Zak

I understand that there's going to be some coverage of the proposed East Dulwich CPZ and it's impact on the local economy on the 6.30pm Regional News on BBC 1. Several of local traders from Lordship Lane are expected to be interviewed. I wonder if there will be anyone from Southwark Council there to explain how committed they are to supporting local businesses! Interestingly, earlier today, the House of Commons Housing Communities & Local Government Committee published a report about the future of high streets. One of their Recommendations is; "We recommend that action is taken at local level to create visionary strategies for high streets and town centres which have the backing of the local community, to support local traders,to facilitate parking and to develop the role of place partnerships" Is Southwark listening?

Hi James, Reading the previous post prompts me to ask you some questions about how the current opaque consultation and decision making process which is being carried out, in contrast to the previous democratic East Dulwich CPZ Consultation in 2011/12 Judging by what appears in the consultation documentation, the decision making process which Southwark are adopting, following the end of the consultation, is barely, if at all,open to public scrutiny: - The Officers analyse the consultation results - They present a internal report to the responsible Cabinet Member - Richard Livingstone - with their recommendations and - The cabinet member makes a decision about what should happen in terms of proceeding with the CPZ. Compare this with what happened last time, in 2011/12, when Southwark carried a CPZ consultation in East Dulwich: - The officers analysed the results - They produced a report which was a public document (see attached), for everyone to see and discuss & - The results in the report were formally discussed and debated at the relevant Community Council meetings with councillors before any decision was taken. Councillor Peter John even wrote a letter pledging not to implement a CPZ unless there was a majority in favour of it (see attached). There wasn't a majority in 2011/2 and the CPZ wasn't implemented. In view of this departure from a democratic decision making process: - Can you tell us, why a similarly transparent/democratic decision making process has not been adopted this time? - Will you undertake to raise the matter with the Leader ( Peter John) and press for the results of the consultation to be made public and properly discussed through the relevant Community Councils before, any decisions about implementing CPZs are made?

Yes, the drop-in was rather shambolic. Furthermore, the decision making process which Southwark have adopted, following the end of the consultation, is now not at all transparent: - The Officers analyse the consultation results - They present a report to the responsible Cabinet Member - Richard Livingstone - with their recommendations and - The cabinet member makes a decision about what should happen in terms of the CPZ. Compare this with what happened last time, in 2011/12, when Southwark carried a CPZ consultation in East Dulwich: - The officers analysed the results - They produced a report which was a public document, for everyone to see and discuss & - The results in the report were formally discussed and debated the relevant Community Council meetings with councillors Councillor Peter John even wrote a letter pledging not to implement a CPZ unless there was a majority in favour of it (see attached). There wasn't a majority in 2011/2 and the CPZ wasn't implemented. Southwark Council obviously learnt a lesson from that rather democratic approach!

Many of us rely on the people working in various local services (eg: schools, health services) and local businesses (shop workers) to run the Peckham West/East Dulwich local economy - which makes it such a good place to live. Some of them may have no alternative but to travel by car to work, in order to service our community. Public transport has its limits. However, there seems to be no recognition of their contribution, or their needs, in Southwark?s proposals for granting permits ? which nevertheless allow for up to three permits per domestic household. How will that discourage car usage? Businesses can only buy permits ?for vehicles essential to their business? (at ?577, which is almost x 4 the cost of residential permits) and there?s no provision for staff needing to commute. A local councillor at the public meeting on 12th January convened by the Dulwich Society said ? Southwark are absolutely committed to making things better for both residents and the local economy.? Will that happen? If you share any of these concerns then you might like to raise these issues with Southwark, when you reply to the Consultation. If they?re really committed to looking after residents, then they should take positive steps to enable the local economy to thrive rather than marginalising it. It would be terrible if the price of protecting parking for residents and improving the environment were to result in undermining our local services and vibrant local businesses.

Lobsters.............. Actually, if anyone is really concerned about animal cruelty on Lordship Lane, then they should think about challenging Moxoms about the lobsters they hold captive on their counter and challenge anyone who buys one, intending to kill it by immersing it in boiling water!

I noticed today that the caf? in the Leisure Centre has gone all healthy and has started stocking a range of very nice looking food from an outfit called CRUSSH. Unlike the previous fare, it may be difficult to resist. Has anyone tried it?

Yes, we've also been told by the Southwark Clinical Commissioning Group that they have told the surgery to "retract" the notice, which they've given to patients who are outside their practice boundary. This of course should result in their writing round to everyone affected and informing them of the new position. However we've had no communication from them and I imagine that's the case for everyone else. Call me a cynic, but if they were to drag their feet for long enough, then they'd probably get the result they want - which is that people will find themselves a new doctor, thinking that they've only got a month to do so before they're left without a GP. We await their letter!

I've just spoken to a primary care commissioning manager at Southwark Clinical Commissioning Group ( 020 7525 9888) and she's going to get in touch with the practice to ascertain exactly what's happening. If you're affected, then do get in touch with the CCG and flag up your concerns about the way the practice has behaved.

We've just had a letter from the Forest Hill Group Practice to say that because we now live outside the new(?) boundaries within which the practice operates, we can no longer be one of their patients and must find another doctor. A bit of a shock after 30 years! There's been no prior warning of this and we've got 4 weeks to find another doctor, before they send our records to the health authority. Had we been away when the letter arrived, it might have only amounted to two or three weeks! Based on a bit of research, as far as I can see if you decide to move outside of their boundary then they can do this to you without any warning, but I'm not sure they can do it without warning if you haven't actually moved. In most other circumstances GPs are required to provide prior notification of what they intend to do. Has this happened to anyone else? Does anyone know if they are following NHS Procedures correctly? Zak

I understand that Plastic Free Dulwich are organising another street clean at 11.30am on 11th November - meet-up at Rye Books on Northcross Road, in order to take part. You can find out more about the Dulwich Plastic Free Initiative eight posts above, from the guy behind it - Ric Baldock. [email protected]

How about taking the train from East Dulwich Station to Streatham (9 minutes) and then getting a 118 bus from Streatham High Road(opposite the ice rink),which stops pretty much outside the ground (approx.30 mins.) Why aren't there any directions on the club website? very strange..............

In case anyone is thinking of snapping up one of the new flats going up next to ED station, take a look at the attached picture. From the outside it looks like they are properly built with bricks - as you might expect. But in fact the visible brickwork is simply a "brick skin", somehow attached to the exterior cladding which encases the building. What you see here is the damage caused by a lorry which brushed the side of the building. They look quite smart, but don't be fooled!

It seems that Colour Makes People Happy has decamped to somewhere in Sussex. Meantime, the shop has been bought by someone who is understood to want to use it to promote creative enterprises of one sort or another. It's currently hosting a very talented artist, as part of the Dulwich Festival - worth going along to see. Next door is no longer Clothes For Causes, but is being run by a couple of guys who are doing great things with up-cycling furniture - at very reasonable prices. Zak

Looks like the shop on Grove Vale has closed. It seemed to open very erratically. Did it make anyone happy?

James, Despite your protestations about the cost of postage and needing email addresses, the bottom line is that it seems as if you've used your "opinion poll" as a exercise to harvest data regarding people's political preferences ahead of the forthcoming election, which seems completely inappropriate. What's more why exactly do you need to carry out on online opinion poll, when there's already a proper consultation procedure at the disposal of the council. A cynic, would say that you just want to try and find out which side to back!

?125 each year for a permit..........and doubtless rising! ?49 for 10 vouchers for visitors @ c?5 a throw ...........do pop over to see us! More permits issued than available parking spaces ...........don't imagine that you're guaranteed a space! It feels very much like a form of additional local taxation. So....... NO to a CPZ!!

I wonder how many people remember seeing Peter Crouch playing for Dulwich Hamlet. Yes, it's true! It was in 2000. Dulwich had a centre forward who interested Spurs and in order to secure his services, they offered a pre-season friendly( I believe) and lent us Peter Crouch for 6 games. At that point he'd not broken into the Spurs 1st team and as I remember, it looked like he never would! He loped around the opposition's box for 6 games and scored one goal. But how wrong I was! Oh yes......our centre forward - pretty much never heard of again. Zac

Just found their website https://www.labonnebouffe.co.uk/

It seems that the restaurant located in the old Pretty's caf? will be opening shortly. We bumped into the head chef yesterday, as they were in the process of stocking up, and he told us that it's opening on 12th January. It looks like they've spent quite a bit on fitting it out and from peering in through the door it looks promising. I can't remember what it's called - can anyone help with that?

We had two gold fish living happily in our garden pond, but sadly one has suddenly died. Is there anyone out there with a fish that they'd like to have rehomed? It's a nice pond with a net to protect the fish from herons and any other predators. They get very well fed. Our fish would be doubtless delighted if a new mate were suddenly to arrive. Let us know if you have a surplus fish! Zak

Yes, this is really good news - a lovely piece of East Dulwich saved from cynical redevelopment.

I rang the Planning Inspectorate today and discovered that they have received over 100 objections/comments via their portal - which must be pretty good going! In addition, there will be further representations that were sent to them by post. Let's hope they take notice!

I've just been re-reading the Developer's case to the Planning Inspectorate and came across the following claim: "2-3 Railway Rise are currently tired in appearance and in need of some repair and refurbishment in their current unattractive state they have a neutral or negative contribution to the street scene and the design quality of the area...." (p13 of his submission) How could anyone take that view - other than the developer. It's patently untrue and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it! If you haven't already objected, then don't leave it to other people - there's still another day, and a bit, to go. The Planning Inspectorate in Bristol really shouldn't be misled in this way! You can simply email your objection to: [email protected] with the case reference number 3135088 & make it FAO of Hazel Stanmore-Richards, the case officer Or go via the Inspectorate's on-line portal https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3135088

Just in case anyone is planning to submit an objection tomorrow via the Planning Inspectorate Portal, sometime between 8am-8pm, you need to know that they're closing it down for maintenance during that period However, I've spoken to someone at the PI and apparently you can email the case officer directly as an alternative. The email address is [email protected] They also told me that people should include in the header line of the email her name: FAO Hazel Stanmore-Richards and the case reference number 3135088

I've checked with the Planning Inspectorate today and everyone has right up until the end of Sunday 17th January (11.59pm!) to submit their objections via the on-line portal. This link takes you straight to the page: just click the blue button on the top right that says MAKE REPRESENTATION and start by filling in your details, clicking Save & Continue as you go along. https://acp.planningportal.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3135088 If you're writing in by post, then of course it will need to arrive by Saturday.