rch

Keep in mind that this incident didn't incur any extra costs as all of the personnel were on standard emergency cover anyway and I freely gave of my time off to help to address residents' concerns as well as investigating possible tree maintenance issues. In my opinion, this was a specific situation created by the maintenance of the tree which may be relevant in other locations. In this time of budget cuts, we need to make sure that our assets are efficiently managed, as sometimes there can be false economies and performing a monitoring function is part of a councillors elected duty (which was part of the underlying reason I took the photos). There are discussions going on about whether severe pollarding is the best way to address regular tree maintenance and there are specific protocols about nesting birds and this situation illustrated both elements. As I understand how the systems work, this was an easy situation for me to address, and there may actually be a useful outcome that will save us money in the future. I should probably add that, in addition to planning, trees are another one of my passions and I work very closely with the tree department. As Peckham Rose has suggested, I definitely intend to ask them to attend a Dulwich Community Council meeting... we are in the process of launching a Tree Warden scheme to train interested residents in the basics of simple tree maintenance, which I am highly supportive of. So, there is actually a bigger picture here.

Well done to everyone who helped to rescue the babies - the Barry Road residents, the Emergency Duty Manager at the Call Centre, our Tree Manager whose Bank Holiday I ruined, and especially to the two tree maintenance contractors who came out and successfully retrieved the two birds. The birds are being taken to a sanctuary as I type this, so hopefully they won't be too traumatised. I've attached a photo, I hope it works. Community Action Rocks, Yay! (as Monica would say) Edited to add a slightly better photo of the nest with the birds.

I got your PM Joseph and have intervened. I'm told that the RSPCA and the tree contractors are coming back. It's 1.18pm, I'm getting ready to go up there... can someone call me on 020 8613 6046 and let me know what's happening? I have a Plan B if Plan A doesn't work.

Southwark's tree maintenance schedule is meant to take nesting birds into account. Can you do me a favour and call our Call Centre on 020 7525 2000 and report this and get a reference number? Request that a tree officer contacts you directly and reports what they are doing to save the birds... let us know what happens and I'll also follow it up, as well.

The policy that addresses Car Parking in Southwark is known as saved Policy 5.6 (which I'll be referring to a lot during the future Dulwich SPD consultation discussions). It states (I'm summarising here, to see the full policy Google Saved Southwark Plan and scroll down to Policy 5.6):- All developments requiring car parking should minimise the number of spaces provided. Maximum standards are set out in Appendix 15 [which states that developments within the Suburban Zone can provide between 1.5 and 2 spaces per flat or house, in line with the Sustainable Transport SPD]. [...] All developments will be expected to include justification for the amount of car parking sought, taking into account: i. Public Transport Accessibility Levels set out in Appendix 15 [these are the PTALs that I referred to previously]; and ii. The impact on overspill parking; and iii. The demand for parking within the Controlled Parking Zones. The LPA will restrict permit provision where necessary. Parking for retail and leisure uses within town centres should be shared with public parking, not reserved for customers of a particular development. Maximum stay restrictions are required for all retail and leisure town centre parking. Reasons Too many cars cause problems with congestion and pollution, increasing travel times and expense as well as causing health problems. With fewer car parking spaces available people will seek alternative modes of transport to the private car, subsequently reducing congestion and pollution. Access to services, leisure, shops and a range of amenities by public transport and other alternative modes of transport to the private car must be considered when providing less car parking in order to ensure efficiency and social inclusion. Measures to control overspill parking are necessary in order to prevent or mitigate loss of amenity including inconvenience to local residents caused by overspill car parking and increased pressure on on-street spaces. [...] There's more, but that's the gist of the relevant points. We can have a long discussion/debate about this, if you like... but, as this policy will also be relevant to other future developments and consultations in the Dulwich area, I would suggest that someone might want to start a specific thread on this topic (it would also be useful if someone can cut and paste the whole policy in the new thread as I can't figure out how to copy text from a PDF).

Thanks for the understanding, Chillaxed... t-e-d, anyone who knows me can tell you that it's impossible to get me to keep my mouth shut, or even to politically whip me (although I do respond well to reasonableness). But I have a lot of respect for our senior planning officers, who are non-politically motivated, and their guidance has kept me out of trouble in the past. In the meantime, it would be interesting to see if the applicants' agents are following this discussion and how they address the SPD in their presentation. I really wish that we could have invited the applicants to a Dulwich Community Council meeting for an open discussion on the community concerns during the consultation period, but unfortunately the timing didn't work out.

Nope, I'm not sitting on the fence, I'm following advice. Developers have told me that they follow my movements and my comments in planning meetings are often quoted in the press, so I don't want to prejudice my position on the main planning committee. If anyone would like help in formulating objections or support, I'm very happy to help. I've already given key advice to residents which I believe could be crucial:- read the Sustainable Transport SPD. I've even quoted the relevant paragraph. We can go into in more detail, but I only have a small window of time off with no meetings (although I'm still doing casework every day) and I really need to paint my living room...

Hi Chillaxed, Although the legislation has now changed, I still don't think it's appropriate for me to express an opinion, especially as I haven't yet read the final officer's report and the attendant documentation. However, councillors are allowed to inform and help residents to interpret the relevant policies, which is what I'm trying to do. I'm not whimping out, I honestly think it's best for me to remain neutral - sometimes one can achieve more that way. Plus, sitting on the main planning committee, it's best for developers not to form an opinion that I'm predisposed towards certain types of developments, as each application must be considered on its own merit. Planning is one of my passions, though, so I'm quite happy to help if asked. I'll probably try to attend the sub-committee meeting if possible, but as a resident, as only East Dulwich councillors will be able speak. I think the ED councillors have a good grasp of all the layers. The public discussion at the sub-committee meeting should be very interesting... I like transparency.

Hi, UDT... nah, I'm pretending to be on holiday, so I'm more interested in painting my living room than discussing politics. Let's just say that, as an ex-company director, I tend to have a different view towards budget cutting and strategic financial management than most politicians do. The Core Strategy was approved by Council Ass on April 6, 2011, so it's only just over a year old. It basically updates the Southwark Plan, which includes Policy 5.6, which is the policy that addresses car parking (which in turn is addressed in Dulwich by para 4.2.10 in the Sustainable Transport SPD). We are now instructed to give the National Planning Policy Framework greater weight in planning committee decisions, but the whole lot works together quite elegantly when one regards the bigger picture. Now if I could just figure out how to operate this mastic-squirting thing...

You've hit the nail on the head, Fred. If I was an objector speaking to the sub-committee, I would suggest that if the members were minded to refuse the application, paragraph 4.2.10 might give them sufficient grounds to do this, especially if the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan is flawed...

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A lot of people have expressed a lot of views and at this point, I believe one of the cllrs should step in and clarify how to make a formal objection and what grounds will be considered. Hi, LondonMix. Technically the consultation period on this application is now closed. The next step will be for the sub-committee to formally consider it at a public meeting in Tooley Street, probably in Sept - we're waiting to hear what exact date, probably the 11th Sept. At the public meeting Objectors, Supporters, and Ward Councillors will get a chance to speak and be questioned by the committee. My guess is that the grounds to be considered will boil down to the developers having a workable Transport Assessment followed by a detailed discussion on parking policies, which is why referred everyone to the Sustainable Transport SPD, as all the relevant specifics are covered in this document. The Sustainable Transport SPD carefully defines the Suburban Zone in 4.2.9 as:- 4.2.10 This area includes Dulwich and is dominated by houses with gardens rather than flats, with development between 200 and 350 habitable rooms per hectare. There are some bus routes and railway stations, however the level of public transport is lower than in the rest of Southwark. Less development is going to happen in the Suburban Zone and we allow more car parking to a maximum between 1.5 or 2 spaces per flat or house. It can be argued that Lordship Lane has a high level of access to public transportation but the fact is that Lordship Lane is only designated as a Neighbourhood Area, which is suitable for smaller scale development, specifically because while the access to public transportation (PTAL) is excellent running north to south, the interconnecting access routes east and west are poor, which is what makes Dulwich residents more dependent on their cars than in other parts of Southwark, which is in turn why we are allowed more parking spaces in new developments than Southwark saved policy 5.6 and the London policies allow. In my opinion the debate is going to boil down to how to encourage growth and development along Lordship Lane while preserving the amenity of the surrounding local residents.

Welp, UDT, I voted against this change so technically one could say that we are in agreement. The discussion is complex... we can go into it if you like, but we'll inevitably end up in a political discussion and I hate politics! For the record, I consider myself a representative of the people in the first instance and will therefore navigate policies to ensure the local people get the outcome that benefits the community the most (including the amenity of local people). Technically Southwark is up to date, as all our policies have gone through all the various stages of approval. On the other hand, the crux of the matter in Dulwich is indeed about Localism vs one-size-fits-all national policies, which is where the SPDs come in. We can go into this in detail, but I don't want to divert the discussion on this thread too much. Having said that, this discussion will become central to the Dulwich SPD consultation.

Because of the way licensing legislation is set (and I agree that it needs to change, but it's taking way too long) it's not enough for residents simply to object - there needs to be statistical data to support the objections for committee members to assess. In other words, it's not enough for a resident to say that they have experienced noise and nuisance over time, you need to log complaints so that a dossier of evidence can be built up - it's these statistics that give the committee the grounds to refuse an application. To complain about noise generated from the premises either phone 020 7525 2000 (or, more directly, 020 7525 5777) to officially log a complaint to the noise team and ask for a reference number. The more people who complain, the better. Premises can't technically be held responsible for noise outside of their control, so for disturbances in the street that can be considered to be disorder (or anti-social behaviour), phone the police number on 101 and ask for the CAD or a CHS reference number. I can't stress how useful the 101 number is, some of the operators are amazingly sympathetic, and complaints/intel are logged on the central police computer which is then useful for subsequent response police attendance. Everything from police resources to grounds for refusal is driven by statistics these days. If there is a log of dozens of complaints over a period of time that is presented with the licensing application report, this will give residents' objections far greater weight. Furthermore, if 101 get several calls from the same location, they will send a car around if one is available, then you will have even more data presented from a police perspective. By all means, liaise with the manager of the premises, but always log complaints. East Dulwich traditionally has the lowest ward CAD statistics in Southwark, but that's because most of us are too polite to complain.

In order for an application to be referred to a planning committee, there now needs to be 5 or more "relevant" objections, i.e. objections that raise material planning considerations (it helps to cite relevant policies in your objections) or two councillors can ask for it to be referred, subject to agreement by the chair of the planning committee in consultation with the appropriate chief officer. Here's a link to the PDF document, if the link doesn't work try Googling "Southwark Planning Committee and Planning Sub-Committees":- http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s29008/Appendix%201%20Planning%20committee%20and%20Planning%20Sub-Committees%20Roles%20and%20Functions.pdf

Do a Google search for Southwark Sustainable Transport SPD, that should work. The SPDs have area-specific guidelines, which is why they are so useful. I'm being a bit careful about what I'm saying as I don't want to express an opinion in public, just in case, so I'm trying to point you in the direction of useful documentation. Thanks for posting David Roberts' objection as well... when the agenda for the relevant sub-committee is released, I'll ask for a full copy of all the reports that will be sent to the sub-committee. There should be transport assessments, etc, included in the reports. When the Dulwich SPD consultation is launched, I'm hoping to ask planning officers to come to a Dulwich Community Council meeting so that we can all openly discuss how the SPD can address local concerns. In my opinion, the biggest development that is going to impact on Dulwich will probably be the redevelopment of the seven acres of the Dulwich Hospital site, once the NHS ascertains how much of the site that they will need for their own medical use. Officers from Southwark NHS have already agreed to make a presentation to the DCC meeting on Sept 18th as they launch their consultation regarding the site.

Sorry, LondonMix, I'm having internet problems and realised after I hit "send" that it wasn't clear that I was replying to the discussion in general and not specifically to you. I totally understand what you're saying, that's why I think you should read the SPD because then you can cite specific policies to give your objections about delivery time and access more weight. The parking problem is more complex and needs more creative thinking. I also agree that it's not a good idea to focus on the brand of the retailer as once planning permission to reconfigure the site is obtained then this could change. In theory, the developer could even apply for change of use.

Ah, but in addition to National, London, and Borough planning legislation, we also have Supplemental Planning Documents (SPD) which lay out specified local adjustments. For instance, have a look at the Sustainable Transport SPD, which makes relevant points about the Dulwich area which can be taken into consideration when determining this application:- http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2208/sustainable_transport_spd One of the most important consultations that will be coming up, hopefully within the next few months, is the Dulwich SPD, which I'm hoping that the community will be heavily involved in as it will shape the future of our lives on many levels for a long time to come. Here is the current Draft Dulwich SPD:- http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200151/supplementary_planning_documents_and_guidance/1247/dulwich_spd/1 Although both Planning is indeed a quasi-judicial function, the local knowledge of elected members can be invaluable in protecting the amenity of the community while encouraging positive and sustainable growth. As I've said before, it's all a matter of finding the right balance...

And I'll try to help out more, as well. Councillors had to be careful about how openly involved they got in case this was interpreted as expressing an opinion in advance of making a decision... but now that we aren't making local decisions, we can speak out a bit more. I don't sit on the planning sub-committees that make the more local decisions, but I sit on the Main Planning committee that considers larger applications, so I understand how to navigate the process, which is also why I think it might be a good idea to have an item on planning to brief local residents at a DCC, as half the battle is understanding how to manoeuvre. As some of you know, although I am a Village ward councillor, I've lived on Melbourne Grove for 26 years which is the border between East Dulwich ward and Village ward.

Just to clarify, first mate, we no longer have decision-making powers for planning applications at Community Council level, but we can have open public discussions with the planning officers and the applicant (should they agree to attend) during the consultation phase of the application. This is what I wanted to do at the Sept DCC but I was advised that planning officers wouldn't be able to be publicly involved, as the consultation period had already closed. The planning and licensing process is extremely complex - councillors can't simply refuse applications based on the volume of objections, we need to cite specific legislation otherwise our decisions can be overturned at an appeal. I'm hoping to have an item on planning strategy at a future meeting of the DCC, probably when the Dulwich Supplementary Planning Document goes out to consultation, as that will have an impact on the future use of the Dulwich Community Hospital site among other issues of concern to all Dulwich area residents. And I will watch out for any other relevant local applications that we can bring to the DCC during the consultation stage. But, for the M&S application, all I can advise now is for as many residents as possible to attend the sub-committee meeting en masse to support James' representations as ward councillor to the committee. So, keep your eye on the council calendar (where you will also be able to read the technical reports, including the traffic management plans) and be ready to hike up to Tooley St.

first mate, I asked the Head of Planning a couple of weeks ago if I could bring a public presentation and open discussion (not a decision) about the M&S application to the Dulwich Community Council on Sept 18th, but he said that it's possible that a decision would have already been made at the Sept 11th planning sub-committee meeting. You can keep your eye on applications that come to planning and licensing committees by monitoring the Council Calendar here:- http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCalendarMonthView.aspx?GL=1&bcr=1 If you click on the relevant meeting link, you will be directed to the agendas and reports once they are set.

Possibly the most intriguing item that we'll be considering on Tuesday night's DCC meeting is the report of the South of the Borough Event sub-committee. The sub-committee has recommended a 'pop-up' showcase/celebration in each of the three DCC wards to correspond with seasonal events such as Halloween, Christmas, or St George's Day. Which themed event would the residents of East Dulwich most like to celebrate??

Have any of you reported this to the police? At minimum, phone 101 and log it as intel. I don't want to say too much in public, but it might be useful to get someone from the SNT to phone me...

The next meeting of the DCC will be on Tuesday, June 26th, at the Herne Hill Baptist Church on Half Moon Lane, starting at 7pm. At this meeting we plan to hear officer presentations on the South of the Borough Event and the Replacement of the Barbara Hepworth Statue in Dulwich Park consultations and note our preferred recommendations. We will also be awarding the Community Council Fund Grants. At every DCC meeting we will be providing free display tables for community groups to hand out promotional literature and an opportunity for local groups and activists to talk about their projects during the meeting. There are five DCC meetings set for this year - after the June meeting, the next ones are currently scheduled for Sept 18th, Nov 27th, Jan 30th, and April 22nd, but no agenda or venue has been set for any of them. So, I have three questions for you:- 1. What issues would you like to have discussed in future meetings? 2. Where would you like to see the meetings be held? We are always looking for new venues. 3. At the moment, all the meetings are scheduled for weekday evenings... would you be more likely to attend a DCC meeting on a Saturday afternoon, especially in the dark winter months? All opinions and suggestions are welcome!

Dear Forumites, At the last Southwark Council Assembly, I was appointed as Chair of the Dulwich Community Council for the next year. We are extremely fortunate in Dulwich not to have had our Community Council merged with an adjacent CC, as has happened in other parts of the borough, therefore it's extremely important that we work together to maintain our independence. Last year we had an excellent turnout at meetings concerning issues such as saving the Lollipop crossing guards and considering whether East Dulwich should adopt a CPZ... and it was the sheer volume of the Voice of the People that affected the subsequent decisions that were made. To this end, I intend to keep all of you updated here, so that those of you who can't always attend the meetings in person can have your say.

Hi Monica... yes, Spikenard is referred to in the Bible as the oil that Mary Magdalene used to wash Jesus' feet - it was what she carried in her symbolic alabaster jar. Spikenard is said to have antibacterial properties and to boost the immune system. Back in my Impressionable Youth I bought some Spikenard essence from Absolute Aroma - it smells a bit like Patchouli, which is why I thought it would be fun to grow some. Apparently it likes rocks, so I'm looking for some nice ones to lay at Eric's feet for the Spikenard to grow on. Skullcap sounds interesting, too, will look into it. A lot of people from the hospital are eating their lunch in the garden when the weather is nice, which is lovely to see. At the moment the Hogwart's Bed is full of orphaned Feverfew plants, which have gone rampant in the rain, but I'm due to receive our herbs on the Summer Solstice and will definitely plant them before St John's Day! Next we need to raise funding to do something with the pathways between the beds... at the moment I'm helping Heather to look for 7 cubic metres of an underlay called MOT Type 1, whatever that is... Community Action Rocks, YAY!