first mate

James, re the double yellows on Chesterfield, I am quoting the date you were consulted on this, that is the 10th April 2014. We know you were consulted on that date because that information is given in an email addressed to you from Southwark Council, that you chose to publish on this forum. It matters not if it was a DCC or some other means, all we know for sure is that you were consulted on that date. So, again, and I will keep asking, all I want to know is did you say "yes" to extended doubles on Chesterfield or did you say "no"? I am interested in your assertion about the busy wardens. I often see them around, parked up for lengthy periods in and around Lordhsip, monitoring life from the camera car, and others out on their scooters are never, it seems, too busy to miss dropping in on the carwash on the corner of LL for a "friendly" chat with the guys there. Yes, all that money from parking funds the good labours of the wardens but, a surplus you say? How about putting some of that money, or indeed all of it, to funding a police officer and wardens, dedicated to the speeding issue. A simple solution and one that might help us avoid digging up yet more roads to no avail or, heaven forfend, blocking them off completely.

One police officer could manage and oversee a number of community wardens who might be tasked with monitoring speed and car regs. this might be a better use of wardens who whizz around on scooters and lurk in camera cars for hours on end with the sole aim to catch out cars with a bumper one inch over double yellows. What is the cost of the parking wardens and the camera cars? BTW James, on the issue of double yellows you still have not come back to me about whether you supported increasing double yellow on Chesterfield Grove, April 10th 2014?!!!!!

"This last point we should note as this has been said to the Southwark planners many times. We should not let Southwark's errors and intransigence to be used as a way to bring back the right hand turn ban idea." hopskip, that is a very good point. In the agenda driven game of traffic chess, currently played by the Council and our Councillors, I can see their next move will be to state the road is unsafe in terms of coaches and therefore the only viable and cost effective solution is to ban the right hand turn. They and the Councillor/ s supporting this will find a way to blame TFL or some other body for the cockup. Except it is not a cockup, I still believe they have always had one aim and will achieve it, by whatever means. Could the Council be forced to reverse this work and reinstate the former road design? Perhaps RCH would know? This meddling and tinkering, supported by our local Councillors- the persons who are meant to represent us, has to stop.

Sue, I agree, though multiple roadworks in the area is surely contributing to driver frustration? If we total all the money being spent on works, studies, redesign, allocation of funds from CGS- wouldn't that money be better spent funding a few cops to stop speeding cars and issue tickets? Word tends to get around that proper penalties are on the cards. Have you looked at the quality of workmanship on Nx? Badly laid and stone cut to go around existing lights looks like jigsaw- perhaps measurements were also miscalculated, along with everything else.

Edhistory, How so? Please do explain?

Why is James Barber pushing the original proposition when a larger group of residents are clearly against it? I do not understand how our local rep is allowed to be so partial in matters which could have such a major impact on the area? We all know James personal views on cycling, cars, parking and so on but it does not seem right that he can use his position as a platform to push a minority agenda, when so many see it as folly.

LM, Yes,there was an agreement in 2008 where it was stated that Harris would not use Rye and bussing arrangements were outlined. However, James is right, in so far as I can see there was not a stipulation within the planning document, it was not thought necessary since it states that were the school to want to hire it would go through the same process as other schools that use the Rye- so in theory Harris could change its mind. see http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/Data/Planning%20Committee/20080702/Agenda/Item%206%20AddendumReport.pdf Savage, Yes it would seem it is about upsetting the apple cart, since it is clear that Harris could apply to use the Rye if they wanted. As I have said before, the fear is that over time sections of the park simply become subsumed by school activities, because the school is just over the road.

LM, Agreed. I think FPRP just want to ensure that the part of the park does not become an extension of the school. There is no danger of this happening with other schools as they are not close enough. If you saw the original design presentation fir the school it was mocked up in such a way that the Rye opposite the school looked like it was part if the school. Offers by the school to fund pitch management in return for use may look a good idea at first but over time it could prove tricky, since the school could begin to make claims around ownership of sections of the park. It seems quite clear that Harris entered into an agreement with S'wark planning in 2008 to build the school with the clear and unambiguous proviso that they would not use the Rye for school activities. Harris signed up to this in full knowledge and any parents signing up to the school would have been clear, as would Councillors. Detractors made repeated questions about lack of space at the school and were told by Harris and supporters that this was not an issue and everything had been covered and they were confident that all the recreational needs of the boys would be met in full. It seems that having agreed terms Harris decided on a very sneaky long game to overturn this agreement and getting Councillors and parents to protest in vague terms is very effective. I would just ask what that protest actually means in reality? Is it about having the same rights of access as other schools in principle? Or does Harris actually want to transfer all its sports activities from fields in Dulwich Village to the Rye? If the latter then I would think there is a strong chance other schools will be booted off by the newcomer, which happens to be in prime position. On the surface the situation does look unfair but I suspect a little detail might be quite revealing. It would be useful to know the detail, exactly what it is Harris and its supporters want in this case?

James, are you saying that the building work will not impact on Ldship Lane in any way?

Well done rch.

Okay James, so if it was changed would other schools that currently make use of the Rye have to travel further to other locations? if so does that seem fair? Yes the girls school uses the Rye but not that much, or so it seems. What do you have in mind for Harris Boys usage? For instance, how may hours per week and at what times and in what areas? How many areas would be used and how many numbers of boys at a time? Would the Rye be used just for set supervised games of for a variety of leisure activities? It is fine to make protests on principle but until we have detail and a sense of the logistics and what would be the aim, it is really hard to get a sense of what would be involved. Out of interest, once Harris ED is up and running, will they too want to make use of the Rye or even Goose Green- again, not much space on that site for play or recreation? I guess they will also be bussed to Dulwich Village? You bave been very involved with this application so feel sure you will know what is planned?

Henryb, I have no idea what FPRP current stance is. Local children are free to use the park as individuals, the objection is annexing part of the park as a regular school playing field. We also have to consider if Harris start to book pitches as regular users this then forces another school to stop using them. Perhaps other schools have a prior claim? Again, this was all looked at and agreed before Harris opened, with full knowledge of Harris and parents.

James, let us hope that Nx Road and Townley are sorted before they " get cracking" or there will be chaos on Lordship Lane.

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.