another area where Lewisham is just not providing an adequate service. Stop spending money (£200,000) on patronising froth like ‘Festival of Creative Ageing’ and provide basic services, please.

It is sad to hear that residents are ceaselessly complaining to you as a Councillor. I have heard that there have been some nasty cases of verbal and threatened physical abuse which although directed at only a few people is still serious. Do you not want people to contact (“complain”) to the council or their local councillor?

Of course it is serious that someone has been verbally abusive or threatened someone physically, and this should reported to the police. I completely understand any resident wanting to notify their councillor about such an event but informing their councillor every time someone parks in front of their drive, or after every row over a parked car has ensued, is a very different matter.

It is still noteworthy that only three residents have reported getting into aggressive confrontations with motorists outside the school, to me or officers.

I am aware of these issues and I am working with Council officers and the local schools to find solutions to parking pressure in the area. If you’d like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to email me on cllr_leo.gibbons@lewisham.gov.uk or come and meet with me at my advice surgery.

Apologies, my first post, don’t know why it has been “flagged”.

Many thanks to those who have responded positively - I’ll be very happy to amend and repost as soon as I can work out what I’ve done wrong . . . it really is a serious issue.

Hi Mark

I’m a former mod. I think there are various combinations that can result in posts being hidden - if it’s your first post and you are not verified, and someone has flagged it as inappropriate, I think it gets automatically hidden until the mods have had a chance to review it. The idea being that the community on here can self-moderate to an extent and or assist should someone new come in and post objectionable content, if mods are not online, or have missed it.

I’ve had a look at your post, and it appears ok to me so I suspect it will get put back in, but if not or if it needs moderating the mods will let you know why.

Welcome to the site!

Only in London can you literally park on a footpath and get away with it. Absolutely insane. What a beautiful city to live in. A lot of it just comes down to how soft some of the councils are. Too scared to fine their own residents for anything.

That is much appreciated, thank you. I can’t see that anything I said is as remotely controversial as eg Cllr Gibbons above starting a post - I assume in all seriousness - by saying “thank you for your misleading message”.

Incidentally, I would really like to link up with the 3 residents who have complained ceaselessly; no one I know has the energy to complain every time there is a problem, and I have never, ever, been aware of any local resident engaging in a row or willingly entering into an aggressive confrontation with the people who cause problems. What I have seen, and experienced, on rare but unfortunately somewhat regular occasions, is polite requests for people to move their cars, because their parking is causing a problem, met with abuse and threats. It really is very unpleasant indeed.

To my knowledge, no-one has ever asked for any sort of miracle cure to sort this out; what we have asked for is basic, simple actions, like those taken in so many other areas, to help ameliorate the issue. As Lewisham has pointed out, there are lots of local examples of best practice; we should, as the council has proposed, emulate that best practice.

Oddly enough the local constituency Labour Party called on LB Lewisham last summer “to enforce the law* on pavement parking over other parking infringements.” That meant, given the budget available for parking enforcement, pavement parking should be prioritised.

It would appear that there are many more than a few disgruntled residents who are concerned about this. The issue is about law enforcement, but it’s also about the environment. Southwark Council asks whether people need to use a car for short journeys. But if people are walking, then pavements need to be clear for them to do so - just as the law seeks to say.

—
*Greater London (General Purposes) Act 1974, Section 15
As to parking on footways, grass verges, etc. […]any person who, […]in or on any urban road in Greater London parks a vehicle so that one or more of its wheels is resting on […a pavement or footway] shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

Ironic considering that it’s only in London that parking on the pavement is actually illegal

Can I ask, Cllr Gibbons, will you also work to alleviate the rise in anti social behaviour caused in part by people parking on the pavement outside the job centre (sometimes even right outside the doors) late at night?

I think you mentioned up thread that it wouldn’t be possible to have wardens patrolling ‘all the time’, but can’t you recognise that residents are frustrated that they seemingly can’t do anything about this type of behaviour? It’s making living in certain parts of Forest Hill quite unpleasant.

To be fair to Cllr Gibbons he has helped us out with a pavement parking issue at the top of Taymount Rise. The no parking “zigzags” were getting very faded and we had people parking on the pavement forcing people to walk in the road and obstructing access to our block of flats for bin lorries and emergency services vehicles He contacted the council to get the no parking zig-zags and signs redone and we have noticed a big reduction in issues.

However I agree that parking in Forest Hill is becoming a big issue - some people seem to think they can park anywhere no matter how much it inconveniences people, particularly pedestrians.

If the council won’t act, take action yourself. Setup a Gofund page for some heavy duty plant pots, stones etc place along the pavement at intervals. If it’s ok for cars to park on pavements, what could be wrong with a Chrysanthemum…

I’d also like to add that perry vale road is a nightmare by the station when the Banquet Hall has an event on.

Ha! I have a sneaking suspicion that council workers would suddenly appear as if out of nowhere and remove them.

Would be an interesting experiment on a small section I think I’ll take your bet about them being removed… maybe in a year or two.

It would seem to me Cllr. Gibbons has offered to meet disgruntled posters. Perhaps it might be an idea for them to take him up on the offer and report back?

@Mark1 , you are one of the 3 residents. I know you have already linked up with one other.

I would politely request that you speak to me in the same manner in which you claim to speak to those parking in front of your drive. One of your posts has already been flagged/hidden for its aggressive tone and for making false accusations.

Anyway, I am off to speak to Officers regarding this issue of pavement parking on Dartmouth Road and see what can be done to aid prevention and improve enforcement.

I shall report back on here.

I do think the school is trying to reach out to its neighbours as I have been told they are going to circulate the following to cars that park over those three driveways that complain and hopefully help the silently fuming who don’t complain.

Dear Driver

(CAR Reg)

We were recently notified that this car had blocked a neighbour’s driveway at a time when they were wanting to drive out from that driveway. I am sure that you will realise that this is can cause great stress to our neighbours, especially if they have appointments or need to leave urgently.

Please ensure that you find a more considerate place to park in the future. There are spaces in Radlet Avenue and Round Hill that can be found at most times. From either it is a five minute walk to the school.

Many thanks in your support of good neighbour /school relations

The Governing Body of Eliot Bank School

Thanks Leo, but sorry, no, you must be referring to someone else. I am not sure I have ever informed you of a particular badly parked car, have I? Let alone ceaselessly, every time it happens. And I have certainly never had a row over a parked car. What I have experienced, as you know, are some incidents of really very unpleasant abuse and threats when having no choice but to ask, very politely, drivers to move to let me in or out. As have, to my knowledge, more than three other local residents. My response to these incidents is always to walk away, and on a couple of occasions, report the incident to the police.

What I have asked for from you is your support in progressing the formal recommendations made by the council in resolution of some of these long standing of concerns. Whatever our disagreements - and there are clearly many - I am delighted that when we met you agreed to offer that support. We agree it is a very sensible proposal for the way forward, lets just get on with it.

You might want to read what the former moderator said about my first post, which was “flagged”. Of course there are no false accusations, and I really can’t work out what is wrong with the tone. In fact, I thanked you in the post for acknowledging the formal apology I had received from the Council, and for your support for the resolution.

Lets get on to a better relationship can we? Please don’t take it personally when I comment on policy or the action, or inaction, of the Council. Some of what you have said and written to me has worried me, and I have tried to work through those issues with you. But asking questions, sometimes difficult questions, is in my view a really important of the local democratic process. The debate, the discourse, acknowledging disagreement is healthy, even in these difficult political times. I am sure we will agree at least on that. Lets move forward.

Hi Mark, Perhaps it would help resolve any ambiguity about your prior complaint to Leo if you were to use your full name here on the forum, and maybe add a profile photo so @LeoGibbons (who is using his full name here) is able to identify who he’s talking to?

I suspect your original post was flagged as it came from a new member and was one-on-one confrontational. That kind of post doesn’t go down too well on this forum, which is designed for general public interest.

Note that councillors like @LeoGibbons and @SophieDavis are under no obligation to use this forum. They do so because they care on a personal level about reaching out to the local community. I’m sure they’re interested in hearing both positive and negative opinions on council matters, but one-on-one interpersonal matters should be discussed with them on private channels IMO.

That very helpful, thanks Chris, I’ll work out how to get a profile on.

As I think I said somewhere above, I really am sorry that I may have caused offence, and will happily amend the original post when I know what’s wrong with it. But I am saddened the Leo tells me I am making “false accusations”; that really not the case, and I wish he had not said it.

Leo, lets sort it out in private as Chris suggests.

Regards,

Mark

Thank you, it’s great to see this, it’s really helpful. In fact, this sort of action is I’m told one of the key elements of good practice that can really make a difference. I look forward to hearing how it is going to work.

This seems to be an ongoing problem with The Hill pub.

I was woken up on Saturday night due to screaming and shouting (also Friday night/Saturday morning by a large group of males and a motorbike). It turns out that someone had been assaulted by another reveller. Fortunately the police quickly turned up (but it is a waste of their time if it could be avoided).

I have spoken to the landlady (who is perfectly nice and reasonable); she added that due to her license she can’t have any doormen on the premises. I think this is largely the problem - people are free to do and get away with things as they wish. (But she did say she bars people if they repeatedly break her rules (such as by taking glasses outside).)

The situation just feels a bit hopeless. I have raised these concerns with Lewisham Council but I’ll likely be woken up again at the weekend.

OH MY! I have only just looked at this thread, but I am shocked. Very shocked.
I (sians) posted how people could complain about bad parking, supplying email adds of lewisham parking folk & Cllr Gibbons. I added that the Cllr says QUOTE “he only hears from a handful of folk, so it is not an important issue to him unless he hears from more people”. This is what he actually said to me in a personal email of 16/9/19: QUOTE
" If this silent majority who are concerned about the issue of school-run congestion do not complain to either their council or their councillors, how are we supposed to know about it? If only a few of the residents have the motivation to write an email, or phone in a complaint or even phone enforcement officers, we can assume it is probably not a huge issue."

I acknowledge his point.

Cllr Gibbons then replied that my message on SE23 was misleading!!! WHAT??? PLEASE EXPLAIN!!! I FIND IT QUITE OFFENSIVE THAT YOU SAY MY MESSAGE IS MISLEADING. Cllr Gibbons has NOW said that Only 3 residents complained about aggressive confrontations school drop-offs… (not about general complaints)
Cllr Gibbons - you need to think more carefully how you write!
Cllr Gibbons - you later suggest that we should report the matter of illegal parking to the Police. REALLY? Is this really a priority for the police when there are stabbings & shootings going on?
I have just Googled the role of a local Cllr - I think parking problems comes into the Cllr remit, not the police.
I am seriously unimpressed by our local Cllr. His words have been less than diplomatic… His actions … (fill in the space)

That’s not what Cllr Gibbons said. He was talking about verbal abuse and threats. Not illegal parking:

Also, @sians, it’s unfair of you to quote Cllr Gibbons’ private correspondence publicly (I assume without his permission) - especially when the context may differ subtly from what’s currently being discussed on this topic.

HI Chris - do you live near here? Just a thought. Are you personally aware of the issues that affect Thorpewood Ave?
Apart from that, why is it it unfair to of me to quote something from a public servant who has been elected by his local community?
s

I presume here you mean’t to say Assembly rather than library.
The perception among the residents is that the main impetus for the working group came from the mayor after he attended the Meet the Mayor Assembly where he was asked some difficult questions about why the council had committed to doing something but did nothing and had made the problem a lot worse. The next Assembly after this announced that the Assembly was sponsoring 2 working groups. It may have been a coincidence or it could be we have a good mayor.

The consultation was held in 2015 which was 4 years ago not a couple of years ago . A lot has happened in those 4 years. We have had improvements to Dartmouth Road which look great most of the time except for those cars parked on pavements but it did remove about 30 car parking spaces which have caused a lot more congestion and moved the parking pressure up Thorpewood.
There is no border on Thorpewood Avenue, cars can move freely up and down and the pressure has increased at the top.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion and your opinion seems to be that the problem is on the lower section. Lewisham recognised this fact in 2015 and it was a valid opinion then and was shared by most people. In 2019, it is different. Most people recognise that car pollution is seriously damaging to people’s health. The people who are most affected by this are the residents, the 100s of children and adults who walk and cycle up the road. Many people see a CPZ as a Controlled Pollution Zone. Many of the people who support the CPZ don’t even have cars, they just want cleaner air. The pollution and parking issue now covers the whole road and opinions have changed which is why the street is now united behind the need for a CPZ. A recent petition/survey of the street showed 90% in favour.

If you are concerned about pollution or parking, email traffic@lewisham.gov.uk and Leo.

Finally Leo, thank you for your continued commitment to the working group and thanks to @sians and @Mark1 for exercising their right to complain.

I agree but I wrote this on another thread when it first reopened and I was basically labelled a killjoy.

Please can we keep this discussion civil and respectful to all members, recalling the community guidelines, particularly:

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But, remember to criticise ideas, not people .

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

Thank you.

Thank you Paul, and yes I meant to type Assembly rather than library!

I am aware of your strongly held view that opinion towards a CPZ has markedly shifted on Thorpewood Avenue and I do hope we have another consultation soon. I look forward to the outcome!

It would be useful to have further details about what the Council would consider a ‘serious case’. One of the things I have never been able to discover is how decisions are made in Lewisham regarding traffic management, e.g. why Street A is closed to thru traffic but residents in street B are told nothing can be done On the one hand people who

complain are regarded as a nuisance, but when residents give up complaining because they are ignored, that is taken as evidence that there is no problem.

Also, to me at least, it would be useful to understand who or what group is responsible the decisions.

Once again! After School pickup!!!

image4032×3024 5.3 MB

image3024×4032 3.16 MB

The French deal with that by letting the air out of the tyres which apparently is not illegal. In the UK I guess it is. Not that I would condone that, I would rather chat to the owner.

Yes. The proud history of local government accountability seems to have passed, despite PR about ‘transparency’. It is no longer possible to look up committee records in the local archive to see when decisions were taken and the reasons given. I can’t remember the year the minutes stop being deposited, but it may coincide with cabinet-style local government with executive rather than honorary mayor.

I’m happy to be corrected - if one of our Councillors wants to divulge an online accessible data centre, that continues where the committee minutes stop, please speak up.

I spoke to the owner of the car who was with her children and advised her that it was illegal to park on the pavement. She then proceeded to tell me that she has parked there every time she picks her kids up and will continue to do so until she is caught by the Parking Wardens.

I advised her that I would be reporting this to the Council and she just replied “Go ahead then, bye bye.”

Sounds like a nice person!

Not recommending this but:

I wonder whether a letter to the school might be effective?

Hi Bruceshire
The reality is that folk park where they want to & continue to ‘get away’ with it. It is almost as though they think it is their ‘reserved’ personal parking space. Until we get more parking wardens & more fines, this will continue, sadly…
I have now discovered you can call 020 8787 5397 - If they have a parking warden available, they may come. Sadly, by then, the person may have left & will park again there the next day… Maybe if this is a regular occurrence, you should call the number 15 minutes before the driver arrives??? I am so sad & sorry to be so cynical…

I LOVED the video re the guy who parked in handicapped space - I would love to fwd it, but have no idea how I can. Advice from anyone?

Share this link: https://youtu.be/_4Uucys-B8o

Do the scooter parking wardens still scoot around FH? If so have a word. We had issues on Waldenshaw Road after the CPZ went in, I had a chat with one of the attendants and gave them the time the errant car parked there and they were around the next day. May be worth a try given the car seems to park there on a daily basis.

If someone wants to really get serious about this issue.

https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/civil-enforcement-officer

What happened to me last night really takes the biscuit.
I have a dropped kerb and without it would not be able to enter or exit my property as I use a walker for mobility problems.
Arriving home in a cab, a young neighbour on a moped pulled up on the side of the cab driver, pointed to my sign, which says please do not obstruct the driveway, and asked the cab driver to move so he could use my dropped kerb. Not wanting to make a fuss, the cab driver acquiesced,; the moped rider then rode over the dropped kerb on to the pavement and proceeded to ride at speed on the pavement to the property in which he lives, regardless of the fact that children playing (and others) often come out of an alleyway onto that part of the pavement.
When I subsequently remonstrated with him, including pointing out that a young man had asked an old woman to move from her own access to her own property, he merely said that he had asked politely!

This is definitely worse than the parking. I’ve had a moped drive towards me and my partner at speed on the pavement. He swore at us when we remonstrated. I think police may have done something if I had gotten the plate.

Perhaps someone should point her to this topic so that she may see how she is being represented in the community, and her vehicle is marked for anti-social behaviour.

It would be interesting to see, but something comparable didn’t work for the Very loud music on Dartmouth Road.

Oh yeah, I had a quad bike drive towards me and my kids, not a care in the world. We jumped aside pretty sharpish.

I too have come perilously close to being run over on the pavement. Drivers are so used to treating the pavement outside Kirkdale’s Woodman pub (as was) as a highway that a driver came barrelling down the hill and straight across the carriageway and onto the pavement straight at me one evening that she only managed to stop within a few inches of me. As a reflex my hands had splayed out on the bonnet. The car had stopped that close. The female passenger laughed.

This photo is of that same stretch of pavement on Wednesday.

20191009_140512-1-1-1-1-1876×1028 718 KB

Oops that photo doesn’t appear to have uploaded. I’ll try again when I can get to my PC.

Money is the only thing that talks. Don’t approach these individuals. You won’t achieve anything and you put yourself at risk.

The unavoidable conclusion is that something was decided privately behind the scenes. No working groups were decided upon at the assembly meetings, and the streets to be included in traffic surveys were, again, selected by a process that has not been made public. NB the announcement of working groups was made remotely between assembly meetings, not at one of the meetings.

I do not see the logic in this statement:

No-one has asked for “wardens on every corner, every minute of the day”. This is hyperbole and should be ignored.

LeoGibbons is only person on this thread that appears to consider the current policy on illegal parking in Forest Hill as “hit and miss”. I think this viewpoint is not representative of the public whatsoever. I, personally, don’t see any active policing on illegal parking. There is no hit. The disconnect of what we are told and the reality of the situation has created a lack of trust.

Why don’t we start with a hit and miss policy, which would be an improvement on the current lack of service?

The only solution, we are told, is a CPZ. Why is this agenda being pushed?

I don’t think the CPZ agenda is being pushed.

I think there is a specific area which some people refer to as Forest Hill’s third car park where it is reasonable for the residents to ask for controls. I don’t think it just about parking, people want clean air and a pleasant place to live. Unfortunately most people don’t want a CPZ but feel that something needs to be done.

People just treat roads in a CPZ differently.
When you drive into Waldenshaw road you see the controlled notices, you know you are entering a controlled zone and you are fair game for the wardens if you break the law.
When you drive into Thorpewood Avenue, you know it is the free car park and if you can’t find a space, you can just park over someone’s driveway and if all the driveways are already parked over, then turn around and park on the pavements on Darmouth Road. It is the wild west and I think the residents are fed up and want some control.

My perception is that a CPZ is being pushed. Selling parking permits is a nice little earner for Lewisham. All a CPZ does is decant the problem onto surrounding streets. Following the “improvements” to Dartmouth Road, we’ve already seen the decanting of through traffic onto upper Kirkdale. The ULEZ and the changes that are about to happen on Sydenham Hill, together with the pinch point of the mini roundabout at the top of the hill, can only make traffic flow even worse.

Lewisham needs to look again at its policy of encouraging “car free” housing developments. If you think parking and traffic flow in the area is bad now, just wait till the “car free” development at the Windmill and the almost “car free” developments at the police station and Mais House are completed. By “car free” Lewisham mean “car park space” free. They tell me they can’t prevent leaseholders registering cars at these new so called car free developments.

Why can’t schools educate to make it as socially unacceptable to drive children to school as it is to smoke around children, or to drink and drive? After all, London children are in the very privileged position of having free travel on public transport, unlike in most of the rest of the country. And if parents really are as uncaring of neighbourhoods and the environment, then surely schools can arrange marshalled drop off zones, such as American schools do.

They are probably trying, but I don’t think schools should have to get into law enforcement on the roads. They cannot be held responsible for the behaviour of parents. If traffic offences are being committed, then law enforcement is required. If there are no specific offences regarding blocking driveways, there are plenty of general public nuisance or obstruction offences that the police could use. You have to wonder whether Councillors, Lewisham parking service managers, and local police ever talk to each other.

I agree.
Schools already have a tough-enough job trying to teach basic manners and respect to the little darlings, let alone trying to communicate the vagueries of common decency to some of their parents who are completely devoid of any sense of social standards or responsibility.
It’s getting scary out there.

Emma - can you message me privately. I will explain more then. I am in Thorpewood & very actively trying to improve the situation. Thanks, Sian

I would have hoped that with even very young children being taken out of school by their teachers to go on climate change demos that they could have been taught to educate their families too. I got screamed at (and I do mean screamed at) by some very venomous little girls out on a march with their teachers recently, when I was waiting patiently in my car at a junction while they streamed past. I was quite shocked. Being educated that they’re part of the problem too and that there are things they can do to help - is a much more positive message than abusing others.

Marymck - I LOVE your message. Most of us in Thorpewood do NOT want a CPZ, we just feel it is the last resort. I completely understand your point re- pushing the problem elsewhere, and completely understand & endorse your point re- educating parents about driving kids to school, marshalled drop-off points etc. Very well made points. Thank you.
However, it is not just school times that cause problems in Thorpewood… it is also commuter parking & parking from adjacent places (Otto Close etc). But educating parents from the school could be the first step…

To be fair, the police have plenty of other more important issues to deal with. Schools could, at least, learn to be civil to the neighbours, not completely defensive and less confrontational.
There IS already a specific offence regarding blocking drives IF the offending vehicle is preventing access to the public highway (no offence to stop an owner entering their own drive). BUT the key is that unless this offence is policed (by parking wardens) then the truth is that the offending vehicles will continue to see white lines across driveways (& in some cases, double yellow lines) as their own private parking places. A CPZ will be the same - without a warden, nothing will change.
All is needed right now is a few parking tickets to be given out, the word will soon get around… and you know what - there are always spaces on Kirkdale, not so far away that the little darlings could not walk there… no idea how far they have to walk to get home…

Hi marymck

Were you given a reason or explanation about why they “can’t” enforce? Can you remember who told you this?

I contacted Highways Department about the lack of Enforcement on Kirkdale. It seems some of the shops on Kirkdale have a curitlage - albeit very narrow and they don’t all have one. The Woodman/Journey Cafe for instance doesn’t, which, as an aside, means the owners have constructed a raised seating area on the public pavement (acutally across what is a service access panel). According to Lewisham Highways Department the owners can park on their own curtilage - even though this is too narrow a space to get a sizeable car in - but aren’t allowed to drive over the pavement to get there. Highways say that unless a warden catches them in the act of driving across the pavement they can’t enforce as they can’t prove they drove across the pavement to get there. Presumably these vehicles are helicoptered into place.

Of course, as you can see in the photos I’ve already posted, the whole of the pavement gets blocked anyway - not just the narrow curtilages. But Lewisham say they don’t have enough wardens to patrol the area and the police say it’s not a police matter and it’s down to the Council to enforce.

We - as local tax payers - would be paying for the maintenance of both the curtilages and the remainder of the damaged pavements, if they ever had any repairs that is. Anyone who trips over on this extremely dangerous pavement might be tempted to do a joint claim against the shop owners AND Lewisham Council. (Although as Lewisham Council’s money is public money anyway, we’d be kind of claiming against ourselves.)

Parking enforcement is one of the most profitable line items for councils and pays for itself. GUESS which council does not feature in the top 20 list? That’s right. Lewisham. This is just proof that Lewisham Council are either financially irresponsible OR have a specific agenda to not enforce basic parking laws (for whatever reason).

I don’t suppose the Highways Department made any reference to the crossover (dropped kerb), which, as it’s on the roundabout, suggests that there is some historic right for motor vehicles to drive up onto the pavement.

Hi Anotherjohn

Do you mean this dropped kerb?

That dropped kerb was to serve a building that is long gone. It stood on the site of what is now Costcutter and had a yard at the back, with an entrance from Kirkdale. That yard is now the Costcutter/Malibu Court car park, the entrance of which is now from Fransfield Grove and has planning permission for a house to be built over a large part of it. So there will be yet more parking pressure.

[Edit to say that that pre 1936 that section of what we now call “Kirkdale” was “The High Street”. The uphill part of Kirkdale was then called Sydenham Hill Road, with Kirkdale only kicking in below Wells Park Road.]

Ha!
Yep, that’s the one.
You’re good!
I did hesitate before putting ‘motor vehicles’ but never really thought it was for a horse & cart.

At the risk of going temporarily way off topic, if you liked that photo you’ll love this one …

… Thomas Scudder’s Rustic Works. He was “the woodman” of the Woodman public house.

The%20Woodman%20and%20Windmill%2C%20Sydenham%20by%20Hugh%20F%20Wilson944×726 118 KB

For me, they were well worth going off-topic for.
Thank you.

In the case of the original post, however, parking in front of the Library, there is surely no private curtilage.

It is a complex area of law:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmtran/writev/parking/m01.htm
but apparently some local authorities have enacted by-laws, rather than waiting for Westminster to sort it out.

One of the interesting things about this thread has been the use of straw man arguments by one of our Councillors, against his own electorate. I really am shocked by this, but I suppose it may be related to the fact all Councillors are from the same party and confidently expect re-election regardless of quality of services and lack of accountability.

As regards blocking drives, Bromley Council allows kerb owners to register their dropped kerbs with the Council.

Once registered, if anyone parks across that kerb, the kerb owner can complete an online form with reg no and make of offending vehicle, together with length of time of infringement, and the council will then send a warden round who will issue a fixed penalty notice of £50. (Amount may have changed).

I have done it twice, after giving numerous warnings. Don’t know what happened the second time, but the first time the warden was around within 30 minutes, took photographs and issued the PNC.

He told me to keep doing the same several times as word would soon get around. Sure enough, apart from the moped rider, I have had no problems since then - and that was a year or so ago

Hold on… You registered with and were serviced by Bromley? Do you live in Bromley?

Yes, I live in Anerley now, having lived in Forest Hill for 22 years.

Oh, I was wondering if Bromley would be able to solve our problems! Obv no issue with you posting here.

Just thought I’d contribute that in case anyone might like to suggest to Lewisham Council that they adopt a similar procedure.

thank you for the info.

Is Eliot Bank considering a School Street at Thorpewood Avenue?

I believe a School Street is one of the things that Leo’s working group of residents is considering, but I don’t know if the school is part of the group, which I’ve only heard about recently. But a School Street on Thorpewood would lead to even more problems as it would make Kirkdale extremely dangerous.

I think many people embrace the idea because it is giving a signal that pollution is bad. I think it is more an academic solution than a practical solution

The council have said in the past Thorpewood Avenue is too significant for local traffic to block it off for a few hours in the morning and evening. The school streets program is just starting now so it would be seen as a big challenge until the scheme is established.

The avenue has 5 entrances so you would have to place cameras on neighbouring streets to police it which might not be popular.

Many residents see it as a bit of a blunt instrument as they would have to register their cars and wouldn’t be able to have any friends/relatives/taxis/deliveries during the hours of operation as they would incur a fine.

The collateral damage to non-residents. It would block access to Round Hill and Radlet Avenue. It would cause drop-off points at the 4 main entrances to TA, backing up traffic on Dartmouth Road, Kirkdale, Derby Hill Cresent, Featherstone Avenue and might cause more danger to kids from bad parking and congestion than currently. My sympathies would also go to children who need a lift to school because of mobility/illness issues and don’t, can’t or won’t apply for a blue pass.

All very good points, Emma. It would also cause problems for any residents who require visits from carers - sometimes these can be as many as four visits a day, plus district nurses, chiropodists, meal providers, all those services that enable disabled people to remain living in their own homes.

And if someone is ill or injures themselves they can’t get a blue badge, yet need access.

Surely the school has a vehicular entrance? I’ve not been in there but it looks as though it has. Instead of parents parking in Thorpewood and Kirkdale, why can’t the school open the gates to traffic and marshall some proper drop off points within the school grounds?

What we really need is to encourage parents/carers to WALK to school - that would help parking issues AND pollution issues and fitness.

Perhaps if school hours were more amenable to working parents, or if all primary schools could guarantee places at breakfast and after school clubs for all pupils every day, walking would be an option for more.

Parents/carers are encouraged to walk to school through the School Newsletters and Lewisham Travel Plans for schools so I think this has gone as far as it can go. It is the usual carrot and stick approach. The council now understand they need to use a stick approach if they want to make further ground through some kind of restriction.

Working parents and non-working parents rarely make their choice to drive because of after-school clubs. They normally choose to drive if their kids are in these as the traffic is lighter and parking easier. As before restrictions are the only thing that will encourage these people to change. Unfortunately it is the usual argument between individual good, parent polluting but getting to school in the comfort of their car or collective good less pollution and healthier kids.

We all understand the parent who parks on the pavement outside the library, she is an extreme example of someone who puts the individual good before the collective good and probably wouldn’t change her behaviour if she had the benefit of after school clubs. She admits herself that if restrictions were policed she would stop.

Usual considerate parking when the banquet hall has an event.

image1280×958 227 KB

image1280×958 220 KB

image1280×958 323 KB

That’s unbelievable.

I’ve begun to notice how close to corners some people park. Three times recently cars have been blocking my (pedestrian) route. Slight trick questing, but what are these double yellows lines intended to indicate?

20191029_0853024032×2268 5.17 MB

I want to say no parking but I’m guessing that’s not the case…

No enforcement?

@ForestHull

Truth is that I have no idea. One is not allowed to park within 10 meters of a junction. Given that, I have no idea what these are indicating or why there were painted there.

Hi Emma, have you had this directly from either Councillors or Lewisham Highways? I think the officers certainly view their priority as keeping commuter traffic flowing rather than protecting local residents from thru traffic.

Hi all,

This is a message I recently received from Seamus Adams, Parking Services Manager at LBL, following my enquiry.

‘Dear Cllr Gibbons,

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding parking issues on Dartmouth Road.

I have investigated the comments and consulted the Council’s parking enforcement contractors, NSL Ltd. NSL have confirmed that Dartmouth Road is regularly patrolled by Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) who take action whenever a parking contravention is identified during the hours of enforcement.

It is worth noting that vehicles are permitted to park on the pavement or yellow lines for the purpose of loading/unloading and to pick and drop off passengers. In these circumstances, the CEOs will log the vehicles and allow a period of observation to ascertain whether a contravention is taking place. Once a contravention is established a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is issued.

However, based on the information you have provided NSL have been instructed to increase their efforts to tackle the parking issues on Dartmouth Road during their enforcement operations. They have confirmed that they have already commenced focused enforcement of the location and will continue to take action wherever non-compliance is observed.

I trust this addresses the points you have raised and please do not hesitate to contact me again if the situation continues.

Yours sincerely, Seamus Adams’

I am not satisfied by this response at is clear that NSL were not covering this area thoroughly enough and I am sceptical whether short term focused enforcement will change the behaviour of drivers in this location in the longer-term. I am having a meeting with Seamus and Chris Avis, the Parking Engineer at LBL to discuss whether we can alter the road/pavement design to prevent vehicles mounting the pavement. I’ll feedback once I’ve had that meeting.

Kind regards,

Leo

Hi have phoned the parking Enforcement
Several times about this problem but they only
Visited once

Interesting that the letter refers to it being permitted to park on the pavement “for dropping off”. Does this mean that the whole road is now classed as a dropped kerb?

I find this absolutely shocking!! My partner & I dropped off stuff to charity shop a month or so ago. We was about 5mins loading time an hour or so max. Fined £200 yet people like that park how they like when you like makes me laugh. Why are these rules used how they please. I don’t get how this is allowed and why?? Makes you fed up with such crap. I have no words for such stupidity and arrogance. Surely something should be done or it keeps happening and innocent people end up getting the penalties. Frustrating or what!!

Yes this was a comment from the former Head of Highways and Transport at Lewisham to local residents. He has now left and I think the question is being asked again but I can’t see them changing their mind just probably not admitting openly that it is a policy.

The council does seem to want feedback on roads not just parking so I would encourage anybody who lives/walks/cycles/drives on Thorpewood and the surrounding streets to email them and give their comments. It shouldn’t be just residents who point out dirty air which many see as toxic causing health issues, hundreds of children walk these roads to the two schools and they and their parents are welcome to comment and demand clean air for themselves and their children. If you do feel strongly, email the council using traffic@lewisham.gov.uk and let them know.

I believe Seamus Adams has got it wrong. The OP’s photos clearly show double yellow kerb/pavement flashes, in addition to double yellow lines on the carriageway.

Those flashes mean no loading/unloading at any time.

Regardless of yellow lines, driving/parking on the pavement is illegal unless the pavement has been accessed via a dropped kerb.

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/no-parking-on-the-pavement/196863

Furthermore in the photo of the cars blocking the pedestrian right of way outside the Banqueting Suite there appear to be red lines. Is that so? Are they double reds? If so that means no stopping at any time.

Thanks for the email address at Lewisham. I’ve been complaining about pavement parking for nearly two years and at one point had a copy of a letter from Seamus Adams which said almost exactly the same thing and … nothing happened. I’ve seen NSL operatives on their mopeds drive past a row of pavement parked cars taking no notice whatsoever.
A Council officer told me that it was OK for cars to park entirely on the pavement in Woodcombe Crescent because it was wide enough to get a car on it - and cheaper than parking in Perry Vale car park.
It seems that Lewisham’s position is that pavements are redesignated for car parking. Certainly NSL does nothing about it. The pavements in the meantime are left to decay.

Not much room for buggies, shopping bags or, heaven forbid, a wheelchair.

image580×640 171 KB

This isn’t quite the case Emma. I got slightly cross at the last traffic Working Group when someone suggested this was what Simon Moss said. His comments were more nuanced.

He was reflecting that Thorpewood Avenue would not be a priority as a ‘school street’ trial closure because, amongst other reasons, it is an important through-road between Kirkdale and Dartmouth (sometimes used for bus diversions). Schools street have usually been trialled on small cul-de-sacs, for example.

He was not ruling out any partial closures entirely, and I must say Simon was broadly very supportive of the idea of school streets/school pedestrians zones being launched in Lewisham.

I was concerned he was a bit too cautious. Personally, I feel we should take a stringent approach to cut-through and rat runs, even if it causes inconvenience to drivers navigating the area. However, I do accept that Thorpewood Avenue is not a priority for school time closures, as there are more feasible+pressing roads to trial the process on.

In the end, to tackle the parking pressure I think a CPZ covering Dartmouth Rd and Thorpewood Avenue might be what is needed but for better or for worse, this needs the consent of those who live there - be they driveway owners or driverless households.

How much would that consultation and any possible implementation cost Leo? And given that you would just be decanting the problem to the already dangerously over congested Kirkdale - where we have parking for Kelvin Grove as well as Eliot Bank School plus hold ups at the mini roundabouts and though we have our lovely lollipop lady at Kelvin Grove there is no crossing assistance at the Eliot Bank end of Kirkdale, where sightlines are much worse - how will you mitigate the problems a CPZ will cause?

And don’t forget Leo that your fellow Councillors have approved a big housing development at the Dartmouth Road Police station and you’re likely approve an even bigger scheme at Mais House - both virtually sans parking. Both those schemes will put much more pressure on street parking. You’ll be creating a “them and us” situation between those who can afford and are entitled to apply for a CPZ parking permit and those who can’t.

While interesting points, may I very politely request a slightly lighter tone be used please?

Thank you.

Leo, I got this second-hand but the residents I talked to interpreted his nuanced comments as a big NO. Looking at your comments of what he said and the use of the words “reflecting and not ruling out”, I can understand why they did but you heard it differently. It is good that you are working to come up with a solution to these issues.

Mary, I don’t like the them and us connotations here. You are more likely to have Controlled Parking if you live in social housing or former social housing. Mais House has it and at least one of the cul-de-sacs off Kirkdale has a big Resident Only Parking notice with the name of a housing association on it.

I think that people in a very polluted area should have the right to improve their area not just for themselves but for all the people who use the area. This is a longstanding issue, why should the residents not do something about having to breathe in toxic fumes caused by uncontrolled parking and congestion on a residential road.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree Emma?

Of course I agree something needs to be done about pollution. Too many people make too many unnecessary journeys, just for convenience. Too many people have open fires and woodburner stoves - we need a revised Clean Air Act and to police those laws we do have. Too many people leave their car engines idling.

But some people need cars - especially those with disabilities or those whose relatives do.

But I do think residents only parking on private property is understandable. It’s the same as not wanting someone to park on one’s driveway. But private parking on roads that are paid for by road tax is different. All I meant was that by saying those who lived in certain streets, on public roads rather than private ones, can pay a premium to exclude parking by others seems divisive to me. And where do you draw the line? For me personally it would be nice to have residents only parking on the length of Kirkdale. It would make my life a lot easier. But I honestly wouldn’t like it if I couldn’t park in other streets throughout the borough and beyond. I am in the fortunate position where I don’t have carers visiting. If we can only park in the street in which we happen to live or on private property then life becomes very difficult.

I don’t use my car unless I have to. Never if public transport is available. But sometimes there is no practical alternative.

Mary, I will agree to disagree. I think many of the points you make are the reasons why people want some control over parking in their street.

People see it as divisive that the needs of older people whose carers can’t park near their houses are not being prioritised. Carers can get free parking permits.

People see it as divisive that our family and friends with mobility issues have to struggle and be aggressively beeped at my motorists as we have to double park to let them alight near our houses.

People see it as divisive that they are told to just put up with the pollution and the health issues this brings and don’t want to wait till the Government wakes up and brings in some revised Clean Air Act.

I don’t see it as divisive that we make the roads better for the majority of people who in Lewisham don’t drive and won’t have to pay.

All our public car parks charge a premium to park in them so why not the 3rd car park which many see this area as? If residents are willing to pay to park on a street then we should welcome it if it gives us a cleaner environment and benefits the majority. I rarely drive and don’t really care about getting a parking space but I do see this as good for the majority of road users outweighing the fact that a smaller number of car users, many of them commuters will be inconvenienced.

I accept that it makes it difficult to drive to other areas but a lot of the time these issues are resolved by the council being forced out of necessity to resolve them. A CPZ was brought in around Sainsburys and then Lewisham and Sainsburys got together and fixed parking in the Pearcefield Avenue car park so shoppers could park for free but commuters would pay.

Just for clarity, the Pearcefield Avenue car park is free to everyone for two hours. You don’t need to go in the Sainsbury’s. Though with their own supplemental signage you could think it is their customer car park.

A small point but “Road tax” doesn’t pay for roads. If anything it is now an environmental tax, with lower rates for more environmentally friendly vehicles. Also “Road tax” is not hypothecated so it simply goes into general state funds. A non car owner will pay as much for roads as a car owner.

Related topic on SE26.life:

https://se26.life/t/pavement-parking-on-kirkdale/1657?u=chrisbeach

Hi all,

Yesterday, I and Cllr Davis toured various sites with Chris Avis our Parking Engineer. These included Longfield Crescent, Dartmouth Road and Kirkdale.

A summary…

Dartmouth Road

I lamented the lack of enforcement on Dartmouth Road and pointed out hotspots outside the Sylvan Post, Paddy Power, the job centre and the library. The parking infringements seem to be from short stays (as opposed to commuter parking) as vehicles load into shops during the day and patrons of the cafes and pubs park in the evening. It is school drop off parking outside the library.

The street is lined with double yellow lines and double yellow blips meaning no parking or loading at any time. Even as we stood on the road, we witnessed a vehicle illegally unloading near Boots.

Actions: The first step has been organised. We are scheduling an evening enforcement blitz and we hope that once some regular offenders get fined we will witness a noticeable drop off from pavement parking. If this does not work then we might have to look at imposing physical barriers, such as bollards on Dartmouth Road. However, we are concerned that these might damage the fairly attractive street scene. We wait with bated breath.

Kirkdale

There is a hangover of a dropped kerb on the problematic stretch of Kirkdale (92 - 110) which allows vehicles to ride up onto the pavement area. We noted that there is a lot of building and refurbishment works being carried out on this parade at the moment and due to the double yellow lines, lack of loading bays or rear access, vehicles are mounting the pavement to unload. We also have another school drop off problem, as this area is used as a temporary car park at the end/start of school.

Chris Avis said that placing loading bays directly onto Kirkdale would be far too expensive due to the deep raised kerb. Moreover, raising the dropped kerb in line with the rest of the pavement would also be costly but this am going to discuss this with our engineering manager. Ideally, I would like the pavement raised and would not like to see unattractive bollards placed across the dropped kerb. A compromise position might be to place more attractive planters across it.

In addition, I would like to see two loading bay/time-limited bays placed on Fransfield Grove, next to the corner with Kirkdale. This would offer a loading space for the businesses and short-stay bays for customers. I intend to contact and consult the businesses in the area to see whether they would support the introduction of these bays.

Halifax Street

Someone has painted over a section of the double yellow lines on the corner with Kirkdale. This paint will be removed.

Longfield Crescent

The parking here will be reviewed at the next batch of the Minor Parking Programme schemes. We would like to see the single yellow lines, which were temporarily laid during the redevelopments, removed. We then would like to see double yellow lines places on the corners of Longfield Crescent and we hope that these changes would free up some extra parking spaces. I also want to work with Lewisham Homes to improve the greening off Longfield Crescent in an effort to prevent illegal parking on the grass verges. However, this is early days and any changes will be subject to consultation with residents.

Thorpewood Avenue

Chris informs me that his team have received 6 or 7 individual submissions from residents of this street requesting a Controlled Parking Zone. To put this into perspective, the Council received over 70 individual requests for the (admittedly, slightly larger) CPZ near Sydenham station. For the Ladywell West CPZ, over 100 individual submissions were made to Lewisham Council from residents requesting a CPZ. If more individual submissions are not made before the review of the CPZ programme in early 2020, it is unlikely this area will be prioritised for a consultation. I will be meeting with the Thorpewood Avenue traffic working group later this month to discuss this and the progress of their petition in greater detail.

If you live on Thorpewood Avenue, Derby Hill Crescent, Derby Hill, Radlet Avenue or Dartmouth Road and have concerns about parking pressure, please email Traffic@Lewisham.gov.uk.

Councillor Gibbons would it be to much to ask now five months on if the original culprit has received any fines from Lewisham Council ?

Another issue with pavement parking - it appears to be damaging the pavements:

https://se26.life/t/what-parking-on-pavements-does-for-us-pedestrians/1686