first mate

TG, TBH I think the reason, as I have stated, is that people do not trust Harris. Once occasional use is allowed can we be sure that usage will not creep? The distance of other users from the park curbs much more frequent use. I seem to recall the early drawings of Harris were presented in such a way that PRP opposite looked like an extension of the school. That is why some think Harris have a long game. Parks are not school playing fields. Once large sections are given over to this, day in day out, the character of the park will completely change. I agree, it does seem unfair in one way but terms of use were negotiated and agreed before Harris opened.

In response to the original points. If Harris were to book pitches would this impact on other schools that use them? How many schools can book and use PRP before it becomes a kind of permanent playing field? Would the use only be in school time or at other times? What percentage of park time should be given over for school activities? The logistics involved with existing schools being at distance from the park seems to act as a brake and limiter on use. Would it be the same if the park was right by the school? The difference between Harris and other schools is that Harris has two large schools right by the park, so once use for school recreation and sports is allowed for these two schools immediately adjacent, I can quite imagine things would slide. If Harris then 'invest' in the park one could even see some of that land possibly being privatised down the line. Let's not forget that we will have two more schools opening in the next few years, these might also want to use the Rye for sports etc.. ( new Harris on Ld shop Lane; new Charter). I also wonder if the distance travelled by Harris Boys to the Kings Playing Fields is any further than other schools have to travel to PRP? Parks are precious community assets and should be open to all the public at all times. The Friends of Peckham Rye should not be painted as obstructive and anti-child, they seek only to preserve the park as an amenity for all. I suspect there is a lack of trust around Harris motives and a sense that a long game is being played, hence the objections.

What is truly extraordinary is that Conway are getting away with it. They are so hand in glove with S'wark that they have an office at HQ, so where us the accountability?

Fazer, agree about 50:50.

nxjen, yes It looks like proposed changes to large parts of ED including Nx have been cancelled. Thank goodness.

I still don't understand James post. The aim of s'wark Labour was to introduce lots of new one hour restricted oarking bays where there was formerly no restricted parking at all. is this going ahead?

James, page won't open. Do you mean you have stopped any restricted parking or enabled restricted parking for one hour?

I recall somewhat similar divide and rule tactics used at the great CPZ debacle.

rch, Agree. Having gone to all this time and effort to make something that was, if we have been told right, only a means to heighten the aesthetics of that junction, then we might as well have something that actually achieves this.

Especially when you consider the stated reason for this work is to make the crossing a nicer experience.....

James, but in terms of those changes that have been made, to double yellow lines on Chesterfield and imminent changes to free parking, can we please have the specifics on how and when you were consulted, whether at a DCC or other process, and, in each case, whether you supported the changes or objected to them? I have already given you the date on which S wark Council has stated in writing that you were consulted on the double yellows- 10th April 2014. All we need is what you said?

"nimby logic" great name for a band.

James, I too would like a clear answer to this. In short, did you know about these changes, were you consulted, if so when, and what was your answer? Please give details and specifics. I have taken the liberty of posting Artful's post from another thread, please read below: "Here is an interesting development. The introduction of 30 minute parking restrictions near shopping parades starting this Friday (21st) in the areas that they were to be consulted on concerning the introduction of 1 hour free parking [www.southwark.gov.uk] Is this a move to say that they can increase parking in these areas from 30 minutes to one hour as part of the consultation that hasn't happened yet. It will be in place for many roads including Barry Road parade, Lordship Lane, Northcross Road to name a few. Have our local councillors had sight of this and agreed to the changes in parking in East Dulwich? Were local businesses and residents consulted on the changes? Or is it just Southwark council pushing forward with their agenda for a borough wide CPZ by pushing shoppers to park in the side roads thus making it harder for residents to park near their own properties? Not sure how this relates to the concept of Southwark supporting local shopping parades!!!"

James, were you consulted on these changes, did you okay them? Please give specifics and details.

Afrz Great post with excellent points. If you take a walk down nine elms it is easy to see what happens when the market decides...empty investment properties.

It may be useful to remember that Conway and S'wark are so close that I am told Conway actually have an office within S'wark. Perhaps this incident may provide a way to shine a light on what appears to be a slipshod approach to work throughout ED. I am also very sorry for those concerned and so glad a truly serious accident was narrowly avoided.

James, Think we need to stop calling the deputation request a petition. It has been demonstrated that in terms of the Council's own process the list of signatures you refer do does not constitute a petition. As of now, can you as our representative at least call the deputation request by its proper name, just to keep the record straight, please. Huge thanks to EDAus, RCH and others for organising the anti Melbourne block campaign. It would be great if this campaign could be widened to other aspects of ED traffic and road management and that somehow we can begin to get proper scrutiny and oversight of planning and decisions.

There probably needs to be some kind of investigation as to how frequently Conway contracts for Southwark overrun on the quoted schedule for completion. I wonder if there are penalties? How does this affect budgets? We should also consider the knock on effects for residents and whether a monetary value can be placed on that. There will be great interest as to whether Conway hit the advertised date of 31st August for completion of Townley works. Last time I spoke to guys on the ground they said no way. It does show pretty shoddy and chaotic planning and perhaps a sense of things being done on the hoof, to begin work without orders and essential materials well in place.

James, Yes, The Order was made 8th of May 2014, as you say BUT The consultation which the officer states included you, was 10th April 2014, so that must be the date you need to hunt out. It is all there in the document posted earlier. I'd really like to know the rationale for needing to add new lengths of double yellows onto Chesterfield.

Not only that, it is also a matter of whether the inconvenience is worth the changes at all.

James, I've posted this question a number of times now, so hoping you will see it this time? You asked which DCC I was referring to re double yellows on Chesterfield. Please see below, posted by you, where it states you were consulted on the Order that covers those double yellows. I want to know if when consulted you gave a yes or a no? If yes, for what reason and why for new lengths of double yellows to be installed on Chestefield? You were consulted on 10 April 2014. When first asked about the prospect of more double yellows on the forum this year you emailed the council and posted their response, along with this below " Thus is the email I've received and I've responded asking for a guarantee no additional lining of any kind or double yellow lines etc will be added as a consequence. " Southwark Council - Member enquiry Our Reference: 551054 ________________________________________ Dear Councillor Barber Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th August 2015, in which you requested information regarding yellow lines in the East Dulwich ward. I believe you are referring to the recent making and publication of a 'consolidation order'. The traffic order which has been advertised is known as a 'consolidation order' which is exactly this -a consolidation of existing traffic orders to ensure these remain manageable and easy to follow. This London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2015(1) ('the 2015 Order') consolidates the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012(2) ('the 2012 Order') together with the 60 subsequent amendment orders amending the provisions of the 2012 Order. It is deemed best practice (e.g. in guidelines issued by the British Parking Association) for local authorities undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement to regularly consolidate and maintain the traffic orders forming a basis for that enforcement. This follows the Consolidation Order process laid out in Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489). There are no new restrictions being introduced by way of this consolidation order. The yellow lines you have specifically queried at Ashbourne and Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove were originally included in an order made on 8 May 2014 as part of the Lordship Lane area traffic order and sign decluttering review . The name of the Order was the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. 32) Order 2014(3) ('the 2014 Order'). As part of our review process, surveys on street were undertaken by an officer to check that the road markings in existence matched the traffic orders. In the case of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove the traffic order waiting and loading definitions would have been amended to reflect more closely the markings as existed on street. Chesterfield Road had new lengths of restrictions installed at this time. Statutory stakeholders and ward members including yourself were consulted in the process of making the 2014 Order, on 10 April 2014. I trust this addresses your concerns but if you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me. " -------------------- Regards [email protected] 07900 227366 Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward Skype cllrjamesbarber [www.jamesbarber.org.uk] [twitter.com] Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was august 15, 06:33am by first mate. Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was today, 09:23am by first mate.

James, I've posted this question a number of times now, so hoping you will see it this time? You asked which DCC I was referring to re double yellows on Chesterfield. Please see below, posted by you, where it states you were consulted on the Order that covers those double yellows. I want to know if when consulted you gave a yes or a no? If yes, for what reason and why for new lengths of double yellows to be installed on Chestefield? You were consulted on 10 April 2014. When first asked about double yellows you emailed the council and posted their response, along with this below " Thus is the email I've received and I've responded asking for a guarantee no additional lining of any kind or double yellow lines etc will be added as a consequence. " Southwark Council - Member enquiry Our Reference: 551054 ________________________________________ Dear Councillor Barber Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th August 2015, in which you requested information regarding yellow lines in the East Dulwich ward. I believe you are referring to the recent making and publication of a 'consolidation order'. The traffic order which has been advertised is known as a 'consolidation order' which is exactly this -a consolidation of existing traffic orders to ensure these remain manageable and easy to follow. This London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2015(1) ('the 2015 Order') consolidates the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012(2) ('the 2012 Order') together with the 60 subsequent amendment orders amending the provisions of the 2012 Order. It is deemed best practice (e.g. in guidelines issued by the British Parking Association) for local authorities undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement to regularly consolidate and maintain the traffic orders forming a basis for that enforcement. This follows the Consolidation Order process laid out in Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489). There are no new restrictions being introduced by way of this consolidation order. The yellow lines you have specifically queried at Ashbourne and Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove were originally included in an order made on 8 May 2014 as part of the Lordship Lane area traffic order and sign decluttering review . The name of the Order was the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. 32) Order 2014(3) ('the 2014 Order'). As part of our review process, surveys on street were undertaken by an officer to check that the road markings in existence matched the traffic orders. In the case of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove the traffic order waiting and loading definitions would have been amended to reflect more closely the markings as existed on street. Chesterfield Road had new lengths of restrictions installed at this time. Statutory stakeholders and ward members including yourself were consulted in the process of making the 2014 Order, on 10 April 2014. I trust this addresses your concerns but if you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me. " -------------------- Regards [email protected] 07900 227366 Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward Skype cllrjamesbarber [www.jamesbarber.org.uk] [twitter.com] Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was august 15, 06:33am by first mate.

James, You asked which DCC I was referring to re double yellows on Chesterfield. Please see below, posted by you, where it states you were consulted on the Order that covers those double yellows. I want to know if when consulted you gave a yes or a no? If yes, for what reason and why for new lengths of double yellows to be installed on Chestefield? You were consulted on 10 April 2014. " Thus is the email I've received and I've responded asking for a guarantee no additional lining of any kind or double yellow lines etc will be added as a consequence. " Southwark Council - Member enquiry Our Reference: 551054 ________________________________________ Dear Councillor Barber Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th August 2015, in which you requested information regarding yellow lines in the East Dulwich ward. I believe you are referring to the recent making and publication of a 'consolidation order'. The traffic order which has been advertised is known as a 'consolidation order' which is exactly this -a consolidation of existing traffic orders to ensure these remain manageable and easy to follow. This London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2015(1) ('the 2015 Order') consolidates the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012(2) ('the 2012 Order') together with the 60 subsequent amendment orders amending the provisions of the 2012 Order. It is deemed best practice (e.g. in guidelines issued by the British Parking Association) for local authorities undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement to regularly consolidate and maintain the traffic orders forming a basis for that enforcement. This follows the Consolidation Order process laid out in Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489). There are no new restrictions being introduced by way of this consolidation order. The yellow lines you have specifically queried at Ashbourne and Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove were originally included in an order made on 8 May 2014 as part of the Lordship Lane area traffic order and sign decluttering review . The name of the Order was the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. 32) Order 2014(3) ('the 2014 Order'). As part of our review process, surveys on street were undertaken by an officer to check that the road markings in existence matched the traffic orders. In the case of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove the traffic order waiting and loading definitions would have been amended to reflect more closely the markings as existed on street. Chesterfield Road had new lengths of restrictions installed at this time. Statutory stakeholders and ward members including yourself were consulted in the process of making the 2014 Order, on 10 April 2014. I trust this addresses your concerns but if you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me. " -------------------- Regards [email protected] 07900 227366 Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward Skype cllrjamesbarber [www.jamesbarber.org.uk] [twitter.com]

James, You asked which DCC I was referring to re double yellows on Chesterfield. Please see below, posted by you where it states you were consulted on the Order that covers those double yellows. I want to know if when consulted you gave a yes or a no. If yes, for what reason and why for longer double yellows on Chestefield? " Thus is the email I've received and I've responded asking for a guarantee no additional lining of any kind or double yellow lines etc will be added as a consequence. " Southwark Council - Member enquiry Our Reference: 551054 ________________________________________ Dear Councillor Barber Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th August 2015, in which you requested information regarding yellow lines in the East Dulwich ward. I believe you are referring to the recent making and publication of a 'consolidation order'. The traffic order which has been advertised is known as a 'consolidation order' which is exactly this -a consolidation of existing traffic orders to ensure these remain manageable and easy to follow. This London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2015(1) ('the 2015 Order') consolidates the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012(2) ('the 2012 Order') together with the 60 subsequent amendment orders amending the provisions of the 2012 Order. It is deemed best practice (e.g. in guidelines issued by the British Parking Association) for local authorities undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement to regularly consolidate and maintain the traffic orders forming a basis for that enforcement. This follows the Consolidation Order process laid out in Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489). There are no new restrictions being introduced by way of this consolidation order. The yellow lines you have specifically queried at Ashbourne and Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove were originally included in an order made on 8 May 2014 as part of the Lordship Lane area traffic order and sign decluttering review . The name of the Order was the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. 32) Order 2014(3) ('the 2014 Order'). As part of our review process, surveys on street were undertaken by an officer to check that the road markings in existence matched the traffic orders. In the case of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove the traffic order waiting and loading definitions would have been amended to reflect more closely the markings as existed on street. Chesterfield Road had new lengths of restrictions installed at this time. Statutory stakeholders and ward members including yourself were consulted in the process of making the 2014 Order, on 10 April 2014. I trust this addresses your concerns but if you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me. " -------------------- Regards [email protected] 07900 227366 Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward Skype cllrjamesbarber [www.jamesbarber.org.uk] [twitter.com]

I thought it was worth posting the bulk of the newspaper article "Cllr James Barber said: ?The deputation was particularly impressive. They had six speakers and a group of around fifteen to 20 supporters. They had put together a marvellous information pack. ?While there may be some anticipated issues including knock-on effects for neighbouring roads, it is definitely worth investigating. If I lived on Melbourne Grove, I would want it closed.? A resident who lives on nearby Tell Grove, who preferred not be named, said: ?With two new schools coming I think it is worth looking into. My kids and I cycle down Melbourne Grove and cars absolutely race by. It?s not so bad on major roads where cars and cyclists expect each other, but on smaller roads it?s a nightmare and a real danger. ?However, I don?t know if I?m for or against the proposal. If it merely displaced traffic onto other roads then it clearly wouldn?t be the best idea. However, it is certainly something that should be studied.?