lesalden

What amazes me is that they never consider the effect of the greatly increased fuel consumption in a 20mph zone. Everywhere else the are on about reducing Carbon footprint. But this issue never appears in the 20mph proposals as a factor to be considered. Also if we are talking about reducing accidents (sorry that's not PC - you have to say 'collisions' nowadays) they never publicise that the biggest cause of 'collisions' between children and motor vehicles is when the vehicle is going backwards. Is this in fact really a war on the motorist?

I can never understand why people you see on television or films are regarded as 'famous'. They are just doing a job they are good at - the same as a solicitor or a carpenter. When you see one of these people sitting next to you in the doctor's waiting room or eating egg and chips in the BBC canteen you realise they are just ordinary people doing an ordinary job. They deserve not to be pointed at in the supermarket aisle. Politicians are the only ones who deliberately put themselves in the public eye.

Estate agents are hardly adding to the GDP. Better if all these agents were gainfully employed.

Do we need any more Estate agents? What about the council policy of at least 50% retail in 100 metres. Or will this be fiddled again ("we remeasured it") like Cafe Nero in LL. As for Foxtons I was surprised they can get away with a business model which charges two and a half times their competitors.

I must have had a dozen Estate Agents putting a card through my door telling me how desirable my house is and how they have loads of clients waiting for a house in my street. Now I have signed up with one of them I find things are very different. Only 4 viewings in two weeks. Did I choose the wrong Estate Agent? Does anyone else have experience of this?

I have spoken to Charlie Smith the Labour ED Councillor about this. It was also discussed at the ED Labour Party Ward meeting. It seems a completely illogical policy - H&S gone mad again. Charlie agrees and will take it up. I suggested to him this is a test of whether the Members (representing the residents) or the Officers (representing themselves) run the council. Good on you Charlie! Les Alden Upland Road

The Southwark one is in the Old Kent Road near the old gasworks. Its brilliant. You just drive up the ramp and throw your stuff into the correct bin. The staff are very helpful. They haven't said "You can't dump that there 'ere" to me once!

There seems to be confusion between two types of dropped kerb. Type A is where the drop is near a junction for the convenience of pushchairs etc. They are about one metre wide.I can see why this should be enforced. Type B is to allow access to a residential forecourt. This is installed at the request of a householder. It is usually two metres wide. It would be excessive to put double yellows here. They would all be overlapping each other down our street!! Please could our councillors clarify this.

Lambeth Council have a more rate-payer friendly approach. They have instructed wardens that vehicle must be more than one third on the pavement. The Hitlerite enforcement of Parking became an election issue some years ago and the Labour Party promised reform. Southwark Council be warned!

This scaffolding scam with the council has been going on for years. When I paid for scaffolding it was a fixed price for the first month and then a weekly charge until you told them it was no longer wanted. Good luck to the councillors if they can crack this one. It could be something to do with the trouser leg brigade!

The law says when entering the box you must have a "reasonable expectation" of being able to leave it. If someone nips in front of you from ED Grove then your expectation has been frustrated. Seems a good defence to me.

It seems that the relentless march of humps and controlled parking will continue despite what residents want. The new council says it wants to consult and even serve the residents. In many areas they are doing a good job. But in just this one area they seem to have no control over the council department. I can only suspect that it is more about keeping certain contractors in work than actually doing what local people want. I call upon our councillors to sort this out urgently and to listen to the residents. Remember councillors are only representative electors. The council legally consists of all of us! Les Alden

The meeting is at East Dulwich Community Centre, Darrell Road SE22 9NL 7pm Monday 12th October. The Scrutiny Committee has the power to question Council Officers and Leading Councillors about the situation and why they have taken certain decisions. It cannot itself take a decision. It is therefore a useful way of the public expressing their concerns. I am pleased they have agreed to take deputations. My main concern is that the room is not big enough so if you have a real personal concern you want to get across I suggest you arrive early. After the meeting someone should start a new thread about what happened and the way forward. Les Alden Prospective Labour Councillor for East Dulwich

JBARBER Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm sorry for the touch on politics that offended. > The propsective Labour East Dulwich candidate Les > Alden critised a decision taken by his Labour > colleagues in Peckham Rye. I felt obliged to point > this out rather than it be assumed he was > criticising me as Lib Dem councillor not listening > to East Dulwih residents. I am rather pleased to learn from Cllr Barber that local councillors have a Yes or No power over putting in humps. By implication this means he is responsible for all the new humps in East Dulwich over the last three years. And yet a resident in Hindmans Road came to me to say that she had not been consulted and more or less regarded the imposition of humps by the council as something beyond her control. 20mph seems to be acceptable to most residents. The trouble is that when they are consulted about traffic calming they are not told all the alternatives including an analysis of environmental impact. It's humps or no 20mph zone! Local councillors should not let this happen! Some will know that I have been writing to the Southwark News over a long period against the imposition of humps. Sometimes jovial and sometimes about the more serious concerns of disabled people. The bottom line is that residents should be consulted on all the alternatives - even if putting in more expensive options delays the rollout across the borough. I will not support any traffic calming at all unless there has been full - and provable - resident consultation and acceptance. Les Alden Prospective Labour candidate for East Dulwich

ginarog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi J Barber, > > I live on Cornflower Terrace, which earlier this > year received a brand, spanking new speed bump. > Although the road is not more than 120 meters and > has very,very low traffic levels, and despite all > residents signing a petition the street still > received one. Why didn't you listen to us? This is happening all the time and it is ridiculous how residents are not listened to. As I said earlier in this thread traffic surveys often do not justify the bumps but they still go in. Why? Whose decision? What control do local councillors exercise? Nice work for the contractor! Les Alden Prospective Labour Candidate East Dulwich Ward

The council are now consulting residents in Thompson Heber Rodwell area about more speed bumps. They have given residents speed data which usually doesn't justify any measures! East Dulwich deserves an improvement in its environment. Not more disfiguring speed bumps. There must be a vested interest here somewhere! Also the London Ambulance Service is coordinating a campaign across London because of the discomfort and delays they cause. There is a meeting at Waterloo tonight. People support 20mph but not speed bumps. When will politicians realise this?

I believe the legislation says that the council would not be responsible anyway if the bump is more than 1 metre from the property. So there would be no claims on the council. Do any of the readers of this forum have evidence of property damage caused by traffic calming? It would be interesting to know of any cases.

I think you have to fight for the new 'sinusoidal' bumps such as they have put in Camberwell Grove. The trouble with normal humps and cushions is that many vehicles will slow to 10mph and then slow/fast all along the road increasing noise and pollution as they pass each obstacle. The new ones (probably more expensive) are desgned to be comfortable at 20mph but not higher. Better still would be no bumps at all. I agree with 20mph but much more imaginative schemes with shrub planting etc. can be seen in some areas. ED deserves some thought to the niceness of the street scene don't you think?

Politicians have a big dilemma here. Some people think "They're all the same anyway" and no doubt for them a leaflet is a waste of paper as they won't vote. Some people will vote for the same party whatever the issues. Again a waste of paper. In between there are a lot of 'floating' voters who genuinely want information about opposing policies, achievements and promises. Particularly at local level they can only get this by leaflets. (They are unlikely to be in when all of the parties they are interested in knock on the door for a discussion.) Also readership of local Papers like the Southwark News is low in ED and SE22 doesn't seem to get to my road - but these publications are unlikely to allow opposing political debate in the raw. Leaflet deliverers can't sort out the above three categories on the doorstep. So how can people get information?

"the council is NOT working in the interests of local people, " says Emily. Wrong. We all esxpect the Council to defend the character of our area and that in particular means using the planning control process. How upset we get when someone tries to build inappropriately near us. We look to the council to help. How upset will we be if Lordship Lane turns into Estate Agent Alley or Restaurant Road. With no retail shops will we all be content to go back to Sainsbury's? The way that our environment is protected is that the Council publishes for comment and then adopts planning policies. Is there any Duilwich resident on here is is really saying they don't care about the loss of retail shopping. Let them declare themselves now! Les Alden

Well of course if they have a petition in their shop they are going to get lots of signatures from customers! The real issues are: 1) The proper planning process allows local people to have their say BEFORE something happens. Caffe Nero, who are a big firm, must have known that they didn't have permission. This is a bully-boy tactic against local residents and the Council. 2) The council have a policy of 50% max. non-retail. This seems sensible to me. Otherwise there is no control and Lordship Lane stops being a shopping street. If we do not defend this policy then the wonderful resurgence of Lordship Lane and East Dulwich as a comfortable place to live and shop will be undermined. The Council was right to reject their retrospective application. If you agree with this and want to sign a counter - petition I have set up "Say NO to Caffe Nero" at http://www.gopetition.com/online/15683.html. We will see who gets the most signatures! Les Alden - Upland Road

This is a typical NIMBY from CG residents. Wouldn't it be nice if we all had our road closed but could drive down everyone elses! The fact is that the temporary closure simply placed an unfair increased burden on other peoples roads. And that without a proper re-consideartion of traffic light re-phasing, and banned turns. Before we had "rat-runs" we used to call them back-doubles. Their effect was to increase the total road capacity, speed up traffic flow and hence cut pollution. To close this road permanently would simply be an unreasonable coup, at the expense of others in the area, by CG residents whose property values are already high enough . No.

On the subject of the Walworth Road "improvements" I think Cllr Thomas is unwise to claim this as something to be proud of. This is a major traffic artery and is essential to our local economy. Not all traffic is the too often demonised "cars" but most during the daytime will be business traffic - deliveries to our shops, business people and the man coming round to mend the gas boiler! Simple logic tells me that if vehicles travel at half the speed they will be polluting the area for twice as long. And if they travel in a lower gear then they use more fuel. So even more pollution. These crazy "improvement" schemes never seem to consider the carbon footprint. The publicity says there are 25,000 vehicles a day. Taking some first order assumptions I calculate that the increased CO2 will be 1350 tonnes per annum - just in one road. Not a professional calculation but it shows that if the Council were to take this factor seriously and commission an expert the results could still be significant. The same argument goes for road humps which litter ED residential roads. The slow-fast travel of the vehicles (even though below 20mph) is vastly increasing the pollution that creeps into our houses. In France, Germany and even other parts of the UK they have much more imaginative and visually attractive traffic calming measures. Why are we stuck with humps? Now the council wants to put them all over the borough. And we have Cllr. Thomas to thank for this crazy proposal.

Useless (?) As one of the unsuccessful Labour candidates in East Dulwich I will refrain from smirking. The voters decided to elect three councillors who did not live in the ward rather than three who did. At least they could have knocked on our doors! I was previously a senior councillor and hence can appreciate that Richard Thomas will find it difficult to do both a Senior Executive post and ordinary ward work. But it is what gets you re-elected! This does not excuse the other two Lib Dems. who for Richards sake should be taking on more of a burden. I hope they are not losing interest! On the subject of zig-zags I have taken this up at another school where I am a Governor. I started by photographing the offending parents. But the headteacher was terrified! She said at a previous school she had received physical abuse. I would suggest a three week plan carried our by parents and governors in cooperation with the local traffic wardens. The Council could coordinate this for all schools. Week 1 all children are given a leaflet to take home and also parents give leaflets to offending cars. Week 2 Traffic Wardens are there to 'advise' cars. Week 3 Traffic Wardens issue tickets. It is amazing how each parent will jeopadise the safety of other childrens on this "just be there for a few tics" basis. But of course it adds up and statistically someday there will be a tragedy.