rch

I just got the same banned message as Fox, quoting exactly the same IP address, which also isn't mine. I wasn't trying to post, just read the forum but I was completely blocked. I closed the forum page and then went back in and it was fine. Have no idea if this post will go through.

Mine's sporadic today again, too. I posted this morning and then went back to reply to a response, but when I hit Post Message nothing happened. I have no idea if this will get through...

The supreme irony here is that I tried for three years to get the "quick win" option of removing the railings from the sheep pens agreed. A very helpful pro-active resident even applied for CGS funding to pay for it. In the end this was refused because a school safety officer consulted the young people using the junction, who said that the railings made them feel safer. On the other hand, problems are caused by the more confident students and adults who walk around the sheep pens to avoid the railings. As you can see from the reports, there are over 200 students that use each arm of the junction to cross - totalling up to 1000 pedestrians in an hour twice a day. This is what drives the design. In theory, bringing the corners closer together makes the pedestrian crossings quicker, which in turn speeds up the car phases thereby reducing the tailbacks, but we have a very high volume of students using 4-5 Dulwich junctions every day, which is extremely unusual. Anything designed for the Dulwich area is affected by the fact that there are something like 19 schools within a 1.5 mile radius and the public transportation service is so poor that residents remain dependent on their cars (or ASBO coaches!). This is why One-Size-Fits-All policies that work in the north of the borough don't always work down here in Dulwich. Having said that, I have found that there have always been ways to tweak the designs to address all the issues if one persists... but, although Chris Mascord is by far one of the most talented highway engineers we have, he will be obligated to work to the direction of the council administration.

Testing...

Whew, that message got through! I can sporadically post, but mostly my replies simply don't go through. I got the Cloudflare filter a couple of times, but not all the time.

I seem to be blocked, as well...

I seem to be blocked as well.

Yes, spider... it's very frustrating. But the politicians support this approach... Maybe we should all form a new special interest group??

Also, a quick note about parking at Alleyn's. It's true that they were refused relocated parking spaces by planning officers, but I'm not sure that MOL was the reason - the reason that I'm aware of is that the previous Southwark Plan restricted parking across the borough in all new building developments... it took a good 4 or 5 years to get a special dispensation for Dulwich agreed because of our geographical distances and poor public transportation. In fact, it's mostly because of the Dulwich dispensation that JAGS was able to keep as much parking as they have in their theatre development application. I asked officers a couple years ago if on site parking would be granted if schools applied again now and my understanding is that this would be possible. School staff parking (not just JAGS and Alleyn's, but Charter as well) in the residential streets is now a major problem in Dulwich, but the transportation situation down here is really too awful for teachers who need to carry books etc. If we want to get people out of their cars in Dulwich we need to drastically improve the bus services running east to west. But even something as simple as getting the 42 bus extended along East Dulwich Grove has been impossible over eight years of lobbying TfL. We actually talked about starting up our own bus service at one point, maybe that's what we should do...

This scheme has been kicking around for a couple of years now, but the no right hand turn is new. My guess is that the No Right Turn had to be inserted due to the timing issues created by the diagonal crossing and all four arms having simultaneous pedestrian crossing... I suspect that if the diagonal crossing was taken out and the ped timings staggered, it would be fine. I would have put this point on the list of questions to ask, but I didn't get a chance to speak last night. Bear in mind that the diagonal crossing has indeed become popular, but this is mainly as a result of the pedestrians avoiding the sheep pens while the traffic is stopped in all four directions by the lollipops. So once the sheep pens are gone then the junction becomes easily crossable. But the officers are correct about the possibility of losing the funding if this consultation is extended. If this had been consulted on before the election then we would have had more time... and to remove the No Right Turn will probably require a slight redesign of the light phasing which could trigger another consultation. My frustration is that all the redesign was meant to do is to remove the sheep pens by bringing the corners closer together, but all this other stuff has obfuscated the whole point. It looks to me like too many "special interest groups" got involved in the pre-consultation, which is also what killed the redesign six years ago.

@woodwarde, have you requested to make a deputation at the DCC on the 3rd? I don't think this scheme is due to be considered until the Jan DCC, but it might be useful to make a deputation now so that cllrs are aware of the community issues in advance. You'd have to request an emergency deputation now, but it might be worth it. If you PM me your phone number, I can help to step you through this as I think that I've worked out most of the technicalities of this scheme and I know a lot of the background, so I can help you to understand what curveballs are likely to be thrown.

A few years ago I think we could have salvaged the right hand turn, but I suspect that legislation and policies have changed too much in the interim, so much is being tightened up. In order to find a way around this, I'd have to get the engineers to sit down with me and step through all the timings and turning ratios, etc, but I'm not a cllr anymore. But there might not be a way now anyway... looking at the diagram it looks to me that the traffic line is set very far back from the corner on Townley, which will add an extra second or two onto the turning time, but cycles are given priority over cars along there. It sounds like the engineer is coming to the DCC in January, so I think we should all attend and ask him to run through the parameters in public.

The phasing of the lights have been tweaked as much as possible within the parameters. The problem is that the staggered crossings on the pedestrian islands adds too much time to the pedestrian crossing phase, which is also why pedestrians dangerously circumvent the islands and run in front of traffic. The only way to speed up the timing is to reduce the pedestrian crossing times by removing the ped islands and bringing the four junction corners closer together. This means that the traffic lights will need to be moved, which is what makes the reconfiguration so expensive, as the electrics need to be dug up. Bear in mind that this is also a TfL bus route, so buses will need to meet strict timing requirements before TfL will give permission for the redesign, so the EDG arm will take priority on the traffic light timings. When we wanted to do the junction reconfiguration back in 2008 (without the banned right turn), the cost was ?60,000... so you can see how much costs and other parameters have risen by faffing.

Bear in mind that I haven't been involved for the last 6 months, but I believe that funding is being devolved from TfL. This is a bus route, after all, so any redesigns will be subject to TfL's approval anyway. Maybe James can confirm?

FYI, I have a copy of the 2007 Site Safety Report for this junction sitting on my desk as I type this. According to the report, this junction was totally 'refurbished' in 2004 by TfL, not Southwark Council. However, in the implementation of this new signalled junction scheme a series of quite serious errors were made by TfL contractors, which have led to the problems that the council has gotten regular complaints about over the past decade. The biggest problems are to do with the "sheep pen" pedestrian islands. I got regular complaints about this junction from the time I got elected as cllr in 2006, right up until the last week running up to the May 2014 election... and I am personally aware of the problems at this junction from a pedestrian perspective because I don't own a car and therefore walk along there frequently because the 37 bus service is so bad. To be fair, our highway engineers have been really responsive on this issue over the years. After this safety report was done, a draft junction redesign was made with a promise from TfL for funding due to the proven errors in the implementation of the current junction... this redesign was supposed to be part of a 5-junction redesign program in Dulwich Village in an attempt to get traffic moving elegantly through the whole Village. But despite a very successful consultation process, the main Village junction and this Townley/EDG junction were dropped from the program due to what I would describe as political manoeuvres (don't even ask, I hate politics!), thereby creating knock-on problems incorporated into the junction redesigns which were implemented (which are still being re-tweaked). Several short term solutions for the Townley/EDG junct were proposed but school safety officers opposed them in the interest of the safety of the high level of school children using the crossings, leaving no other option but going back to the drawing board for a complete redesign. Therefore, the problems with the Townley/EDG junction resurfaced in 2010 during the major campaign to retain the Lollipop crossing guards in the Village... we specifically cited the safety issues in the 2007 audit in an attempt to convince the administration not to cancel the two lollipops at this junction. In response to the Lollipops for Life campaign, the administration agreed to devolve funding down to the DCC to retain the lollipop crossing guards while reviewing the junction with a view to obtaining funding from TfL to address the 2004 implementation glitches. So, this scheme that is being consulted on is a result of 10 years of community protest caused by something that wasn't done properly in the first instance.

Sorry about the delay in replying edhistory... the short answer to your question is that, no, the legislation hasn't changed, but the problem is enforcement. I went through a long process last year with our helpful planning enforcement team about an A1 retail business in the Village which was causing loss of amenity to local residents who felt they were operating more as an A3 cafe. We couldn't take any direct enforcement action but by robustly querying the set up we ended up agreeing a compromise between the residents and the business, which shows that it's worth it for residents to stick together. Basically, my understanding is that allegedly operations like Pret a Manger have created an interesting precedent in that they are considered retail A1 as long as the customer pays for the food at the till even when the customer then walks away from the till and subsequently consumes the food at a table that technically just happens to be within the premises. Certain lower levels of hot food can be prepared on the premises as well, plus I think they can even get an alcohol license, which is the thin end of another wedge. This is why I was saying earlier that the only way to control loss of local amenity is for residents to request that specific hours of operation that they feel comfortable with are clearly conditioned in the planning permission. This business looks to me as if it is trying to do things correctly, but I would still recommend that everyone who lives nearby needs to get together and agree times of operation and then respond to the consultation citing these agreed times. Robin Twitter: @ex_cllr_rch

I don't know the specifics of this site, but they don't need planning permission to build, it's more for change of use to A1/A3. So my guess is that the planning application will run in tandem with the building works but they can't operate as A3 until they have planning permission, which can take up to 2-3 months as there will have to be a consultation period. Will be interesting to see if they're open by Christmas, although they can operate as retail in the first instance without change of use. The way a cafe operates as retail is that the customer has to order and pay at the till rather than having a waitress come to the table, this is exactly how Gail's operates in the Village.

Thanks for the name check, Lee and In Texas, as local trees are one of my passions! I've been working together with the tree dept on local planting long before I was ever elected a cllr and have gone back to working with them under the StreetLeader scheme now that I'm not a cllr anymore. The Lordship Plane scheme was actually funded by a CGS bid for 40 plane trees that I submitted in 2005... I think people now take the trees for granted, but it's transformed the area. It still needs a bit of tweaking because the ginkgos aren't very happy, but that's easy to fix. One of the things I'm doing now as a volunteer is physically checking out each empty pit in person to ensure that info on the spreadsheets is accurate, so any info on empty pits would be greatly appreciated as it's taking me forever walking around two wards on foot... maybe we should start a new thread specifically to note empty tree pits? One of the problems with replanting is that locations have dropped off of the master spreadsheet over the years as the tree dept has been reconfigured, so we almost need to create a master list from scratch. As with most public realm projects, the policies around tree pits and planting is mind-boggling, but I've got the hang of how it works over the years and how to get the best compromise. I share James' optimism that the 1m x 1m treepit requirement will get adjusted for Dulwich, fingers crossed. In addition to James' planting budget, I have also submitted a CGS bid specifically to create new tree pits in Village and ED wards, as the replanting budget doesn't address this extra cost. Lee... the palm tree on the GG roundabout was heavily consulted on at the time and therefore is another compromise between different users' needs... the sightlines are important to bus users as well as TfL as one can actually see buses coming towards the roundabout from quite a distance away while waiting at bus stops. I remember that the tree officer at the time spent a huge amount of time sourcing a tree of the agreed parameters, which is how we ended up with that particular palm (which is better than nothing). Some of the trees on Lordship Lane were actually killed by salt poisoning during a snowy winter and couldn't be replaced where shops built out tables on their curtilage which doesn't leave enough room for pedestrian access on the public pavement if a tree is installed. When Lordship Lane is salted, you'll often see me out with my trowel digging salt out of the pavements so that it doesn't murder any more trees. I could talk about trees for days, but I'll stop here for now...

FYI, as per another thread, I have submitted two CGS revenue bids to have officers look at and assess different aspects of the dysfunctional Whateley/Lordship/Melbourne junction, including having a look at moving the bus stop closer to the crossing (or vice versa) with a view towards consolidating the layout in a more logical manner (especially with a new school being built). It's absolutely mind-bogglingly complicated getting junction redesigns done, so maybe CGS funding will help to at least look at some of the problem areas...

If we keep our eye on the link in ladyruskin's post, all the details will appear in due course once the application has been processed (might take a couple of weeks). From a resident's perspective, although the new owners might be nice people, the change of use to A3 will inevitably open up the possibility of a restaurant with late-night operation in the future if the property is sold on. One way around addressing this is for residents to request that a planning condition be required for last orders to be set at 10pm with a closing time of 11pm. This will at least restrict the operational hours of what ever ends up there with a view of protecting the amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood. Any future business who wanted to operate beyond those hours would have to reapply for planning permission which in turn would trigger a consultation.

Based on Private Messages I've received, I've now submitted bids for 1) a traffic calming officer assessment and draft design for Whateley Rd from the Lordship junction to Barry Road, 2) a supplemental tree planting budget for both East Dulwich and Village wards (specifically for the creation of new tree pits not covered by the replanting budget), and 3) a look at the reconfiguration of the Whateley/Lordship/Melbourne junction with a view towards possibly moving the bus stop down to the pedestrian crossing at the shopping parade so that people aren't running in front of moving traffic to catch their bus (this redesign would also clear the section of pavement in front of the new school).

Drats, the tallest one we moved was around 30 foot, so I would have relished the opportunity to beat our record. But seeding a Monkey Puzzle Tree Glade sounds like a good follow-up. Hmm, maybe I should submit a CGS bid to create a local East Dulwich community tree nursery...?

The second project I've submitted a bid for was an assessment to create a small park or village green as part of the redevelopment of the Dulwich Hospital site. Yes, I know that there is loads of green space in Dulwich, but the Open Space Strategy policy document has recommended that there is nowhere suitable nearby in this particular area for local residents, including young people on two local housing estates, to reach easily. Residents have already created a small Physic Garden on the hospital site by the war memorial, which the NHS have said that they will retain, so we are campaigning to expand the garden into a larger open public space as a green element to serve as a buffer between the new medical centre and whatever school ends up there for use by medical staff, patients, young people, elderly people, and other local residents. I'm calling it St Saviour's Green as a working title, after the original name for the hospital, but am open to other suggestions.

Hopefully, this will work... Firstly, I've been working with councillors cross-party and The Dulwich Society on the concept of renovating an under-used storage annex at the Dulwich Library to provide a touchdown base and meeting room for local police, housing officers, and other council officers (trees, planning, highways, etc). There is enough room for an open plan office, toilet, a kettle, and a private meeting room for residents to meet with officers, along with a properly designed storage area. This base would serve two main purposes... it would make it easier for relevant officers to remain in the area for the day to perform multiple duties, plus it would provide a facility for residents to meet with relevant officers by appointment. In Dulwich we have no local police base anymore, no housing office, no One Stop Shop or council meeting facilities in an area with poor public transportation. Tooley Street is a good 5 miles away and both Peckham and Seeley Drive are fiddly to get to without a car, especially for the elderly and mothers with children. A location on the Lordship Lane axis is probably easiest for the greatest number of people to access.

Hmm, I seem to be having trouble adding to this thread, which will make a discussion difficult...