rch

Two more background points about Lordship... 1) The reason WHY Lordship is such a mess is because the pavement resurfacing done back in 2004/2005 wasn't done correctly. Basically, some box-ticking council employee decided that the old imperial measurement pavement slabs should be replaced en masse by the newer borough standard metric slabs... but, to save money, the old imperial slabs were simply lifted and replaced, the pavement underlay wasn't properly backfilled and screed. So, where there were problems, the new slabs simply dropped after a few rainfalls, hence creating the problems that we're still suffering. This was one of the first ever community projects that I ever worked on as a resident (even before planting the plane tree avenue), ironically helped by a Village ward councillor (who sadly lost her seat to me in 2006) who was the only cllr to respond to my pleas for help. It was eventually admitted by the council that the new paving wasn't implemented properly, which is why the pavement down towards the East Dulwich Tavern is much more stable, as the specifications were changed to address the issues after they were admitted. We were then promised that the defective Lordship paving would be assessed every five years instead of the usual 20 years, with a view to relaying and improving it as the footfall increased. But this promise fell off the radar when the council administration changed in 2006. 2) The new granite section between Londis and Sogim is excellent (funded by a CGS bid by James?). The reason why it was so delayed in being reinstated wasn't Conway's fault... because I am a geek who walks everywhere, I spontaneously cornered managers on a site visit and it was verbally confirmed to me that the delay was because of council protocol obstructions due to the new highway requirements (which Conways got blamed for as a fob off), created by the same officer who implemented the new tree planting requirements. I can explain further if any one can bear my long posts. But bear in mind that this council officer is now gone (hurrah!), presumably due to "budget cuts", so everyone is now manoeuvring around trying to create amendments to the tree planting and highway improvement manuals so that we can sanely and economically improve our public realm again...

Okay, will try yet again to progress the pavement issues, as I, too, am tired of walking down broken, ponding pavements lined with dead tree stumps in the community that I love. But first, James, I would like to address a misleading comment that you made about me earlier (and special thanks to those of you who defended me)... "Robin I really don't think council officers would would chance their jobs doing personal favours for you by prioritising your past ward roads and pavements." Nobody was doing me any personal favours, James... as I have stated repeatedly, I am a highways geek - I love the technical and protocol aspects so much that I was briefed and trained at a high level at my request by council officers (who eventually agreed because it was easier than replying to my zillions of councillor queries), whereupon I could then identify errors in the council assessments and calculations, thereby lobby for roads in the south of the borough to be given higher priority based on the council's own assessments, as well as prevent costly mistakes from being made on the ground. So, although you state that "need is now factored with interventions to stop roads getting much worse", it's possible to circumvent this tactic if you know HOW "need" is factored, in order to demonstrate that it's actually more cost effective to address "need" by a complete resurfacing. I actually got four shopping parades (including the private curtilages) totally reinstated and resurfaced in Village ward in the 8 years that I was a councillor by querying the assessments, and working closely with community amenity societies (such as The Dulwich Society, the Herne Hill Society, and the Herne Hill Forum) on raising both internal and external funding. It's a slow and frustrating process, but it CAN be done. The first step is not to be fobbed off by the patching repair survey routine with council officers - there are some roads, like Lordship and Chesterfield (more on this later) that absolutely should be completely resurfaced from scratch (and were earmarked for this, but dropped off the radar). This is the reason WHY I put in the recent CGS bid to address Lordship Lane, section by section if necessary... but I'm not sure from your earlier comments, James, why my bid was refused. If nothing else, the next section down (or north) from the corner of North Cross and Lordship would include the area in front of St Christopher's, where you are now saying that you want replace the curtilage with devolved (CGS?) funds. But it would be better if the public pavement could be replaced with the same quality granite that was used for the Londis to Sogim public pavement section (although a different material could be used for curtilages, if this renewal was agreed with landlords, so that we could have some visual continuity. Then the private curtilage could be done in tandem if the landlord agrees (most landlords won't agree to lose control, so we ended up doing this with match funding instead). Doing repeated repairs in patches is expensive and creates other knock-on problems. This is why I'm trying to circumvent all the obstacles and agree a unified vision for the entire run of Lordship Lane, which will almost certainly have to be done in segments due to the length of the road.

Excellent, Bargee... I kept my mouth shut because it's much better that James hears this from someone else besides me. Just to add that govt legislation was to be proposed at the end of April, but this is put on hold until after the general election, hence the July date for Nice. Furthermore, the previous Mayor of London had banned speed humps for precisely these reasons, but this policy seems to have evaporated... hopefully new legislation will address this madness as there are now other far more effective ways of addressing genuine speeding issues. Last thing... I just want to address two extremely misleading comments that James has made about me, then I'm going to shut up and move threads. I just need to get into the mood to type it all out...

Yes, Abe, you've hit the nail on the head. The Chesterfield project came from a CGS proposal that I made a year ago (to rework the proposal that was voted against in 2009), which was refused, and now James has picked it up and is organising it himself. So, although I would have done it differently, now I'm powerless. There are several situations that are evolving like this, it's so frustrating. But this is how the democratic system works... nxjen - I totally agree with you, which is why I've been working through the Dulwich Society to address ED issues (as I live here and not in the Village). But I am finding that setting up an East Dulwich Society is going to be difficult because people have genuinely lost heart. bargee - I doubt if anything will freeze the road humps now... residents are convinced that they will change the road and councillors are committed to them.

The difference is that some councillors allocate devolved funding in ways that actually benefit the community...

As you can see, Abe, the problem is that councillors can pick and choose which CGS applications they fund. And if they take on a project themselves, then certain pro-active residents are cut out of the loop. If my applications had been approved then I would be able to liaise directly with the highway engineers on how to solve the problems (including pavements). But, instead, applicants with a 150 signature petition have been repeatedly chosen for speed calming measures over applicants with a 300 signature petition asking for other ongoing issues to be addressed. So, I'm now trying to circumvent obstacles on progressing tree issues, pavements, road issues and other aspects of the community that I've lived in for decades and care about. In Dulwich and Herne Hill, there are specifically non-political community amenity groups that are noted by the council as stakeholders, which can apply for funding and speak out, but East Dulwich has disintegrated. In fact, both The Dulwich Society and the Herne Hill Society have planning committees which are given opportunities to make direct representations to planning officers and other council depts... I actually sit on the Dulwich Society planning committee, but it hasn't taken on issues in East Dulwich yet. Some of the work I've been trying to progress behind the scenes is to get an ad hoc East Dulwich committee together (I was actually talking to Laurence Roullier White about leading on this before he sadly passed away), as The Dulwich Society has had all the old East Dulwich Society assets folded into it, but East Dulwich is just too fragmented and the political obstacles are too obstructive. This is what I'm trying to sidestep...

Abe, you can see the confirmation of the ?15,000 CGS allocation, which appears to have been directed to the Chesterfield buildout, made at the March 25 DCC meeting here:- http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?AIId=43733 If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you can see the link to all the applications here:- http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s67386/Appendix%201%20Dulwich%20Community%20Council%20Cleaner%20Greener%20Safer%20Capital%20programme%202017-18%20Applications.pdf I was at the DCC meeting and some of my own applications, which were refused, are listed on the PDF so I have been able to triangulate part of what's happening as I have quite a lot of background on this, but I probably won't have time to type until over the weekend. But you can see that there are two "Traffic Calm Melbourne Grove (south)" applications, one for Village ward (200099) and one for East Dulwich ward (694030). I'm assuming that this is because Melbourne Grove splits the ward down the middle, so the Village award pays for the humps (?) and the ED one is allocated to pay for the Chesterfield buildout (?). I'm assuming that both were submitted by the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group by residents who live across the street from each other. FYI, I submitted a CGS bid last year to have both the Chesterfield and the Ashbourne junctions assessed on behalf of the signatories of the 300-signature petition, as these are the two locations that are having noted accidents due to visibility issues, but it was refused (long explanation, I have the paperwork so I can explain). At the moment, only the humps are being consulted on, letters went out to Melbourne residents a couple of weeks ago, the Chesterfield consultation hasn't been processed yet, so this will take a while, which is why I'm trying to speak to someone... I also want to address some of the misleading comments that have been made about me - special thanks to those to defended me - but I'll also need to do this in bits and pieces as my life is complicated at the moment.

I would also encourage residents to repeatedly report any noise issues or breaches of permission in order to build a dossier to submit to planning, as that may help to support the view of loss of amenity.

Attached in the photo that I took this morning at 6.30am. I had a useful conversation with the guys who were loading... they said that they were definitely not using the back entrance on Chesterfield now with a view towards head office getting permission to only load in at the front at 6am. They were very courteous and apologetic about any noise issues, stressing that they will only load from the front from now on. From what I can observe from my perspective, I think the problem is actually overdevelopment of the site by the developer, which has caught out M&S. The problem will not only be about coming to a compromise, but I strongly suspect that the development of the Londis site across the road will also become an issue if this existing development is cited as a precedent. The other problem is going to be that Lordship Lane is now designated as a Destination area, and I could see other shops were also loading at 6.30am, so it could be viewed by planning as a reasonable request to limit the loading to the front while pushing the time back to 6am in order to open the shop at 8am. As James says, there will be a lot of negotiating to be done... One way forward that strikes me is that there used to be a planning committee option to request a monitored face to face meeting between the applicant and the objectors/residents... I don't know if this is still an option in the current set-up, but I think a good way forward would be to request an open community meeting with planning, councillors, and residents to discuss the situation and possible compromises.

Quick M&S update... word on the grapevine confirms that the 6am loading request is indeed to circumvent the 7am bus lane restrictions on Lordship Lane. But the loading times into the back yard on Chesterfield will stay at 7am, no plans to change that. Basically, M&S wanted to divert their operations right away from disturbing the residents on Chesterfield, hence moving the loading to Lordship. It appears to me that M&S are genuinely trying to integrate into the community, so thorough communication with planning should help. Didn't dig any deeper than that... more soon on build-out technicalities (I am a highways geek).

I agree as well... the pavement repair fund approach isn't working, we need total repaving on Lordship at minimum, I'll explain why later. I put in a CGS bid to pay for another section of paving on Lordship, but it wasn't approved. Technically repaving shouldn't be done with devolved CGS funding, but the system is such a mess that I used to rock the boat with CGS so often when I was a cllr that the roads I whinged about got pushed up to the top of the list. All you have to do is be persistent on justified works until the council allocates the funds to shut you up... instead devolved funding is being spent on stuff we don't need, so we're hitting dead ends.

Sorry, Siduhe, we cross posted. So, I wonder if the bedrooms of the flats objecting are in the front or the back of the building? Would they be disturbed if there was only a 6am timing for Lordship, but not Chesterfield? Will check the Lordship bus lane timings... it may be that M&S needs to get an exemption to the 7am bus lane enforcement from TFL, which may be impossible. Will keep digging.

Hmm, just piecing this together. So, the main problem is the earlier time of 6am as opposed to 7am? Will have to check, but my guess is that the earlier time will circumvent the operation of the bus lane in Lordship Lane. But 6am is certainly too early for Chesterfield. Granted there are residents on Lordship, but not as many and they are mostly higher up. My general observation is that the developer crammed too much into too small a space, using the national appeal for more housing as a deal sweetener (we need to keep our eye on CIL payments as well). But now it appears that M&S are caught in the loop. Sonia Watson is one of the better planning officers... I seem to remember the strategy of manoeuvring the deliveries to be moved to the front of the building away from residents being examined earlier on, so maybe this is part of a more strategic plan? But, yes, Abe... the build-out at the Melbourne end of Chesterfield should definitely keep the bigger lorries out - now and for any future business that may unexpectedly come around. So, the catch may be to keep the Chesterfield delivery timing at 7am but maybe agree 6am Lordship deliveries for M&S... although there will inevitably be services that need access to the back of the building to serve the offices and flats above the M&S, but if they are restricted to 7am then that shouldn't be as bad. Hmmm... still thinking this through.

This is a really useful exchange from my perspective, a lot of pennies are dropping into place. Multiple layers of complexity, I'll try to get to them bit by bit as I have time, but also don't want to write long convoluted replies which may confuse things more. Firstly, one major question which may tie into something else that has come up (possibly positive, too long to type out)... Had a look at Siduhe's useful links above (thanks, Siduhe!), so the question is... What do the Chesterfield residents object to about M&S moving the deliveries to the front of the premises on Lordship Lane? Is it the noise caused by M&S pushing the inventory around the corner on foot from Lordship into Chesterfield and loading into the back of the building or are they loading in the front doors on Lordship, away from the houses?? If they are pushing everything around the corner, then the shift to the earlier time will probably be disturbing, but if they are required to load in the front then would this solve the noise problem completely? There's a method to my madness here, but I don't know if it will work out... so can you guys explain?

I've attached a drawing of the proposed works from the 2009 roadworks consultation (which I received as a resident, NOT as a councillor), when the Chesterfield build-out was voted against. My memory is that at least one or two parking spaces would be lost, which is why is was voted against at the time. Bear in mind that there would have to be at least one dropped kerb at the crossing point, as there currently is in the bend, and that this would lose parking because of the 90 degree angle, so the drawing is a bit misleading as it doesn't show any dropped kerbs. Under current legislation, there may even have to be a second dropped kerb to provide a crossing point across Melbourne in addition to Chesterfield... but I would need to discuss this with an engineer. The original reason for this build out proposal by highway engineers was to make the crossing safer for pedestrians, particularly parents with young children and disabled people. It was never intended as a speed calming measure as there are no speeding issues there. It would have been very cost-effective to implement this as part of the road resurfacing project, but democracy prevailed and it was dropped. It would also prevent larger lorries cutting from Melbourne into Chesterfield and vice versa. The width of the build-out would be determined by the turning ratio of the council rubbish collection lorries, which means that smaller delivery lorries would still be able to use the turning. As a pedestrian who doesn't drive, I would LOVE to see this build-out implemented, as this crossing is extremely dangerous due to the difficulty of pedestrians and drivers seeing each other behind the parked cars on the bend - it's one of the most frequently complained about aspects of the Melbourne Grove layout among neighbours. Also, during the door knocking exercises on our own 300 signature petition, many residents on Chesterfield mentioned the build-out again saying that if they had been consulted back in 2009 then they would have voted for it. HOWEVER I am also aware that, now in 2017, residents will object to any loss of parking again... so the REASON WHY I keep asking an engineer to meet on site with me is to ascertain how many parking spaces would be definitely lost and if a crossing point could be provided by a pedestrian island instead, while retaining all the current parking spaces. The right hand and the left hand aren't communicating. James, I tried to explain all this to you when we walked home together, but I don't think you processed what I was trying to say. Also, be aware that the Melbourne Grove speed hump consultation has now been mailed out to residents, but the Chesterfield build-out is not on it. The hump consultation is another nightmare, but I'll address that separately. There are so many logistical problems with the layout on Melbourne Grove that the speed humps won't even begin to address.

Let's see what we can do, then. I know the names of some of the people Ingrid was working with, but am not in direct contact so hopefully we can connect. I'm also aware that there is a tour of the Dulwich Outdoor Gallery street art works on the 13th and 14th May at 2pm, as part of the Dulwich Festival... and I have a feeling that this is going to evolve into more than just a "guided street art walk".

I've been dreading this news... when I saw Ingrid shortly before Easter, I had an awful feeling that it would be the last time. She said that she was living each day to the fullest and didn't want people to avoid contact, which is why I'm posting this. Hopefully we can do something to carry on her memory. She was particularly concerned about the maintenance of the Street Art, so I told her I would try to track down her team on this. But for now, thoughts are with her family.

Bear in mind that the purpose of many of the medicinal herbs grown in a Physic Garden are to make poultices and balms, not necessarily to eat. Although I regularly volunteer for watering and leaf-picking, I wouldn't feel confident enough to advise visitors as to which herbs could be picked to be eaten. Last week, when we were watering, one of the Vale RA experienced gardeners gave some herbs to two visitors who requested them but, when I am there on my own, I tend to decline to do this. Instead I recommend that interested consumers attend on the first Monday of the month from around 5pm onwards, as I posted above. Once the temporary hoarding is replaced, the noticeboard can be rehung and more information posted. On the other hand, so much is in transition now, even this year's new plantings are being planned with a view towards moving to the new beds, hopefully next year.

The pile is gone today. I also photographed it and have been keeping my eye on it as well, as I walk along there regularly. I saw some Veolia guys in a van nearby yesterday and asked them if they could get it removed and they confirmed that it was indeed asbestos and told me not to touch it, that it needed a special procedure. So, I don't know if they subsequently reported it and the removal was therefore escalated or whether the paperwork, etc, was completed coincidentally... but thankfully it's gone now. Nice to know that other people are keeping their eye out around here, too.

The Physic Garden is managed by the nearby Vale Residents Association, here is the link to the Physic Garden aspect of their website, with contact details:- http://www.se22valeresidents.org.uk/the-physic-garden/ At the moment, only rosemary and sage are "ripe", but I would email them to ask how they should be picked in general as some of the plants are a bit weird... nothing is charged for per se, it's a community initiative. Yes, Sue did an amazing benefit gig to get the whole thing set up (which is also explained on the website) and then the construction services donated their time (only charging for supplies), as do the community gardeners. The beds were planted in the knowledge that the plants would have to be moved at some point and are being cultivated with a view towards being transplanted into the new beds approximately 20 feet away on the other side of the wall (once the wall exists)... my understanding is that the number of beds will be reduced, supplemented by a tiny "village green" the size of a postage stamp, where patients can sit. The demolition team is really lovely, trying not to destroy anything as they work.

I spoke to the builders last week, as I walked by... they were really lovely. They said that it was going to become a tapas bar, but that it would take a while because the whole place needed stripping out and renovating. I've heard so many Lordship tapas bar rumours that I have no idea if it's actually true or cunning disinformation to shut up curious local residents who keep asking what is going to happen to that empty line of shops along there.

Thanks, barg! I used to sign off my posts with "Power to the People", so maybe that should become PROD's motto... I don't have any specific opposition to cyclist funding, but I do think that devolved funding should address the needs of the greater number of residents in an area before it's directed towards specialist groups. There needs to be a balance. It's looking more and more like we're going to have to find ways of raising funding separately for basic amenities in Dulwich...

Yes, Southwark NHS has agreed to permanently relocate beds to the entrance at front of the new medical centre as a landscaping feature where patients can sit. FYI, these aren't cooking herbs per se, but medicinal herbs which support the health theme.

Abe, FYI, I got fed up and emailed the highways cabinet member whereupon the head of highways has responded declaring me a local stakeholder who will be consulted on the Melbourne Grove proposals once an engineer has been appointed (which indicates that progress on this is some way away). So, I'll try to find a way to stay in touch with everyone... maybe we can start a new thread for open democratic discussion? One of the things I wanted to ask an engineer about is whether there is enough clearance in the Melbourne/Chesterfield junction to implement a central pedestrian island if it looks like a build-out will get voted against because of loss of car parking, as happened in the 2009 consultation. If so, it might be useful for residents to have a choice between two options rather than the one option being rejected, thereby going back to square one yet again. It may not be possible, but I would at least like to speak to a professional to see if it is viable. Ped islands are actually the best form of traffic calming (and more cost-effective as it would be cheaper than a build-out), while also providing a safe crossing space for pedestrians (which includes a lot of parents and schoolchildren on Melbourne)... this was part of the philosophy of the CGS bid that I submitted for Melbourne, which was rejected by councillors. FYI, I also submitted CGS bids for pavement upgrades on Lordship, repairs to the Goose Green roundabout, trees, etc, but these were all also refused in favour of cycle hangars... although I did get funding in ED for a treepit experiment which could help to save our trees from being murdered by the new planting policies if it is successful. Having observed how local democracy is evolving, it appears that it is really useful to form a residents group with a name (in the same way the elusive MGTAG has done), so I am genuinely thinking of creating the Peoples' Republic of Dulwich (PROD), as I have joked about in the past... what do you guys think?? I think local government in Dulwich needs a PROD...!

p.s. The formula which defines "speeding" means that actual speeding tickets can't be issued within a 20mph zone until it can be proven that the vehicle is travelling over 24mph... but officers tend to wait until a vehicle is at at least 27mph to send a warning letter. So, technically, stats that indicate that the 15th percentile is speeding means that a small number of drivers are travelling at over 25mph... occasional boy racers make territorial statements by getting higher than that late at night. As you point out, average speeds on Melbourne are under 20mph and 85% are under the limit where tickets can legally be issued. So, you can see why so many residents are upset with the proposal to spend ?20,000+ of public money on addressing a minimal issue in a manner which will also restrict emergency vehicles, when there are so many other things that are being wiped out by budget cuts. Sorry, I'm a technical geek, I'll shut up now...