rch

Granted, the other trees were council-owned street trees, but in these days of austerity there might be a good argument in favour of rescuing a free specimen tree. Plus, there is more than one way to skin a cat... the last tree was moved for free by a council subcontractor as a gesture of goodwill. I can be quite effective at talking people into freebies when I put my mind to it...

In the hope of inspiring a positive discussion, I thought I'd post info about the Cleaner Greener Safer bids that I've submitted in an effort to progress various community improvements that I have been working on for several years now. The deadline doesn't close until tomorrow, so I'm quite happy to submit other bids if people feel strongly about something specific, as I understand the process so it's not a huge amount of effort for me. Bear in mind that, just because a bid is submitted, this doesn't mean that councillors will approve it, so community support will be helpful... or we may even try to think about raising funding in other ways. rch

What a shame. In my time as a councillor I had three street trees moved to Dulwich Park instead of being felled... I've found parks, tree section, and other council officers to be extremely helpful in this experimental process, so we were getting quite good at it. If I'd known ahead of time, I would have tried to see what we could do, but it sounds like it's too late. But PM me if there's anything I can do to help...

Cool, count me in, then!

Ingrid, can Pablo work on bare brick or does the wall have to be painted? I have a wall on a strategic corner that I would love to have Pablo-d, but it's bare brick.

Here's a Huffington Post commentary that was widely quoted at the time. Both English Heritage and Terence Conran agreed that the design could have been more sympathetic:- http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rooksana-hossenally/britsh-heritage-versus-future-enterprise_b_1204776.html In the end, the Planning Committee compromised by agreeing that our Planning Officers would work with Network Rail to salvage the poorly designed frontage by adding more glass and curves, which is the design you see promoted today although it's still not exactly considered to be very special. But Network Rail wouldn't agree to incorporate the heritage buildings, probably because it's just cheaper to knock the whole lot down. The southern frontage, which backs onto the Shard, is much better... opening up the public realm to the Shard and Guy's Hospital is working really well.

I was the only councillor on the Planning Committee that broke ranks and voted against this redesign. Just wait until they start knocking down the nearby heritage buildings to expand the soulless frontage...

Two points for Green Goose: 1) The pavement between EDG and Gilkes Place was done as a result of regular complaints from residents and parents who use the infant school along there, which I forwarded to highways engineers for investigation. They inspected the stretch and agreed that there were enough trip hazards which warranted resurfacing, especially given the high concentration of young children, and then put it on a list of recommendations that was passed by the Cabinet. Also bear in mind that tarmac is a lot cheaper than paving stones, so it's very cost-effective. So it was all above board. Because of the large concentration of schools and school children in Village ward, we work very closely with council school safety officers and Safer Routes to School. 2) The works to Glengarry are part of a bigger cross-ward scheme to implement a 20mph zone along EDG, which had the highest-ever positive consultation feedback that we've seen in 8 years. The junction at Glengarry is going to be raised across the whole road (and Melbourne as well, in addition to other raised pedestrian crossing points to act as a more organic method of speed calming), the pedestrian zebra crossing is going to be moved to that junction, and the bus stop on the other side of the road is going to be moved back to the indented railings, where it originally used to be in preparation for the redevelopment of the hospital site. In conjunction with this, the bus stop on the parade was built out so that buses can access it better, so the whole dynamic will work well together when it's finished. The reason why the Glengarry works have taken so long is because of all the preparation works to the drainage and electrics (for the zebra) in advance of the raised junction. All the works are being done on one side of EDG first and then the other so that traffic flow disruption is kept to a minimum... the Melbourne Grove junction is going to be next and then on down to Lordship and then the raised junctions will be done around June. There's another discussion thread about this scheme on this forum somewhere.

Mounted police are doing high-profile patrols in East Dulwich and Herne Hill to address the high burglary stat concerns in both areas. I had a chat with two of them yesterday on Calton Ave, they'll be patrolling today as well, and both the police and the horses are really friendly.

It's always worth reporting to the 101 police number. When there are enough reports to form a pattern, a location can get logged on the radar for police patrols.

No, planning is a quasi-judicial process, all decisions have to comply with national, London, borough, and local legislation. This is about creating a space within certain parameters - forget M&S, even the inspector notes in his decision notice that there is no guarantee that M&S will occupy that space. It's nothing to do with brand, it's to do with how a space can be used. Once the space is created, anything can happen... a future application for change of use could render it as a betting shop, estate agent, restaurant cum wine bar cum nightclub. The only way to encourage healthy development of an area is to delineate the space according to existing legislation, which is exactly what the inspector did. I would encourage you to go back and read the inspectors decision notice very carefully.

From a purely planning perspective, this was an important result as it will give us a local precedent to protect the area from over-development in the future... something that could be an issue on the police station site, for instance. The Dulwich wards are designated as "suburban" in the London Plan, giving us criteria to deploy to protect us from knock-on effects from developments that would be more appropriate in an urban city centre. However, thinking strategically, what would help the developers in this case would be to look at buying up the strip of land where the car wash (which could be relocated as a condition) is located which could provide parking and a turning ratio so that deliveries could be made from Lordship Lane. The cost of this would probably make the development financially unviable, but it gives an idea of how creative solutions will need to be found in the future in order to maintain a balance.

Correction - I didn't participate in this item as it was in the second half of the meeting and I gave my apologies and left at the break.

We questioned Court Lane as well, but there are specific criteria and priority lists which are out of the borough's control. However, we managed to use this situation to get other nearby pavement replacements funded. It's frustrating having no actual power, councillors can only make representations and query decisions. We don't even have a Town Hall anymore, we have a hot-desking facility miles away at the top of the borough. I heard things were pretty questionable a few years ago (before my time), but as far as I can tell all the bidding processes are robust now and everything is above board. I keep a pretty close eye on all works in Village ward, mostly because I'm a pavement and highways geek. The officers know that I'm going to be out sniffing around, so everyone tends to do a good job to shut me up. If anyone has any specific information that they would like me to check out, then let me know offlist.

Hi John... there is a complicated bidding process which Conways is very successful at. From what I can tell from your posts, I think your problem with Conway is more with the managerial overseeing process.

Ah, hang on, I think I just realised what you meant... but technically CGS is a capital budget and not to be used by a group for providing "services". The CGS revenue budget is different, it's more for services, but can't be used for paving or lighting which is a capital expense. Sorry if this sounds contradictory. For instance, in Village, we used our devolved CGS revenue budget to continue the Lollipop school crossing guard services when the council ceased the internal funding.

Maybe I didn't explain very well, I can see how it looks that way to you, but the lobbying for funding is very complex. Lighting and pavement funding comes from very large internal budgets, sometimes awarded from national budgets, which have very strict criteria and there is a lot of competition from the different wards to access chunks of it and projects are assessed and prioritised by internal engineers. For instance, we have a lighting priority list. CGS is a tiny budget, subject to specific criteria, not usually enough to do a whole road or pavement, but can be used for one-off capital decorative embellishments that give a community identity, like the hanging baskets (actually I think ED use devolved revenue for hanging baskets, but we use CGS in Village for complicated reasons). Some works might not look like good value for money, but might be really important to the community... in Village we are using CGS to renovate one of the lodges in Dulwich Park to bring it back into community use as it is deteriorating badly and about to be condemned and we haven't been able to get a budget from anywhere else. To some, this might seem a frivolous use of public money, but in Village we are very heritage-concious and value public spaces. I really encourage you and other residents to submit a bid if you feel strongly about something.

Hi Alice... no, wards have a tiny devolved highway budget as well. You could do it with CGS, but CGS is more for things like trees and the hanging baskets and public realm and community projects. The CGS program has just been launched, you could try putting in a bid for a section of pavement if you wanted to, but I think the highways budget is more appropriate. In Village ward we use devolved highway budget for sections of paving that probably wouldn't get funded out of the internal highway budget for ages. For instance, we're chipping away at resurfacing the tarmac paving along Dulwich Village from East Dulwich Grove up to the entrance of Dulwich Park, it's taking ages but we're getting there.

Don't even get me started! The Yorkstone on Blackwater is still intact, I drool everytime I walk on them... but the Victorians didn't have telephone and broadband cables and gas pipes running under the pavements, this is what affects the choice of materials and permanency of the workmanship - it's a trade-off between stability and ease of access underneath.

By a convenient coincidence, I offered to cover for James on the East Dulwich Environmental Audit just two days ago on Weds. This is a basic walkabout of hotspot areas with environmentally trained Community Wardens, Councillors, and interested residents, but it takes place during the day when the ED cllrs are at work, and I live on Melbourne Gr and I know the area well, so I volunteered. We spent about 2 hours from 11am until around 1pm looking at every crack in the pavement on both sides of Lordship Lane, down Grove Vale into the bottom of Melbourne, with the Community Warden calling in repairs to the control room as we went along. There was a Conways person fixing the bits of the pavement on Lordship that James had already ordered, but we called in every rocking slab and trip hazard that qualified for repair, including the section down at the end of Melbourne by the hairdressers (which has been fixed at least twice already but it keeps coming up). Unfortunately the dips in the pavement don't qualify as trip hazards, even though the 'ponding' from the rain is pretty bad, so they will need a different budget to address. But I think we got most of the obvious problems (we just need to keep our eye on it to make sure the repair request is followed up). I remember when Lordship was completely repaved over ten years ago (can't remember exact date), before I was a councillor... in my opinion it wasn't done very well to begin with, which is why we continue to have problems now. But I don't think Lordship will qualify for repaving any time soon... you'd probably have to use the tiny devolved ward budgets and redo it in sections, as I think to fix it properly it would have to get torn out completely and rebedded. The bit at the Goose Green end is the best but there are sections in the middle and up towards the police station that have been diabolical for years.

Sorry to hear about this, James, let me know if there's anything I can do! Let's speak on the phone...

The point is that it's not true that children aren't allowed to play in the grounds of the estate. Most of the residents who live in the block around the Community Garden are delighted that the garden (which is completely separate from the Orchard) has been renovated and now provides a safe haven for young children and their mothers with benches and play equipment. One summer we had arts and crafts sessions for the young children and an open day for the whole estate, but we haven't been able to get the funding to do that again. The Orchard is a separate community project which sadly hasn't had any more funded events based there because of the vandalism issues, although it's open for anyone to go into the space as it's right on the main road (which is why it gets vandalised so easily). And I am not privy to internal discussions between the council and the police on security measures, nor do I want to be. However, I did express my concerns about the railings and made it clear to officers that I didn't want to be blamed for their installation. But the perimeter walls are technically council property which is presumably why there doesn't need to be a consultation. To be fair, I've had several people tell me that they are pleased with the railings, though, so there are two points of view. These are mainly decorative railings, only a foot high, fixed to the walls, so it's hardly Fort Knox. So, bear in mind that there is a lot of misinformation in the above posts. For one thing, the other posts on this forum from one of the authors indicate that they live in Peckham Rye SE15 and not at the Lytcott Grove Estate (which they don't appear to realise is the correct name for the estate). Although they claim to have been part of the community in the past, they don't seem to realise that I have lived virtually across the street from this estate for 27 years (so I'm hardly a NIMBY) and don't actually have a garden myself. And the reason I know how many apples have been vandalised is because I went across the street and cleared them with the help of other residents after a concerned resident (who is NOT a 'singleton' I might add) on the estate called me to tell me what had happened, having also reported it to the police. Because I live locally, I work very closely with residents on two local housing estates. After the Lytcott Community Garden was renovated, I donated a Home Office award that I won to fund a local Millwall Friday Night Football club for young people that has been going for six years now - with up to 80 youths attending every Friday Night (including some very talented residents of the Lytcott Grove Estate). I also rescued the Redthread Youth Club when it had lost its premises, which has up to 120 young people attending every Friday night as well. So, to somehow imply that I'm against local children is thoroughly (perhaps intentionally?) misleading as I spend a large portion of my own free time fighting to help them. On another nearby estate, I worked with the residents to build a allotment scheme on a derelict piece of land at the back of the estate and then raised funding to convert a disused laundry into a TRA hall as well as setting up a pensioners club.

Ironically, the above post was so predictable that I posted a pre-emptive reply as far back as the 21st April. If people are going to bash me (albeit not specifically named this time) on a public forum, they should at least get their facts straight. In the end, it was the police who put in a bid for the funding for the railings - they are going to be distributing a leaflet to the estate to explain why. And, sadly, the Orchard has been vandalised yet AGAIN - we've lost approx FOUR HUNDRED semi-ripe apples in the past month alone. In the meantime, here's the link to the pre-existing thread as well as the relevant text:- http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1092389 3. The Melbourne Grove Urban Orchard was planted back in 2007 as a result of a community campaign ("community action rocks, yay!") to beautify a local "grot spot" where the pavement was torn up in addition to abundant fly tipping and so much dog poo on the grass verge that the council maintenance teams couldn't cut the grass. The Orchard consists of edible apples such as Golden Delicious, Granny Smith, and Cox which would be free for all local residents to pick and eat if they weren't vandalised every year long before the apples ripen in October. All the trees are named after children on the local housing estate and the opening of the Orchard was marked by a community day featuring a poetry contest where the prize for the best poem was awarded with an Apple iPod (geddit?). This project is thought to be the first community Urban Orchard in London (planted before the more well-known one in the north of the borough), it was written up in various environmental magazines and even in Time Out, but now it tends to keep a low profile due to the ongoing vandalism issues. The space is also the site of a community notice board and a plaque honouring the local victims of the bombing raids in WWII (placed there by the Dulwich Society). Sadly, there is going to be further protective work on the area at the request of the residents and the police, which I'm sure I'll be blamed for somehow... although I will say that I think it's a shame that something that was meant to be nice for the neighbourhood is so negatively regarded, as per the comments above.

Thanks for confirmation... I just got an email this morning informing me that Thames had attended yesterday and repaired a leak to the 4" domestic supply main. But I was a bit concerned to see the posts here as late as 9.20pm saying that it was still leaking, so it's useful to know that Thames were indeed seen on site at 11pm. Let me know if anything else happens, our council engineers are on the case liaising closely with Thames.

Just to let you all know that I've liaised with our council flood engineers on site in Herne Hill and they are now liaising directly with the Thames Water engineers about this report in North Cross Road. The TW Reference number is 1011226325. We're told that TW are aware of this report and will definitely be sending a team down to investigate... let me know what happens!