kiera

This junction is, as stated by Sally Eva above, important for cyclists. There is a current consultation on this cycle route. https://peckhamryedulwich.commonplace.is/

Thank you. Strange that wasn't mentioned at the meeting.

No parking problems at Silvester Rd.were mentioned at the meeting - quite the contrary. At the meeting it was said that being able to park was the main thing the staff were going to miss by moving to Peckham. When James Barber mentioned parking problems in his post of 16th above, I understood him to be referring to the Alleyn Rd sorting office. He was saying that the Alleyn Rd sorting office don't deal with parcels. I don't know whether it follows that Silvester Rd are taking parcels which should be dealt with by Alleyn Rd or other sorting offices, in which case it's not surprising they can't cope.

dbboy Wrote: ---------------------------------- > It is not woods nor has it ever been officially recognised as being woods. Incorrect Southwark council's Tree Management Strategy makes it quite clear that it is officially designated as woodland:- Page 7 footnote > "(2) Southwark has 74 hectares of designated woodland including Dulwich Upper Wood, Sydenham Hill Woods, Russia Dock Woodland, One Tree Hill and parts of Peckham Rye, Nunhead Cemetery and Camberwell Cemetery.".

I feel that the whole area has become darker and quieter with the loss of the police station on Whateley Rd and with many local shops turned into housing. This trend is continuing, with the anticipated loss of the hustle and bustle and familiarity of the friendly sorting office.These changes have an important negative effect. More ED sites earmarked for housing in the Southwark Development Plan.

The council's planning application states very clearly that they will not be removing trees or undergrowth during the bird nesting season:- http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/3190&system=DC "Camberwell New Cemetery Area D1? Planning Application Submission? Design and Appearance and Access Statement???????July 2015? This report forms part of the planning submission for a proposed scheme to prepare an area of land within Camberwell New Cemetery to be more suitable for burial comprising tree felling, localized ground modeling and surface water drainage, laying out of access paths, and associated seeding, turfing, planting and nature conservation measures. 2.4.7 General Mitigation Procedures are given in the report to include:  removal of trees and scrub outside of bird nesting season; 3.2.13 No trees are to be felled until bat surveys have been undertaken by the clients ecologist (below).? No felling is to take place in bird nesting season. Bats? 3.2.17 The LWT bat survey reveals bat activity over the site and points to ivy clad trees in and around the site as having moderate potential for bat roosts. These are deemed therefore to include trees at the head of the woodland glade which would be proposed to be removed.??? In accordance with the LWT recommendations:?  vegetation clearance works would only be carried out between mid-September and the 1st November or during April to avoid the bat breeding and hibernation" ?? So that is what the council applied for permission to do & for which permission was granted. ?? As April is within the bird nesting season, the only time they should be undertaking clearance work in the woodland glade is mid-September to the end of October.

The official timeframe for not carrying out work is during the bird nesting season - February to August. The Arboricultural Association website states this - "The ?Bird Nesting Season? is officially from February until August (Natural England) and it is recommended that vegetation works (tree or hedge cutting) or site clearance should be done outside of the nesting season." The council put in their planning application that clearance of trees and scrub would not be carried out during the bird nesting season. That is why all the cemetery and environmental groups who are concerned about the cemeteries are up in arms about what the council is doing - the council obviously consider it's o.k.to not abide by the terms of the planning permission they gave themselves.

This is a good example of "the boy who cried wolf". The railway cutting which runs between Camberwell New Cemetery and Honor Oak Park station is on the Forest Hill to New Cross Gate cutting, which is described on Lewisham Council's website, in their page on Devonshire Road nature reserve, which is nearby on the same railside corridor,as "a site of metropolitan importance for nature conservation as it contains probably the finest suite of railside habitat in London https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/inmyarea/openspaces/nature-reserves/Pages/devonshire-road-nature-reserve.aspx The edge of the cemetery is also part of this site of metropolitan importance for nature conservation. Although the council are not planning on burying people in that bit, their plans will have an effect on it.

I'm quite sure the council will not do this, as the information is online and therefore already available to everyone.

Thank you for the information.I assume those diversions will not be suitable for buses, so do you know what will be happening with the 12s and the 197s?

A small group of local residents had formed themselves into a Friends group and were talking with the council, which annoyed Save Southwark Woods, so SSW tried to take them over by creating their own Friends Group with the same name. The pre-existing Friends group responded by carrying on as they were but changing their name to Camberwell Cemeteries Working Group. CCWG have a website and Facebook page http://ccwgroup.weebly.com

James, thank you for reporting the council's refusal to remove the section 106 protection from Dulwich Hamlet Football Ground. This is a good result, but unfortunately, it doesn't follow that the developer is going to be prevented from building on the football ground. The following extract is from the planning officer's decision:- "22 It is important to note that, notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of the planning application submitted by the Applicant in March 2016 (ref: 16/AP/1232) and referred to above, the application has not yet been determined.? There are a large number of issues raised by that application which have not been resolved. If the application (or any subsequent revised application) were to be approved at some point in the future then it is probable that the local planning authority would consider at that time whether there are any grounds for seeking new planning obligations in which case a deed of variation would be required in respect of the 1990 Agreement.? It is not, therefore, the case that the existing covenants would in themselves prevent the proposed development as claimed by the Applicant..........." http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!M7cXVlP2hd7I0%2bNow5xzKA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

The application has been refused. I took this information from the decision notice, which explains the decision and is easier to understand than the abbreviation you quoted, so, e.g. "Refused for the following three reasons: 1. The obligations contained within the S106 Agreement dated 16/10/1990 being Clauses 4(3), 7(3), 7(4), 8 and10, which the applicant is seeking to discharge still serve a useful planning purpose. These being: - Clause 4(3) - the all weather pitch at Greendale Park has been constructed and provided in accordance with the terms of the 1990 Agreement and it is still open to the members of Dulwich Hamlet Football Club and others to make reasonable use of the facilities. - Clause 7(3) and 7(4) - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club is still in existence, has a licence to use the Dulwich Hamlet Football Ground and still uses it. - Clause 8 - Dulwich Hamlet Football Ground is still is use by Dulwich Hamlet Football Club, the land is still being used for leisure and recreational purposes.- - Clause 10 - The all weather pitch and football ground have been constructed and are still in use. There are therefore no grounds upon which the authority may determine that the obligations shall be discharged pursuant to S106A(6)(b)....."

(Deleted as duplicate post)

The planning application website has been closed to comments for a very good reason - the application has been decided. The removal of clauses from the Section 106 agreement has been refused.

Thank you so much Zebedee Tring - that's really helpful. It's exactly the sort of thing I wanted to know. It seems councillors are unfamiliar with this type of planning application. James, would you be willing to refer this application to be considered by the planning committee?

James. I think this may be outside your area, but it's a very important issue. Did you know that a planning application has been made to remove the section 106 protection on.Dulwich Hamlet football ground. 16/AP/4051 and http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1657240,1755294#msg-1755294 posts from 17th Nov. This protection ensures that the land retains its community uses,but the greedy developers want to be enabled to build on the football stadium without constraint. Can you give any information about this type of planning application, as it doesn't seem to be being treated by the council as a normal planning application. It has not been.advertised at all. Is it right that such a significant decision should be allocated to a delegated officer. The website is accepting comments, but does the council have to consider them or is it a private matter between the council and the developer? If so, the process is far from transparent. This application was only discovered by chance.

Veolia - I definitely agree that it would be helpful if the mobile recycling unit could be made available to us for more than the current mere 3 hours a month on a weekday morning. So, as suggested by previous posters - more locations & more choice of times, particularly as the number of permanent recycling sites are being reduced, as already mentioned. The next one to go is the one on Peckham Rye Common, due to fly-tipping abuse, The Friends of Peckham Rye Park have said it's going shortly.

The plant thieves have also been active in Camberwell Old Cemetery. I recently saw a message to them which has been placed on a grave by the family. It accuses them, in rhyme, of not only stealing the plants, but coming back for the lantern hooks. The poem goes on to say that the occupant of the grave did not like thieves, so his skeleton will haunt them to the end!

Thanks for clarifying B&G. I thought you were saying that he wanted comments now, but that post was six years ago, in the run up to making the decision to keep the lights.

Could you give a link to the message from Gavin Edwards to which you refer, as I can't see a post from him, nor any request for feedback to councillors on this issue/thread. Thanks.

The poor cat probably came from a nearby house, so you could knock on a few doors to see if someone knows which house it has come from.

Jacqui5254 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I love this shop front. It's a rare and beautiful > thing to be able to see such intact features of a > Victorian shop. > > Go and take a look at the original roller blind > boxes, the Victorian door with a tiny letterbox > for when letters were only a > few inches in size, the decorative brackets, the > original glass. To think that this will be > 'made-over', obliterating its history, is tragic. > I would buy it if I could and retain all those > features, so I hope whoever buys it is sympathetic > to its soul. Jacqui - did you know that there's another Victorian shopfront in Crystal Palace Rd, a couple of doors from the Great Exhibition? It's not in use and has been completely painted over in green, but is intact.

Minnie?? Fine a few days ago?? Poor Gwen had become almost bent double and in pain. I think she died as long ago as March. She was friendly to all. She liked talking to people and making sure the birds and animals were fed. Beckham asked the time of her funeral. It's 10am.

The "consultation" ended on 6th, the notifications from Conway about starting work were put through the doors on the 10th and the work started on the 14th. They obviously didn't let a "consultation" get in the way of their plans.