first mate

The first question, "do you support the principle of 1 hour free parking, yes or no" made me wary of filling out the form. I just don't trust the council to use the info honestly. If you start to look at all the various pages detailing plans in the area it is clear that they are attempting to introduce restricted parking all over the place. What can be done to intervene and stop this happening? The consultation form is worded in such a way that it could easily be skewed.

ZT, that is a really good question? Would James Barber, or Renata Hamvas, or any other Councillor, know?

dhjs, Yes, it is clear that you are fulfilling your brief in adhering to health and safety, that is not the issue. The point, I feel, is more one of poor communication. It would have been so simple to say something like the following from the outset, "regrettably, since these trees are highly toxic, we are obliged, for health and safety reasons to remove them". If you refer back to the late communications with Lucy Snow, the lady who has tended the trees over many years, it seems that the Capital projects Southwark person was not clear about reasons for removal either. I am not suggesting this failure of communication was your personal responsibility. I looked at the planning application and could not see mention of poisonous trees anywhere- perhaps it is buried in the detail? Let us hope that a home can be found for the trees and that there is a positive end to this saga. I am sure the school will be very successful and look forward to seeing the final result.

dhjs, I actually do think it is a waste to take out healthy trees, in prime condition, and then replace them with more shrubs. I also do wonder why the word poisonous was not mentioned right at the outset?

Thank you for your explanation, at least the reason is now clear. One does wonder though why the poison issue was not flagged up right away? Anyway, at least we now have clarity. I am also guessing that Southwark will not want to plant these trees anywhere that is frequented by children, including public parks? Still think it a great shame, a waste of public money planting trees that are considered to be such a hazard to children within a space that has been used as a nursery, not to mention the time and care devoted by a member of the community to their upkeep. I am sorry Lucy that you were not given this simplest of explanations from the outset.

Louisa, the fox is a member of the family canidae, so closer to a dog/wolf, but it is also described as cat-like in some respects, most notably its eyes- slitty pupils for nocturnal hunting, long thin canines with which it can deliver a killer bite, the habit of arching it back and hissing in a defensive display of aggression and its incredible climbing ability. Aside from all that they slink around like cats.... Forgot to add, unlike most cats which are obligate carnivores, foxes are carnivorous by choice but also scavengers, which means they can subsist on a wide range of foods- part of the reason for their immense ability to adapt.

The photo is perfectly charming and anyone who says otherwise...Roberto...shall feel the sharp end of my clettering stick!

Perhaps a topiary garden....? With some Niwaki too?

Aaaaaaaaah!

Overall there seems much to be learned about the yew tree. Do hope there might be a rethink.

P68, yes agreed I had also pondered the poison aspect, but if this is the reasoning then it should be stated. I think many children would be fascinated by topiary- just think Edward Scissorhands..on second thoughts perhaps not.

Well the 'magical forest' is darn sight more intersting and creative than the proposed replacement. I also feel the reply you got from the Capital woman was somewhat misleading, even disingenuous- just my opinion. RCH has said, though obviously not in his gift, that perhaps the architects/Southwark/Mr John might be persuaded to keep the trees. I guess, from their perspective the only problem might be protecting them whilst building is ongoing. I do hope a way can be found to keep them in situ. Do you also do Niwaki, Lucy?

This is from the current application: Growing area The strip of land along Bellenden road will be connected with both the main and the Reception playground. A new planter with instant hedging set behind a new vertical bar metal fence will separate this space from the street, safeguarding pupils. It will enhance the street setting of the school and provide a learning resource through proving planting space for all the Years of the school.

Perhaps the real reason is the nature of the trees- yew, and upkeep, given they are topiary. Nonetheless, I don't feel they should just be ripped out, especially not if they are to be replaced with more trees. And, Jeremy, I share your reservations about quite how this space is to be used...cannot see anything in the current plans that details this or mentions external learning/play areas on a narrow strip next to the road.

I note part of the rationale is that they will be removed to make way for an external learning space/garden. I wonder what will actually be put in their place? Does the presence of these trees totally inhibit learning/use of the space? It is hard to see from the photos how much space they take up. I'd have thought that the children might enjoy learning about how the trees are trimmed and tended and perhaps, at key festival periods, the trees could be carefully decorated with items made by the children. In summer the trees might give valuable shade, also something children can hide behind and play hide and seek. A cursory reading of the plans implies, though it is not clear, that the topiary trees are to be removed and then four new trees planted!?

They really are a magnificent labour of love- how awful that developers can just wade in and destroy with full support of the council, or so it would seem.

A tip if the hat to Reynard.

As I said, I'm interested to hear from councillors across the various parties. I guess those that frequent the forum most, and who have already commented on the above, might be expected to do so again.

My point is not one of grand conspiracy, but I do feel it suits various agendas to somehow fail to grasp the bigger picture. I would be interested to hear what councillors have to say about the likely sum impact of the various schemes? James Barber has been on the forum this morning but is not commenting. For instance, He certainly gave the impression that the Picturehouse would not impact parking.

I wanted to ask again, why, when only quite recently we were assured that The Picturehouse, the new proposed M&S and tbe new Harris School Development, would have no impact on parking because, and the following rationale appears in every planning application, the public will cycle , walk or use public transport. Why then is it that "coincidentally" there are a welter of new parking restrictions suddenly touted for the surrounding area? Could councillors please make the effort and explain? Proposals to introduce restricted parking on and around Lordship Lane where there has been none? Proposals to put large swathes of yellow lines either side of dropped kerbs? The introduction of yellow lines on Northcross Road when the market only runs for two days? Proposals,at great expense, to prettify the junction of NX Rd and make it a "safer" junction by building the path out thus reducing traffic flow. Thus piecemeal approach is CPZ by stealth and councillors are not being honest with the public. The same applies to emerging issues to do with 20 mph speed limits and the Townley Rd junction fiasco. We need proper consultation, transparency and accountability.

James Barber was adamant that this development would not affect parking. I'd be interested to hear from councillors from all parties why we are being bombarded with all these new parking restrictions. The same for the yellow lines down much of North Cross Rd, allegedly there for the market stall holders, yet the market operates for only two days a week.

This would be a shame. Especially when the huge, blue building that is designated commercial space ( next to Dulwich leisure centre) is allegedly to be torn down and made into high density flats. What a farce. This latest application will no doubt have been made by a developer who has no interest in the fabric, character or structure of East Dulwich, other than how it can best be ripped up and turned into a meaty profit for himself and his investors. Baaaagh. There has to be some overview of development or ED will be homogenised and characterless before we know it.

Monica, precisely.

Well Morrisons are struggling so perhaps M&S would work better there. That said I feel very sorry for the people who live on Railway Rise if they are to have a four storey monstrosity towering over them.

I do rather agree, there are many who do not drive in a reasonable manner. Even at 30mph or 40mph there is always some idiot who thinks that is too slow too. I just wonder if a number of roaming,static checks with stiff, on-the-spot fines would make a difference? I resent my safety, and that of others, being compromised by someone who feels they are such a marvellously safe driver/their time is so precious that the law does not apply in their case and they are entitled to bully the rest of us off the road.