rch

Or... rather than being converted back into shops (which will probably end up as another coffee or burger outlet), this council-owned premises would be a perfect location for council services, such as a small housing office and meeting rooms for residents to engage with councillors, highways officers, and planning officers. Something similar to the MySouthwark service points that exist everywhere in the borough except the Dulwich area:- http://www.southwark.gov.uk/servicepoints CMHT could probably be consolidated into one half of the premises and it could also be shared with our local police teams for appointments and comfort break facilities, to keep officers based in the ward during patrols. We have CIL funding built up from the M&S development as well as other projects... it would be nice to use Dulwich funding in a way that actually benefits Dulwich residents... I'll try to restrain myself from calling it a Dulwich Town Hall... but Tooley Street is just too far away, so we need SOMETHING down here!

Yes, this is a definite layer of complexity, intexas. Barry Road is split between two council wards, so you need to get two sets of councillors to agree, then you need to get highways to agree, before you could even get to the TfL level. Quick random bullet points, to avoid typing all day... Speed cameras tend to get their power supply from the same source that supplies street lights, which means you need to find a street light in the right place to catch speeding. This could get tricky since the council increased the distances between the street lights some years ago, to save money. Plus, Barry is a long road with lots of bus stops, so the speeding comes and goes in different locations at different times of the day... so, you'd probably need 4-6 cameras to cover the distance in both directions (we actually measure uphill traffic on the Roadwatch sessions)... which, at ?20k per camera, could get expensive. I don't think you can use average speed cameras because of the stopping and going. The old style cameras couldn't measure 20mph but now the more modern GATSO ones do, albeit they are probably set at 26mph to meet ACPO criteria. I think the camera on the west side of Peckham Rye is in the short bit along the parade of shops between East Dulwich Rd and Rye Lane, I don't think it's all along Peckham Rye? Am curious if it's a GATSO camera, will try to check. Even more complications are down to the fact that these studies to even assess the situation are now contracted out, which adds extra cost to any project. So, Charlie is right... in the first instance, a CGS bid to fund a traffic assessment should be made. But, because of the expense of the speed cameras, a Smiley SID could be the first level of response, which would also need connecting to a street light supply in the right place, hence the highways officers aversion to them. Alternatively, officers tend to try to address the problems "organically"... the best organic means of traffic calming are the pedestrian islands, which serve multiple purposes, but this will take out parking spaces, so residents tend to object. On the other hand, there are some logistical layout issues which should probably get looked at - the junction at Barry and Upland, for instance. Plus some of the build-outs that were implemented a few years ago need looking at. I understand that locals feel that the road is adequately marked, but this route is used by other commuters who aren't familiar with it... from memory, one speeder stopped by the police was from Bromley and was completely unaware of the 20mph markers, which could be used to dispute the fine. I also agree that residents need to be more vocal - I've been helping out as residents ask me, as I understand the protocol (I set up the Roadwatch Scheme at Barry, which is also doing sessions on Lordship Lane), but I've tried unsuccessfully to get a residents committee together to take this forward. The best way forwards is to get a petition together and ask for a community council deputation... constitutionally, you need 250 signatures in order to request for the CC to move to address the petition concerns. This will require a significant amount of work. Plus, you can formally register to join the Roadwatch sessions, but most of the people I've emailed over the past year are too busy with work and families and have dropped out.

I put in a CGS bid for a Smiley SID (Speed Indication Device) for Barry Rd last year, but it wasn't approved... I was thinking of putting in another bid this year, as I agree with Charlie that the "official" views that the SIDs aren't very effective over time aren't necessarily in keeping with my observations, as I think the one on Herne Hill is still effective. Maybe cllrs could condition that a speed survey could be part of the approval? The problems with Barry Road are complex because of road layout issues as well as it being a TfL bus route, so implementing speed cameras would be difficult. In the first instance, there needs to be better notification that the road is 20mph because the markings are so vague, otherwise the issuing of tickets can be disputed. Before we started the Roadwatch scheme, our local SNT police did some sessions on Barry where they actually stopped drivers over the limit to issue a verbal warning... but, in many cases, drivers didn't appear to even realise that the road was 20mph now. Therefore, a Smiley SID or two would definitely be a useful way of increasing awareness with a view towards issuing tickets as well as "organically" slowing traffic speed down...

I annoyed a lot of people by voting against this development when I sat on the planning committee, on the grounds that it was overdevelopment and terrible design, not in keeping with the area. The development got approved because the community asset value of the Library on the ground floor was thought to compensate. I wasn't the least bit surprised when a later amendment was submitted and approved to cite the Library in the back of the development, with a retail outlet positioned in the front. I'd heard that more amendments had been submitted to save money by making the building design even worse, but I've lost track now that I'm not a cllr anymore... is the Library completely gone now??

Sorry, I'm a dual US/UK national and tend to slip into bi-lingual communication when my brain isn't functioning (getting the flu). I'm not sure if he was the site manager, but he seemed to be telling the lorry drivers what to do, but didn't want to communicate very intimately with a passer-by. The site has planning permission for ugly flats, so I can't see them building a pub there... unless they put a pub on the ground floor where the Morrisons was going to be? I just hope they don't try to back out of building the library...

There's been a digger in there since Monday, as far as I have been able to see. They're clearing all the piles of soil and rubble and levelling the ground. A dump truck was picking up a load of soil as I happened to walk by on the way to Sainbury's, so I stopped and asked if they were preparing to build, and the site guy said yes. But when I asked him when they intended to begin, he said he didn't know. So, at least they're clearing and levelling the site, which means that we might be able to use it for something else while the developer is faffing.

When I took the 42 from the hospital site to Sainsbury's and back again yesterday, there were approx 10 people on the bus each way. Hopefully usage will increase as people realise how useful it is. As for Red Post Hill... The background to that saga is that TfL originally implemented full-width humps as part of a speed reduction program to address larger vehicles (including buses) speeding down the hill. But the effect of the noise and the shaking of the houses was so dramatic (one resident hired an acoustical expert who measured astonishingly high decibel levels and some houses allegedly began to develop cracks) that the residents successfully campaigned to have the full-width humps removed. We worked with highway engineers to identify the best means of achieving speed calming without the negative aspects and the slalom effect of the pedestrians islands was acknowledged as actually slowing traffic even more effectively than full-width humps as well as providing much-needed crossing points for elderly residents and children. The only downside was the loss of parking spaces, which we were able to mitigate as much as possible. So, the residents signed a petition in which a large majority called for the change, which councillors were able to fund with a CGS underspend. I'm surprised that TfL went ahead with the routing of the double-decker 42 down Red Post, but I know they did an assessment first and tweaked the location of at least one island. I suspect that routing the 42 down Herne Hill into Half Moon Lane would have added too much mileage onto the route extension, which is why they stuck with the RPH option. Would be interesting to hear how that section is working... and if the noise of the double deckers is a problem. BTW, the reason why the campaign to implement full-width humps (and junction tables) on Melbourne Grove is causing so many protests is because of the known issues of noise and vibrations on houses closer to the road (i.e., without front gardens) with little improvement of speed calming over existing cushions, whereas the pedestrian islands are far more effective and serve multiple purposes for pedestrians.

Thanks guys, but I've been told by more political parties than you can shake a stick at that I'd never be selected to stand as an MP because I'm too much of a Maverick, so I'm going to do all my community work through The Dulwich Society from now on! So, prepare to see their remit creeping down Lordship Lane to begin with... Just took my first ride on the 42 up to Sainsbury's and observed that it really has potential to transform the area (including Hamlet!). Just hope the Red Post Hill residents aren't suffering too much. So hopefully more people will get out of their cars and build the 42 footfall! I remember that planning meeting, James... the plans were very contentious and I think the committee was minded not to approve it, which is how I managed to convince the designer to talk Sainsbury's into forking out for the terminus in order to offer enough community incentive to sway the committee. Those were the good old days when cllrs could actually influence building developments! On the other hand, it looks to me that the forest of trees that were also conditioned to be planted in the car park have never materialised...

Extending the 42 was one of my first community campaigns when I was first elected as ward councillor in 2006, along with Save the Onions (to convince the NHS not to knock down the Onion Domes at Dulwich Hospital, so that we could use the towers for community rooms). I remember that this campaign made the front page of the Southwark News with the East Dulwich Grove Estate Pensioners Club years ago... All councillors cross-party across three wards united to pressure TfL into doing this... and I lobbied to make it a planning condition for Sainsbury's to instate the bus terminus when they put in a planning proposal to upgrade the existing Sainsbury's structure. Building the terminus cost Sainsbury's a small fortune, so we were all extremely disheartened when TfL produced an assessment indicating that the cost of extending the 42 route was too high due to low footfall usage. I then tried to get the local shops to liaise with the council on starting our own Dulwich Green Bus service, but that was even more stupidly expensive. In the end, the confirmation of the building of the school and the medical centre has created the increase in footfall needed to convince TfL to invest in the extension, and it looks like councillors from all parties again used their influence to pressure TfL into finally agreeing to the extension. Bear in mind that this project took over ten years of grovelling to TfL... thereby I would say to residents that if you have a project that you truly believe in, then get as many people to unite together and don't ever give up!

The quickest and easiest solution would be for you and/or other ward residents to make a CGS bid for funding, as next year's fund has just opened (and closes end of November). You might want to see if you can liaise with a council officer on what the mural actually needs so that they can help to oversee the works properly if you are awarded the funding. Here's a link to the CGS Fund details:- http://www.southwark.gov.uk/cleanergreenersafer Depending on whether the repairs are deemed to require capital or revenue funding, you might need to apply via a different route called the Neighbourhood Fund, which opens in November. To do this, you might need to go through a constituted amenity society, such as The Peckham Society. In any case, the more residents and community groups that are involved, the more likely funding will be awarded. If this route fails, then you can look at the crowdfunding option...

FYI, Gary is the officer that I liaise with most frequently, he's very good... but the problem is that the new tree pit policies are a Highways pavement policy which is a different council department under a different cabinet member than the tree planting department. Insanely, the theory appears to be to restrict tree planting in order to protect damage from being done to public pavements in order to save public money on maintenance and repair issues. Right hand and left hand serving different purposes... or, tail wagging the dog, take your pick. Fortunately, we now have a new highways cabinet member who seems to be able to process information about the wishes of residents, so I'm working my way around to him...

We tend to go for nut or fruit trees on verges because we can't plant them on pavements due to safety hazards of people slipping. But in the general Dulwich area there are pavement avenues of cherry trees called Prunus X Yedoensis, which have glorious blossoms, because they don't have large fruits (and the birds eat the tiny fruits before they drop) or roots that lift the pavement. Some of the older Yedo (also known as Yoshino) avenues now look spectacular enough to think about having a Dulwich Cherry Blossom Festival when they bloom... just need to find some monks and some funding! Edited to say that Peng and I overlapped posts, pretty much agreeing...

Just so you guys know... I'm still in the process of addressing some of the restrictions on planting replacement trees under the new tree policy, working in tandem with the Dulwich Society Tree Committee. If nothing else, I'm hoping to get a palette of smaller trees to be agreed for the general Dulwich area by the relevant cabinet member if our pavement doesn't meet the required width policy. I'll try to keep everyone better updated - but if you can post the location (street name and closest house number) of the empty pits and maybe the species of tree that was there previously, I'll go have a look and see what we can do to lobby in tandem. I believe that East Dulwich ward has a CGS tree planting budget available via councillors plus I also have a CGS budget for Village ward which I applied for personally, so hopefully we can get trees replaced if we can overcome policy restrictions...

Thanks for replying, James, but this is the first time I've seen this confirmed in writing and I now feel that any verbal promises are too vague. I haven't been cc'd on any of your email updates to residents (although residents have contacted me for advice citing your emails) and all that council officials have said to me is that "we are aware of your concerns", which is meaningless. On the other hand, the problem with this terrace isn't just the cellars... it's the Thames Water flood pumps along the length of the terrace and the unstable Victorian water mains in the junction which have burst twice now. Some of the newer residents of the terrace aren't even aware of the implications of this. So, without going into long explanations again, what I'm actually trying to confirm is that the seven speed cushion upgrades that the engineer's report cited (and which I believe councillors approved funding for at the last DCC meeting, but I don't have access to the minutes yet) will only be six upgrades - in other words, I want to be reassured that the speed cushions in front of our terrace won't simply be offset to a nearby location - because the locations of the existing cushions are cited to avoid problems, so moving them at random could simply cause other problems. There appears to have been a turnover of council staff with no continuity, which is why I've asked the cabinet member to ask an engineer to do a walk through with me. If nothing else, I have copies of corrected Thames Water diagrams which I suspect haven't been updated in the council records yet. And I agree that most residents think that full length humps will solve the perceived problems, but I think someone still needs to be prepared to address the genuine issues once the humps are installed. Some of the incidents I'm seeing on a daily basis are quite shocking, and they're nothing to do with speeding, so humps won't make a difference. BTW, the Community Roadwatch program has now been reviewed and some of the roads which have been monitored have now been removed from the list because speeding issues haven't been confirmed. But the one road which is remaining on the monitoring list is Barry Road, as that is displaying genuine monitored issues. first mate - we should probably start another thread so that we don't divert James' councillor work on this thread. I have no idea what to call it, but it would be useful for the local community to be able to discuss various issues with a view towards supporting each other.

Hi James... we're going around in the same circles again. Ashbourne and Chesterfield have a different road layout than Melbourne with different traffic issues. The roads are wider so the knock-on issues from the passing problems are less extreme and the houses are set further back from the roadside, so they aren't affected as much by the vibrational issues. In other words, the One Size Fits All mentality doesn't work... Those of us who are concerned about how this is being handled (at a constitutional level as well as technically) are now at the point where we just want to protect our properties... once the MGTA group have the humps, hopefully in locations that won't cause damage, then maybe we can look at addressing the real traffic problems on Melbourne Grove! Abe - in an effort to protect my home, I've now circumvented the obstacles and am liaising with the cabinet member and I'm keeping in touch with the residents of the second deputation where possible (no one from the MGTA group will speak to me, or they just repeat the same mantras). In the meantime, there's even more madness that I've discovered, which I don't have time to write out. I'm still happy to liaise with any councillor who wants to actually talk to me and I'm copying them on my emails to the cabinet member, which I suspect is just annoying them. My prediction is that everything is being stalled until the review of the community councils is complete and devolved highways powers are taken away from the CCs...

James, with the training I've had over the years by the police, I'm aware that the 15% reference is being used out of context, which is a significant reason why the genuine attempts to address the real issues over the years keep failing.

Yes, this is the Community Roadwatch program that I volunteer for regularly as mentioned above. We regularly monitor roads in East Dulwich with genuine measurable speeding issues...

The police did a speed monitoring session on Melbourne Grove last summer and found no evidence of speeding, so they aren't keen to designate reduced resources to this area again. I volunteer regularly on the Community Roadwatch speed monitoring sessions on Barry Road and the hill coming down Lordship Lane, where there are measurable speeding issues. So, I'll ask them again to consider a Melbourne session, but don't hold your breath. As a resident of Melbourne Grove for 30 years now, I regularly witness (and report) road rage incidents and car damage caused by the narrowness of the road creating passing problems, but despite the fact that we got a 300 signature petition signed to try to get the genuine problems looked at, no one from the council will work with us, so no one trusts the feasibility study that was produced. Instead, it appears that councillors have raised funding to upgrade the speed cushions on Melbourne to full width humps, which won't actually address the problems, so most of us have given up trying to solve the actual problems and are now trying to protect our homes from potential vibrational damage.

I just literally walked into a plain clothes police officer leaving the Coop and he said that the store would be closed all day to enable an internal forensics investigation. Shoppers are hanging around outside the doors wondering why the shop is closed, so hopefully some signage will be put up soon to explain the situation.

I strongly suspect that there's more going on with this mess than meets the eye. I sat on the planning committee for the London Bridge Station application, upon which I revolted and voted against because it was abundantly clear that the all organisational issues would cause chaos because they hadn't been planned properly. From memory, one of the "advantages" cited in the track reconfiguration was that London Bridge Station would no longer be a final destination... instead, it would be a through stop on a longer rail journey - I seem to vaguely remember that the line would be extended to run from Brighton to somewhere like Peterborough? The advantage of this reconfiguration was said to be that train frequency would be increased to something like every 3 minutes... So, my guess is that the Govia takeover and the argument about the drivers' contracts is in preparation for a major change in the service when the new station opens... As I said, all this is from memory, but someone like Caroline Pidgeon or Helen Hayes would be able to get their hands on the best person to get information out of.

Just to let you all know that it looks like the Melbourne Grove feasibility study is going to be discussed at the Dulwich Community Council meeting tonight, starting at 7pm at Christ Church, Barry Road. The agenda is pretty vague... it looks like the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action group is making a presentation at the beginning of the meeting, although it's not clear if there will actually be a genuinely open discussion with engineers, etc. As I'm normally discouraged from speaking, some of you might want to come along and speak out so that councillors don't assume that the Traffic Action group represents the views of all the residents in the road. Sorry about the last minute notice, I'm really beginning to get fed up with the dysfunctional democratic process... the good news is that the new cabinet member, who I've had good experiences with in the past, will be attending. p.s. The Quietways proposal is also going to be discussed tonight, but it appears that this is actually being done as a formal agenda item.

This news link is circulating around Twitter at the moment, hope you can get it to work:- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/15/huge_outage_in_south_london_caused_by_construction_worker/ Apparently a construction worker drilled through the fibre cable, so hundreds of metres will need to be replaced. Refunds should be available.

Yep, that's basically the deal. Firstly, if you go with Option B you wouldn't be addressing the actual problems, which Option A addresses. Secondly, you would create problems with emergency vehicles as they wouldn't be able to use Melbourne at all now thereby having to skirt all the way around... in fact, I think the police and fire dept objected to the full width proposal the first two times. Thirdly, you would obstruct the bus diversion route... now that there are full width humps on the northern end of Melbourne, the 37 diverts down the southern end in an emergency (and presumably the 42 when it gets extended). Even if we compromised and cut out the upgrade on the set of cushions in the middle of the flood works section (as above), thereby reducing the hump upgrade from 7 humps to 6 humps, costing just under ?10K, you would still be spending ?10K of public money on a perceived problem that technically doesn't exist, but would then not be addressing some of the real safety issues which Option A addresses.

One last comment and then I'll shut up for now... When Melbourne Grove was resurfaced back in 2009 (?), another consultation was held to ascertain whether residents wanted full width humps or the existing speed cushions implemented in the resurfacing (which would have costed the council nothing as it was included in the resurfacing works). But the majority of residents voted to keep the speed cushions as they are. There was also an option proposed to narrow the junction entrance to Chesterfield Road (as is proposed in this current set of recommendations), but this was voted against as well. This is how democracy works... What I find sad about all of this is that it appears that the genuine problems caused by the narrowness of the road and the ongoing junction layout issues at Ashbourne and Chesterfield - which are causing actual accidents - are going to get undermined by tree murders and hump madness.

James, please try to understand how the vibration proximity of the full width speed humps could affect the Flip Pumps... the underground installation covers the entire section of this part of the road - it took over six months of the road being blocked off to implement and cost in the region of ?1million pounds of Flood Alleviation funding - so, if you insist on this, you will be promoting something that could possibly cause serious damage to eight residents' homes and therefore more disruption to this end of Melbourne Grove. One of the reasons WHY the speed cushions were implemented in the specific manner along this section to begin with was precisely because of the logistical issues of the flooding in this section... this is part of the reason why the proposals 6 years ago were dropped and I suspect that the full width humps will almost certainly be advised against along here this time, once we go through all the trouble and explanations yet again. Having to spend time going through this over and over and OVER is just so frustrating...