Jump to content

Andrew1011

Member
  • Posts

    198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andrew1011

  1. rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But residents are still stopping me in the street > and emailing me, asking me for my advice on how > their voices can be heard, so hopefully an > alternative campaign will emerge. I'd certainly be party to that campaign. rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And I'm still going to consistently try to correct > disinformation... > > For instance, in above posts in this thread, it's > now being stated that 55% of Melbourne Grove > residents have signed the petition in favour of > the barrier... but in the deputation it was stated > that a majority of REGISTERED VOTERS on Melbourne > Grove signed the petition, which would exclude any > residents under the age of 18... which in turn > casts a question of what percentage of RESIDENTS > actually signed the petition. In theory, anyone > of any age can sign a petition but then we need to > determine how many residents live on the road, as > opposed to how many registered voters, in order to > confirm what the majority opinion is. > > And we STILL don't know how many > residents/registered voters signed the speed hump > petition and how many signed the barrier petition. Exactly.
  2. Use Southwark Council's complaints procedure to formally register any dissatisfaction in respect of the contractor's failure to perform. I seem to recall that the leisure centres' contract is shortly up for renewal, so feedback at this stage could possibly affect the eventual outcome of that process. https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp
  3. Heartblock, just for clarity, there are three councillors covering village ward (electoral area covering the part of EDG in question) and Cllr Michael Mitchell is just one of them. The others are Cllr Anne Kirby (anne.kirby@southwark.gov.uk) and Cllr Jane Lyons (jane.lyons@southwark.gov.uk) and you should probably email them too to try to get maximum support. I'm glad you've emailed Helen Hayes MP.
  4. rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be fair to James, this section of EDG isn't in > his ward... That's never stopped him before rch and, depending in which side of the southern side of Melbourne Grove the person who's instigated the madcap campaign for the barrier there, they may not be in his ward either.
  5. I think this fiasco clearly demonstrates that people need to keep a close eye on Dulwich Community Council agendas to ensure that something such as this doesn't slip under the radar without an opposing view being allowed to be aired. Attendance at them is even more effective and I'm only sorry I wasn't able to get to that one.
  6. If the northern side of Melbourne Grove is closed to traffic you can look forward to more traffic, even that heading to roads like Playfield Crescent, using EDG and so increasing these effects further. Ask your MP to raise this issue on your behalf. Helen Hayes MP has surgeries on: 1st - today for July (East Duwich Community Centre), 2nd (West Norwood Leisure Centre), 3rd (Brixton Advice Centre) and 4th (Kingswood House) Friday mornings of most months of the year. August is the parliamentary recess so no surgeries then but they resume in September. You can also write or phone: http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/helen-hayes/4510 You could also get together with other EDG residents and make a deputation on this to the next Dulwich Community Council, of course.
  7. richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As an aside why does he still promote > parliamentary Lib Dem candidate on his thread. > It's over dead and died. I seem to recall there's something in electoral law which doesn't allow reference to being a parliamentary candidate outside of the official general election campaign period. Presumably if he's again selected by his party for the 2020 elections he may have to declare his campaigning expenses, due this ongoing reference, right back to 8th May 2015 and include that in the total. Let's hope so, anyway. ;-)
  8. ED_moots Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Front page of the local paper. 10/10 for effort > there, quite the PR machine is in motion. A local > man murdered on the beach in Tunisia gets bumped > to page 4. Have word with yourselves Southwark > News. That is appalling, as is the relegation of the local person murdered in Tunisia story to page 4. Yet more hyperbole to justify this non-strategic meddling. I wonder who's at the root of this making front page news?
  9. > El Presidente Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > this pub is in a terrible location and will > always > > fail It's probably in one of the best locations in the area Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was our favourite place for weekend lunches in > the very brief period when it had a great chef, > good managers and a well kept selection of ales. Agreed. And, if it's run correctly with its customers in mind - and with motivated and contented staff- it has massive potential.
  10. I wonder why blow hyphen ins was censored as though I'd written an obscenity?
  11. Make sure you appeal, it can often be worth the effort.
  12. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Andrew1011, > you can have a full raised junction that doesn't > cover the whole junction. This whole junction is a > crash hot spot and we'll see over the next few > years if it is now much after. Hopefully far fewer > crashes, lots of money also saved on top f the > avoided human suffering. Lots of hyperbole there James, presumably in a desperate bid to justify non-strategic meddling without evidence. 2018 awaits.
  13. rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The turning point on the ongoing 37 diversion > campaign was the fact that the 37 route had to be > temporarily rerouted away from Melbourne, down EDG > into Lordship, during roadworks. Once the > temporary bus rerouting settled in, it was much > easier to get the council to persuade TfL not to > go back to the Melbourne route, especially as the > bus drivers themselves preferred staying on the > main road route instead of squishing through the > narrow end of Melbourne. This is quite right, but don't forget that the impetus for the 1998 campaign to change the 37 route was also due to the road being closed for several months while huge pipes for flood relief were installed under the road. In 1998 we were told by London Buses that the bus stops on Lordship Lane couldn't cope with the extra load arising from a permanent re-routing. We knew this was rubbish but we were then threatened by them with a London Buses application for double yellow lines down one whole side of Melbourne Grove (north). There was also the red herring 'policy' of the need for the 37 to stop at every station - Peckham Rye, East Dulwich, North Dulwich - so basically shadowing the railway. rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, it's really important for residents to stick > together on all of this and look at the bigger > picture. This is why I'm concerned that blocking > off one section of the road can cause a knock-on > effect that can't be determined at this point in > time... I absolutely agree.
  14. Thanks yeknomyeknom.
  15. peckham_ryu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wetherspoons keep the kids corralled in a family > section, leaving plenty of space for uncensored > beer chat. That's the solution then, East Dulwich urgently needs a Wetherspoons.
  16. intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You always seem to be claiming credit for things > and I'm prompted to ask what actions you took > that were different from other councillors in > this issue . I attend DCC mtgs and when this was > raised noted that all councillors were in > agreement that this policy should reviewed .There > was no dissent to lead . I was there too and you are absolutely right. There was no dissent from any of the other Dulwich Community Council members, regardless of their political colour.
  17. KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 8.30pm - is that what it's come to ? The thing is, no pub can survive these days with just a few old codgers propping up the bar during the day, downing the odd pint of mild. They have to be imaginative in order to ensure continued trade and most do that these days by catering for the family market. Perhaps a brave local licencee will be innovative soon and advertise their pub as uniquely child free. They may make a killing.
  18. And the sun did come up over East Dulwich on the 28th June. And the 'new moneyed blow - ins' did awaken from their slumber and look out of their windows. And they did see that Iceland was gone. And they did rejoice. Amended for increased flame effect. ;-)
  19. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The we was my ward councillors and I several years > when we undertook to make these changes happen. At > various points former Cllrs Richard Thomas, > Jonathan Mitchell and current fellow councillor > Rosie Shimell. As I said, peripheral. The campaign was organised by my neighbour, who worked extremely hard on it and who was keenly supported by another neighbour (both now no longer resident in the road), with whom I had worked on the earlier campaign. I couldn't be as involved in the last and successful campaign due to health issues, but I was kept fully informed because I was interested and had been so involved in the earlier (1997/8) campaign to change the route. In 1997/8, the ward councillors (not Lib Dem) were also very supportive but the lack of success was due to the intransigence of those in charge of what was London Buses. The subsequent change in attitude in favour of changing the 37 route came with increased pressure to improve and maintain bus punctuality, as well as having new more far-sighted people in charge when Transport for London came into existence. The eventual success was due to the hard and long time work of determined local residents to improve what was an intolerable situation and it was not due to ED councillors, regardless of their political colour, so please stop claiming credit for campaigns which pre-date the involvement you or your party. Also, in reality, what you consider to be a problem in the southern part of Melbourne Grove is absolutely nothing compared to what residents in the northern part previously experienced and, to some extent, continue to experience due to traffic volume. This isolated suggestion will do absolutely nothing to address that and is in no way strategic for the area. Hi Andrew1011, > I attempted to have UK stone used but was over > ruled by the Labour administration of Southwark > Council. I am an opposition councillor so I don't > get what I consider common sense as often as I'd > like. Please don't be obtuse James. You know perfectly well that I was referring to the complete waste of money of the 'treatment' at the southern side of East Dulwich Grove if this road blocking, which you support, goes ahead.
  20. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > IF a closure occurred on the southern Melbourne > Grove section is would reduce the through traffic > along the northern section. > The study should be able to estimate by how much. The amount of traffic going from the northern side to the southern side is minute compared to that which turns onto East Dulwich Grove. Most of that which does go straight on at that junction is probably people loving either at the northern end of Melbourne Grove or in the streets off it. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the northern Melbourne Grove section was closed > - it would damage the shops - and traffic would > divert along Derwent and Elsie. So a lot more > complicated. No it wouldn't damage the shops at all. As has been pointed out they are destination shops which do not rely on passing motorists for their trade. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fortunately some years ago we organised that the > no.37 no longer use that northern section, had > full road humps installed and car able to fully > park on the road rather than blocking the pavement > as they used to. Who's this 'we' James? You may have been involved on the periphery but that campaign, like the one six or seven years before it, was organised by people resident in the northern part of Melbourne Grove. By the time of the second campaign TfL had come into being and its staff were far more sympathetic to the arguments (plus they had to put a stop to the delays) about diverting the 37 bus route. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd love other measures - rising bollards, full > tables etc. But the only money available for any > of these measures is devolved CGS budgets and it > won't run to those types of measures. So, because you and your new local friend have apparently decided that Melbourne Grove should have a barrier at almost the southern end of its northern side, the relative fortune that's recently been spent on the 'treatment' on the southern side of the junction is to be wasted? Where was it the stone they ran out of had to be imported from again? Also, if you were the councillor who is referred to on 12th May as having visited the new resident at his home, and assuming the visit was made on an earlier date, did it by any chance have anything to do with you trying to persuade him to vote for you on 7th May?
  21. Most pubs are baby/pram/child free in the evenings after 8.30pm.
  22. yeknomyeknom Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes I've been to New Covent Garden at Vauxhall. > It's an interesting walk around. Bargains to be > had. Is it just cut flowers or are the garden plants as well?
  23. rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FYI, the last formal investigation/consultation > happened during the resurfacing of Melbourne > Grove... highway engineers thought that it would > be more economical to incorporate any changes of > humps, corner build-outs, etc, into the > resurfacing works, rather than fund them > separately. > > So there was a option to upgrade the existing > speed cushions into full width humps, which the > majority of residents voted against, therefore the > speed cushions were reinstated in the resurfacing > works. > > There was also an option to build out the corners > at Chesterfield, which was also voted against > because of the potential loss of parking spaces. Yes, I was quite disappointed that the proposed build outs didn't happen as the current wide spaces do give hardened speeders (those who won't be stopped by any calming measures) space to dodge in and out. This also happens on the wide bend at the northern end of the road where drivers accelerate off the cushion near Il Mirto heading south into the wide bend, sometimes in the middle or even sometimes on the other side of the road. rch Also wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But, at the end of the day, the dynamic of the > traffic flow in the whole area is so complex, that > it might be best to do nothing... I certainly don't believe anything should be done regarding closing off any part of Melbourne Grove in advance of having a clear and proper understanding of the impact of having two new schools (one at the southern end and another roughly in the middle but at the northern end, if Jarvis Road becomes a student entrance/exit) of the road. There must be proper strategic consideration of this issue based and real evidence and full and proper consultation with all residents who are likely to be affected by this proposal. It cannot go ahead on the basis of pressure from one apparently new resident and one local councillor who doesn't tend to look at issues strategically and who likes to fiddle.
  24. fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only problem is getting the existing champagne > socialists living in their multi million village > homes "Think Tessa Jowell" to agree to it .. lol Tessa Jowell does not, and never has, lived in Dulwich Village or anywhere in the Dulwich area. I know women MPs (and former MPs in this case) are considered - at least by some - to be indistinguishable, but you've definitely got the wrong one here.
  25. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Was it crowded? Organisers have claimed that 478 > trillion billion squazillion people attended. The > police counted 18 people and a budgerigar. The police always understate on these occasions; it was actually a hyacinthine macaw. ;) I can't do marches but other day to day activism in support of social justice is incredibly important (remember this government only has a tiny majority) and can have the same or an even greater effect.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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