rch

I'm finding it heartening to see the community actually speaking out and asking questions, which are still not being openly addressed. Some points:- 1) Having gone back and looked at the shortlist again, I agree that this project shouldn't include references to Ingrid, as your shortlist isn't actually art, the images are mostly graphics. I suspect that there won't be a way to carry on Ingrid's work, based on Dulwich Picture Gallery works, in the future. I was genuinely trying to salvage this situation, but maybe it's best to leave it. 2) Having said that, I find it misleading that EDAG keeps citing Dulwich Outdoor Gallery as one of their project partners, as this is directly connected to Ingrid and her concept of the specific Dulwich Picture Gallery Street Art works, which EDAG has admitted has no connection to the East Dulwich Station Mural:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulwich_Outdoor_Gallery 3) My personal experience is that EDAG aren't actually that keen to engage with ED residents. After I attended your first meeting with a view towards getting you to alter your views in a way that fit in better with the community, I was dropped off of the mailing list and not invited to any other meetings. So, my opinion is that EDAG is only interested in engaging with residents who totally agree, so that they can claim they have a large amount of supporters. And, whereas, you may be able to list a significant number of supporters, bear in mind that this ward has approx 5,500 residents... so, even a hundred supporters would be a minority. 4) My understanding is that this project was funded by either a devolved CGS or Neighbourhood Fund allocation, approved by previous ward councillors. As the council website is fairly dysfunctional, it would be useful if EDAG could either clarify the source and the amount (in addition to the ?21,000 banner funds, which came from a different allocation) of the funds or else it would be better if someone other than myself asks existing councillors to clarify or else submits a FOI request.

I hear what you're saying Penguin, and I even agree to a large extent. But I'm trying to keep the concept simple because, from what I'm seeing, the group that is running this doesn't understand what Ingrid was doing. Granted, Ingrid was a judge in the Love West Dulwich banner selection, but that was something completely different. I'm glad Jules likes the concept, hopefully this is something that the community can unite on... Don't even get me started on who's paying for this.

I worked closely with Ingrid under the radar for years - there's a photo that she took of me and Stik in her book. I told her that I was going to create a memorial to her and she laughed. She asked me to do something else specific (just a couple weeks before she passed), as well, which I'm still struggling to do (can't say in public). There is a carved memorial stone to her in the floor of the Dulwich Picture Gallery outer hallway, plus they had a memorial event for her, but it would be nice to have a Street Art memorial mural out in the community and ED Station would be the perfect location. I didn't think the choices were that great, either, which is why I'm trying to direct this into something positive...

You both have a good point... I spoke to Matt Hill at the time about the viability of my Smiley Face proposal and he explained that there were new highways technical specifications in place which obstructed councillors from approving the Smiley Faces. So, our new councillors would have to find a way to circumvent this, which I believe is possible, starting with talking to Matt Hill (who is actually a good guy). The main problem at the time, which I stated several times on this Forum, was that a stupid amount of funding was allocated to consulting and "addressing" perceived speeding issues on Melbourne Grove instead of the verified speeding issues on Barry Road. Matt Hill actually wrote an internal recommendation that measures weren't needed for Melbourne Grove (which was published on this forum), but this recommendation was overridden by councillors. In order to be fair, I tried to set up a Community Road Watch program in Melbourne Grove, in order to gather data with local residents, but the police decided that this would be a waste of resources, so I wasn't able to do it. I stopped keeping track, after approx ?50,000, of how much the Melbourne Grove issues cost to assess/consult/implement. In the end, the full width speed humps, upgraded from the cushions, haven't made much difference at all... I personally still witness road rage incidents on Melbourne every week due to the unresolved genuine issues. So, the key is that, during times of reduced budgets, councillors need to be clear on where and how to spend limited council funding... and, last I saw, Barry Road was still listed on the Roadwatch priority list. It won't be easy to find a solution to Barry Road, but I still believe that there are a variety of ways to address it. Just don't get me started on how CGS funds have been wasted over the years... maybe it's best to move forward with our newly elected councillors, who seem to mean well and genuinely want to help.

Actually, Ingrid Beazley's theme was specifically to reinterpret pictures from the Dulwich Picture Gallery as Street Art in order to draw young peoples' interest into traditional gallery art. So, if you genuinely want to follow in Ingrid's footsteps, then the best way forward would be to brief the winner to recreate a Mural based on a Dulwich Picture Gallery work. Or, even an better idea be would be to create a street art work based on an image of Ingrid, to serve as a memorial in the area to her passion. Several of us have talked about trying to commission a street art memorial to Ingrid... so maybe this is the perfect opportunity??

Having stood there for hours on end for over two years with a handheld speed gun, it's fairly clear what's happening. Firstly, there are local residents who get frustrated with the stopping and starting and will therefore rev up in certain sections to 30-40mph (or higher during low traffic volumes) in between waiting for buses to stop and traffic lights. Then, ironically, there are a lot of out of town residents (Bromley was a surprising regularly mentioned location where drivers used Barry as a cut through) who were unaware that this was a 20mph zone because it's so badly labelled (even the new roundels on the road weren't that noticeable). So, to address the issues, the council would have to put at least two cameras on both sides of the road, which would amount to 4 cameras in total, including capital and revenue costs for the cameras themselves and electricity to power them, which probably wouldn't be earned back by speeding ticket revenue. Basically, the road is just too fiddly. The reason I went for the Smiley Face cameras in the first instance was to increase awareness, as this seems to help... but highway engineers weren't convinced that this would be effective enough (although the one on Herne Hill appears to work fairly well, in my opinion). The only other way to address speeding issues is by using "organic" means, such as speed humps and raised junctions, which make noise and cause damage to properties, which is why residents (even pedestrians) are so opposed. The best organic means of speed control is actually pedestrian islands (such as the ones on Red Post Hill) as they create a useful slalom effect (as well as making it easier for pedestrians to cross the road, yay), but they take out a significant amount of local parking, which is counterproductive in a residential area. There was a significant study done for the cycle highway a couple of years ago, but only for the section from Lordship (including the dysfunctional main signal junction which we have all campaigned to get redesigned for over a decade) to Friern, which has been impossible to get any public information on. But this section is now in Dulwich Hill ward. So, in the first instance, I still think that the 20mph Smiley Faces (which are cheaper than proper speed cameras) at the top and bottom of both sides of the road would be the best interim way forward if the councillors can talk Matt Hill into forking out the funds. p.s. Average speed cameras don't work on roads like Barry and Lordship because of the way that the stopping and starting issues affect the averaging calculations.

FYI, I actually set up the Police Community Speed Monitoring program on Barry Road a couple of years ago after representations were made at a local ED Safer Neighbourhood Panel meeting. This are the sessions that Charlie Smith frequently attended with me. Unfortunately it is a requirement that local residents attend these sessions, but I couldn't get local residents to attend regularly enough and it was difficult for me to keep walking over there from Melbourne Grove for a two hour session, so I gave up after a couple of years and the sessions were cancelled. But we gathered enough data to identify the problem and multiple solutions (James is correct about the speed camera issues above, it all gets very technical), but kept hitting dead ends. For instance, I put in a CGS bid to re-install the neon 20mph Smiley Face signs along the route, but this bid was declined. I have a huge amount of information about this which I'm happy to share if it helps to speed up a solution (argh, no pun intended), although I'd prefer not to type for hours on the forum (where there are actually several threads about these issues), so I'll put this on my ever increasing list of issues to update the new ward councillors on. Just bear in mind that the ward boundaries have now changed, so I'm not sure where the border of Goose Green and Dulwich Hill is (I'm in GG), therefore you'll probably have to work in tandem with Dulwich Hill cllrs. Plus there's also a proposed Cycling Route planned for the top (Lordship) end of Barry Road which will affect speeding issues in that section, so the right hand and the left hand will need to communicate.

Glad to hear that the noise team responded so efficiently, that's half the battle!

Where in Melbourne Grove was this, Countrlass22? The acoustics around here tend to amplify sound in such a weird way that I normally hear everything at my end (towards Lordship), but I didn't hear it last night. It looked like there was party near me last night, but the back garden of the relevant house would have echoed across the nearby housing estate into the direction of the G&Ts (which is where I think you live?). Otherwise there could have been another one further down Melbourne towards East Dulwich Grove? Residents in this area need to be extra considerate after 11pm, because they don't realise how the sound tends to bounce around at night.

Thanks for the description ak100, it was actually helpful... I tend to see bits and pieces as I walk everywhere, so any info is useful. FYI, the MPS Southwark twitter account posted that they arrested 2 burglars in SE22 last night, both of which were wanted for several incidents, so hopefully this will make an impact. We should all keep reporting, though...

Really sorry to hear this, too... it would be useful if you could post descriptions so that we can all keep our eyes peeled?

No probs... it sounds like we're all in the same boat! This forum is a good way of communicating...

Hmm, James... it's interesting that the above planning committee meeting is scheduled on the same night as the DCC meeting, as either you and Rosie will have to choose between the two meetings or else split.

Hi civilservant, I would suggest that you phone 101 and get a reference number - phoning in the morning is easier as the lines aren't as busy. My understanding is that it is a criminal offence which can generate a fine if a licensed security guard isn't present with a guard dog and a notice displayed. So either the police attended, hence the change in circumstances, or else someone monitoring this forum or even from the bar tipped off the garage that someone was asking questions. Either way, the police should get back to you.

My meter is with British Gas as well, but I call in readings which are subsequently verified once or twice a year by meter readers. When I called to report the meter failure, which I noticed during a reading, British Gas' customer service was so bad at handling the replacement booking that I subsequently went to complaint, whereupon they gave me compensation. Sue, I would suggest that you call your gas company to report the noises, just to be sure, as some meters will start to generate random readings as they fail and you could end up being charged for extreme usage, if a possible problem isn't logged at the time, as you won't be able to "prove" that you didn't use the volume of gas shown on the meter. They will probably want to send an engineer out to do a safety check at minimum.

I found a status alert on the TfL site... it states:- "From 08:00 Monday 05 March until 16:00 Thursday 29 March route P13 will be on diversion via Lordship Lane and will not be serving Whateley Road, Underhill Road due to roadworks. Towards Streatham catch bus from North Cross Road or from Grove Tavern. Towards New Cross catch bus from Lordship Lane Estate on Dulwich Common or from Melbourne Grove." Fyi, the Melbourne Grove bus stop going north (towards Goose Green) is actually in front of the Picturehouse Cinema/gym... So, it looks like the bus won't stop at the interim Lordship bus stops unless you beg the driver.

Ah, cool... I've been trying to find out for about three weeks if they are doing the raised entry treatment on Whateley! No one ever answers the phone number on the traffic notices. I didn't think to ask the P13 driver where he's stopping while on diversion when I rode it this morning, I just got off at Sogim to be sure. All he would say was that he was "going straight up Lordship". I think Whateley is to be closed all week?

Am still trying to find out what's happening on Whateley... it's closed off now, but I can't tell if they're doing resurfacing or installing a raised crossing. No one ever answers the phone number on the traffic order notices...

Did you sort this out? Sounds like you may have an old meter. Mine died out of the blue just before Christmas... gas was still working, just not calculating usage. No funny noises, though. Bear in mind that if your supplier offers you a Smart Meter replacement, you don't have to accept it, you can have a normal one.

Any news??

You're totally correct, first mate. This could get interesting...

The SNT landlines automatically synchronise with the mobile device that the officers take with them out on patrol. Most residents prefer to call landline numbers because there's no charge. If they don't answer straight away then they're either not on duty or else busy doing something. Just leave a message and they'll usually call back as soon as possible. Otherwise, phone 101 and ask the operator to divert an internal computer message to the relevant SNT and also get a reference number to prove that you actually called in case things get complicated.

Oh, good... yes, please let me know what happens. If nothing else, the sergeant in that ward is one of the most community spirited SNT officers in the borough, so it's good to make contact.

Update... Lordship has been gritted, but was too cold to check the tree pits. Saw lots of gritting lorries while I was out, so it looks like the south of the borough is definitely on the radar now. Main roads are clear and it doesn't look like it's going to snow heavily tonight.

It might be worth talking to the local police SNT team and asking their advice, it doesn't hurt to ask. It looks like this location is in The Lane ward... hopefully the direct contact details of The Lane SNT haven't changed. Phone 020 8721 2769 (you may have to leave a message and wait for them to get back to you when they're on duty). Or email them and include a link to this thread, so they can see the community concern... the email address is TheLane.snt@met.police.uk