rch

It's totally and utterly insane. I'm still working my way through the report... am relieved to note that engineers do recommend build outs around the trees instead of cutting them down, but this will be more expensive. There's also a note that TfL are concerned about increased congestion by increased users of the bus stop outside Harris, so moving the bus stop north to the parade, closer to the existing crossing could indeed make more sense, but that would be a different budget. Recommendations also cite only upgrading some of the speed cushions to humps, so this could leave the specific cushions around the Thames Water project in the way they are now. In any case, I think there are legal issues if Southwark do works that will clearly cause damage to properties in the future, so the millions of pounds of flood damage could be payable by them. But I don't think that anyone wants to go through more damage and legal cases... But the costed options for the tree build outs and partial sinusoidal humps is ?34,200... which I don't think even includes the junction narrowing works at Chesterfield, which would actually be beneficial.

Don't even get me started about the issue of local government pissing away unnecessary funds in a time of extreme budget cuts. This is the THIRD survey on this non-existent issue that has been done in the past ten years. The report clearly states that the average speed measurements are 19.5 mph and the 85th percentile average is 24.4 mph, which wouldn't even trigger the issuing of a speeding ticket. I've been regularly volunteering for the speed monitoring projects in the area... vehicles on Barry Road are travelling up to between 30 and 39 mph in a 20 mph zone... everyone just laughs at the Melbourne Grove residents for whining about speed and congestion. And I could think of a LOT better things to spend ?30,000 on...

I'm only about halfway through the 20-page report, but there are two recommendations which are alarming, partly because of the damage they'll cause without actually solving the problems:- 1) Cutting down the 100 year old original mature chestnut trees (which are actually older than the current pavement and road layout!) is insane. In the past, we have campaigned for build outs to be constructed around the two mature chestnuts down at the EDG end of Melbourne, which would allow prams and wheelchair users to circumvent the currently narrowed pavement while also acting as a calming feature at that junction of Melbourne. The junction at the Lordship end of Melbourne is not at all obstructed by the mature chestnut there... what we have been campaigning for, for some time, is a zebra or other protected pedestrian crossing at the junction of Whateley and Lordship, because crossing over Lordship to the bus stop is a nightmare (the existing ped crossing is in the wrong place!). Conversely, moving the bus stop down to the shopping parade so that it can be more easily accessed by the existing ped crossing would be more logical. I actually had revenue funding granted for a bid I made a couple years ago for highway engineers to review this junction issue properly, but of course this never happened... I suspect that the funding has now been buried. But this issue really needs to be looked into properly, as the operation of the school in this location will increase the road crossing problems... which cutting down trees won't address at all! 2) Upgrading the speed cushions to full width humps is a huge expenditure for minimal gain... But what is most worrying is that no one seems to understand that Thames Water have installed three major underground flood pumps and reservoirs along the terrace between Colwell and Blackwater to protect the houses with basements on the ex-Section 24 sewer in this location, which could be badly affected by the vibrations of the speed humps... if these pumps fail, then the flood damage to the houses along here will be significant. It was actually because of the flooding issues that the speed cushion design and chosen locations in this section were implemented to begin with, but nobody in highways seems to be aware of this... it just seems that the left hand and the right hand don't communicate. I've noted that no new humps are proposed for the corner of Melbourne and Colwell, which is where the most complex TW operation is implemented, but the speed cushion outside 137 Melbourne is exactly where the middle pump is located - you can see where the metal cover to the access chamber is cited in between two of the speed cushions. Even if the hump in this location is offset in either direction, the vibrations will put the other two pumps at risk... this whole section is incredibly fragile. So, if the other residents of Melbourne want to subject themselves to noise and vibrations for no actual traffic calming gain, then that's fine with me, but the section between Colwell and Blackwater really needs to be protected. If highways really feel that traffic calming is needed in this section, then they should look at implementing a build out at the corner of Blackwater and Melbourne, where the sewer drainage layout is less complex.

Well, since the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group also specifically requested more double yellow lines in their deputation for a barrier, I suspect that they'll be happy.

I have absolutely no intention of standing in the next election, I hate politics. I only got involved because I know the area well and I was concerned that I might know the police officer who was injured. But happily The Standard plugged my campaign to raise funding for more police in the Dulwich area so that crime can be nipped in the bud before more officers (and victims) get hurt.

That's good to hear... it's reassuring to know that the council reacts well in an emergency even though the day to day operation is a bit vague. Your road would be more of a high priority, but they even sorted out Melbourne succinctly. Residents are now collecting logs to use for firewood, so there may not be much to take away tomorrow...

Is the road still blocked down there? The emergency tree team actually seems to be responding fairly quickly, the top of a chestnut snapped in Melbourne and blocked the road, but it was cleared by 9.30am.

Mockingbird, was there an item about the Dulwich Quietways and the Dulwich Village junction or was that item deferred because of the extension of the consultation? Was a briefing paper handed out??

Also, considering that the consultation only finished on Sunday, I can't see that there will be much to report back on this soon. I just can't bear to watch democracy being decimated... so, if anyone goes, can they report back to us? If nothing else, it would be nice to see a scan of the briefing paper.

I think it's listed as Item 9, Dulwich Cycle Workshops - Outcome, at 8.05pm. It's noted that a briefing paper will be circulated at the meeting...

Bear in mind that the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group specifically asked for double yellow lines in addition to a barrier in Melbourne Grove during their deputation to the DCC in June 2015, which is what the ?10K of CGS funding was allocated to assess:- http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s54983/Deputation%20report.pdf "To ask councillors to support a consultation and our campaign on the idea of a barrier placed across our road between Ashbourne and Tell Groves, and for better signage and double yellow lines" Melbourne Grove South has 6 residential roads feeding into it (which is a large part of what creates the "volume" of traffic), so this means that a total of 24 parking spaces could be lost along here. Having said that, as much as I hate the idea of double yellow lines (and I don't even drive!), I suspect that this could indeed address the issues that the MGTA group are campaigning on by creating spaces for cars to pull over to let oncoming cars pass on the narrower sections of Melbourne (even the officers' report stated that double yellows were the best way to address the perceived problem). Having a place to pull over will stop the queues of cars from building up and then rushing through to make up time... it will also prevent cars from hitting parked cars while backing up to let cars pass. As a pedestrian, I like the idea of build-outs better, but passing spaces are really what this road needs.

Town Centre is a planning designation term... Lordship Lane became designated as a Town Centre years ago (2007?) in the original Southwark Plan:- http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/4160/draft_lordship_lane_town_centre_spg In the New Southwark Plan (currently in consultation) it's designated as a District Town Centre. This is basically just a way of referring to the legislation that affects planning and licensing applications, so that objections can be assessed.

Hi, sorry for not explaining my strategic thinking more coherently... I was hoping to circumvent the rejection of residents' objections based on Public Nuisance, by the developer citing that Lordship Lane is a designated Town Centre and therefore more conducive to later alcohol sales times, by using the Walworth hours as a comparison argument to strengthen our case. But, having said that, my guess is that the later alcohol sales licenses in other shops in Lordship could probably be used as a precedent anyway. So, yes, we should try to find out what opening hours that M&S are applying to operate in... One thing that occurs to me is that Sainsbury's in the Village did the same thing... they applied for alcohol sales times later than their approved opening hours, which residents objected to... but then they claimed at the licensing meeting that all their shops apply for the same identical hours due to a central "corporate" management program, but then the shops' opening hours are tailored to the local area. So, just because Sainsbury's got a later alcohol license, this doesn't mean that they intend to use it. So, it may be that M&S will indeed have a later alcohol license than their opening hours agreed by planning conditions, if that makes sense. We'll just have to make sure that we keep our eye on everything!

Hi... short answer is that I'm not sure either. It looks like they are planning to use the units for offices in the first instance (but this could indeed change). I guess that there would at least have to be some kind of notification that the permission to use the units as residential would be implemented, in which case other financial liabilities would be implemented... What I've seen happen in the past is that the permitted residential units are sold/let first and then the office units are "marketed" for a "reasonable" amount of time... if they can't be rented out, then the developer will claim that they need to convert to flats. So, we need to get businesses queuing up to rent the offices...! Anyway, hopefully the minutes of the March 8th planning meeting will be published soon, there may be something in there that a cllr or resident can follow up on.

Hi LondonMix... I'm assuming that the developer will have to formally apply for Change of Use if the offices are to be used as flats, which means there will be another notification and consultation in the run-up to another planning committee meeting. But I'm guessing that the cost or parameters of any future conditions are already being built into the scheme with the creation of the "penthouse" flats. BTW, I noticed that there was already a recommended ?44,000 s106/CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) charge attached to the fourth floor extension, so any charges incurred by Change of Use on the other units will be in addition to this. I actually think a decent office space would be really useful on Lordship Lane, so hopefully people will rent the blasted units out, which will give us a different kind of mixed footfall.

Here's the link to the committee attendance that night:- http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgMeetingAttendance.aspx?ID=5100 There's no recorded vote, but James said that the two Lib Dem cllrs voted against. To be fair to the rest, I genuinely suspect that Legal advised to approve because of the ramifications of the Appeal. In future, if you go to the council website, click on "What's On" in the menu across the top of the page, then click on "meetings calendar" at the bottom of the next page, you come to a Calendar of Meetings with all the meetings set out by days of the month... when you click on the meeting link you'll get the attendance list, the agenda, and all the reports for each item which are posted one week before the relevant meeting.

It's really reassuring to see councillors uniting cross-party to represent the best interests of the community. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see if the Appeal hearing now gets cancelled, as I suspect that this was a significant reason why the application was passed by the sub-committee. Unfortunately, Licensing is different legislation and a different committee to Planning, so we'll all have to go through the objecting saga again, hopefully with cllrs uniting against extending the trading hours. Bear in mind that the opening hours of the M&S on Walworth Road, which has far greater footfall than Lordship, are 8am-8pm Mon-Fri, 8am-7pm Saturday, and 8am-4pm on Sunday... so that should give us adequate ammunition to fight later opening hours selling alcohol on Lordship.

Hurrah, it would be good for you to be there since the guys can't make it! My guess, addressing MarkT's point, is that they'll use the Lordship Lane Town Centre designation to override the Suburban designation, but it would be great if you could at least try to put down a marker. If nothing else, can you make sure that the CIL payment actually gets used for something useful in East Dulwich instead of being diverted somewhere else?? For instance, we could still use a police meeting point in the ward... converting the Library Annexe would still be my first choice, or maybe they could include something on the M&S site that wouldn't incur revenue costs? Or else, maybe they can use to the funding to reconfigure Chesterfield to discourage lorries??? Maybe try to get the developers to understand that they could incur goodwill if they actually tried to work with the community... otherwise people are going to be really upset about them railroading in the extra floor.

first mate... why don't you and MarkT register as objectors and speak jointly at the planning meeting?? If you email the clerk on Monday, you should be able to get assigned a slot. At least this way, you'll get to have your voice heard... It probably won't make much difference to the decision to grant, but you may be able to get some stricter conditions inserted. My guess is that the timing of this meeting is being set to pre-empt the appeal. I'm not in a position to get to the bottom of why the application wasn't decided on time, but am guessing is that it fell between the cracks during the reorganisation of the planning dept. But Simon Bevan, the new head of planning, and Sonia Watson, the officer in charge of this application, are actually both really good officers, so I suspect that this is the best that they can do to legally salvage the situation. But it definitely wouldn't hurt if a group of residents went along and protested... Power to the People, etc!

Hi first mate, good to see you again! I was actually at the last Dulwich Community Council meeting where AECOM presented their initial review, previous to the current consultation. Afterwards I emailed the residents who promoted the anti-barrier petition (which got over 300 signatures in total) and they emailed the consultation url to all the signatories of the electronic petition, who had provided their email addresses. I also pointed out the trick question about the speed humps, as well, so thanks for mentioning it here. Although I was dubious at first, I actually thought the AECOM presentation was quite good (as usual, the DCC Chair tried to gag me when I complimented them). They basically said that their recent survey yet again confirmed that there were no speeding or volume issues on Melbourne Grove, that the basic problem was lack of visibility at the junctions and the narrowness of the road from Chesterfield to EDG. So, I suspect that the main recommendation is going to be to put in extended double yellow lines at all the junctions and maybe build outs to keep the traffic back and make pedestrian crossing easier at the jcts with Ashbourne and Chesterfield. Building out the corners of Chesterfield will help to control the number of lorries turning from Melbourne into Chesterfield as well. This will probably create more parking problems, but it will actually solve the issues that people are complaining about, whereas speedhumps and a barrier won't make a blind bit of difference (except that a barrier will displace loads of local traffic). Ironically, I recently witnessed another accident on the bend of Melbourne and Colwell just a couple weeks ago... as usual, it was caused by sheer bad driving by a local resident, not speeding or volume, despite what people claim. I hate to say it, but I don't think there's much that can be done to stop local residents from driving like idiots...

The crime stats in both East Dulwich and Village wards have gone up noticeably in both November and December of 2015, you can look at the Met Crime Mapping and see for yourselves (just keep zooming in on the map until you get to ED ward):- http://maps.met.police.uk/ Our stats are higher than both Peckham Rye and Nunhead wards... If people reported more vigilantly, we would probably have even higher stats, which would in turn get more resources directed down here. FYI, I know that there were special temporary burglary patrols in the area because I saw them for myself, but we need something more permanent. I think this forum is very useful in that people feel safer reporting problems in their road anonymously under pseudos, we just need to find a way to convert this into calling 101 and logging information into the police computer system so that senior Met strategy is changed... I accept that we don't need as many police resources as the middle and the north of the borough, but we definitely need more than we've got now!

My experience is that people have lost faith in the system to the point where they don't bother to report, which in turn contributes to our low crime stats. For instance, my latest community project (in addition to speed monitoring) is to look at ways to support the shopkeepers on Lordship Lane against shoplifting incidents... I know of four separate situations in the past month, of which at least three haven't even been reported to 101. As a result, it looks like nothing is happening down here, so we get less resources, which in turn lowers confidence and so residents don't report...

Uh-oh, I'll probably get in trouble for my colourful choice of words again! I don't have the authority to get to the bottom of anything, but I suspect that we should prepare ourselves for an increasing amount of bad management in local government to be blamed on "budget cuts" in the future. As an ex-company director, I was always quite shocked at the amount of public money that was wasted due to sheer incompetence during my eight years as an elected councillor, with virtually no accountability. I therefore strongly feel that we are increasingly going to have to look after ourselves down here in a more pro-active manner... we just need to identify the best way of doing this.

Hi James... the problem with the Melbourne/Chesterfield junction reconfiguration in the past is that, when it went to consultation, the turnout was very low with a 50/50 response, so officers were minded not to spend the money. But I do think the split ward aspect had a lot to do with the poor consultation result. FYI, I remained neutral, telling officers that I would let them decide. But, when I talked to residents during the Anti-Barrier campaign last summer, the feeling of most of the residents on both side of the border was that this junction redesign could solve a multitude of issues including the perceived traffic problems. So, this is why I submitted the CGS bid, so that it could be looked at again as per the 300 signature petition asking for more sensible solutions than a barrier on Melbourne Grove... whether the idea works or not or even passes another consultation is up to how the engineers recommend that the design is configured. First Mate... I'm trying to think of a way that we can address certain planning issues down here in view of the Tooley Street dropped balls. I haven't had the time or the authority to concertedly look at specific issues (planning used to be a specialty of mine), but I'm wondering if we could try to get The Dulwich Society's planning committee to help us out on applications relating to heritage issues in East Dulwich, as a constituted group has more of a voice than a handful of residents. Normally the Dulwich Society doesn't cross over the Village ward border (which is Melbourne Grove at the moment), but maybe we can ask them to make an exception in certain circumstances? It's too late for the M&S application, but let's think about it in the future...