James Barber

Hi TheArtfulDogger, I have been transparent that I live on Champion Hill. If this scheme to stop A road levels of traffic on a non A road was implemented on another road I would still most likely be supportive - Friern Road two different road closures for example. We must collectively change out of our bad habits for sedentary transport choices that damaging local air pollution and the climate. The changes were implemented less than a month ago. Way too early to say this trial has been a success or failure. Road closures are a particularly good and cheap way of changing traffic patterns. Hugely successful towards making cycling so popular in Netherlands and Germany. And the partial closure of CH impacts negatively over 50% of ALL the journeys we make by car. Access to East Dulwich for us has always been by foot or bicycle. Consultation responses. Do you favour those living on a road or those who live elsewhere. Equally double yellow lines were imposed on Champion Hill E-W section against the wishes of local residents - to support the cycle quietway. These consultations have worked for and against CH residents. I look forward the ULEZ change in the CCZ and then pushing these out for the north and south circular with corresponding reduction in air pollution and traffic levels.

I used to make the journey from Champion Hill to Tulse Hill as only place we then found for a nursery place. With a pushchair I found the journey fine via E.Dulwich station to Tulse Hill and then took train to work in central London. This was easy enough and straight forward. I could have driven but I always found public transport much more fun with kids. We have air pollution problem, child and adult obesity problem and Climate Change disaster. These will only ever be solved by changing habits. This is a tiny nudge towards making those critical changes we all need to make for the good of ourselves, our children and if our children are going to have any chance of a decent future.

I agree with wulfhound.

East Dulwich and the wider Dulwich area are still defined as suburban.

I suspect that lack of simplicity is just another way of selection - selection of parents who are likely to ensure their children do their homework, turn up on time, etc.

hi Nigello, Where that is the norm what you're suggesting can work well. But where it would then dominate and overlook others it doesn't work well. Which is why Southwark has policies specifically aimed at not allowing what you've suggested in areas like East Dulwich.

The garages are 0.05 hectare. So that would be 10 to 17.5 rooms 18m frontage = circa 3 x typical Bassano Street homes. So 3 houses wide to deliver those 10 - 17.5 habitable rooms. 3 x houses x 3 bedroom each(1 attic bedroom) would be at the top end of the acceptable range.

Hi talfourdite, I get the feeling we should all be able to driving our children to school if we so wish. On a practical note... Local primary schools maximum admissions distance home to school typically 300-1100m. Secondary schools typically circa 1,250m. These distance are easily walkable for 99% of children. Thankfully the majority do not drive their children to school else we'd have even higher traffic and pollution levels. Given the choice most children prefer walking, cycling, scootering to school. And in Southwark we have a child obesity epidemic. Unless parents are ensuring lots of exercise, outside of driving their kids to school, they may well be doing their children physical harm by restricting their activity levels. And also harming other peoples children from increased air pollution.

Hi sarvester, After chasing via Lib Dem councillors I've obtained this for 'on time' applications for secondary school places: " The data below relates to Southwark residents only and will be used to produce London-wide statistics that form the basis of the Pan London press statement, coordinated by London Councils, that will be released at 5pm today. ? All 3,048 of Southwark?s on-time secondary school, applicants have been offered a school place for September 2019. ? 2,742 (90.0%) applicants have received a place at a secondary school of their first to sixth preference ? 2,530 (83.0%) applicants have received a place at a secondary school of their first to third preference . ? 1,813 (59.5% ) families received a first preference school. ? 306 (10.0%) families without a preference have been offered an alternative school. ? 3,042 (99.8%) of Southwark applicants submitted an on time online application this year. " This doesn't compare will to London or England. Stats across councils and nationally will be available from April and summarised by Dept For Education in June - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/715650/2018_School_Application_Offers_Text.pdf 2018 secondary school offer day 82.1% offered first choice secondary school in England vs. 59.5% this year in Southwark, 93.8% across England offered fist 1-3 choices vs. 83.0&% in Southwark. Was this what you were looking for?

Hi Passiflora, I specifically stated a Lib Dem will be there. Baffled how you have morphed that into no Lib Dem will be there! Hi geh, gerry, My understanding is four storey building are now being proposed. Contrary to my original officer discussions. The current Core Strategy from 2011 p57 states area should remain suburban - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwiuvIDRsffgAhWMDOwKHToSCKoQFjABegQICBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fassets%2Fattach%2F1675%2F1.0.2%2520DL%2520Core_Strategy_2011.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1_K9P70Ij7_TRp_BgcGLrl p.78 shows that East Dulwich issei's in the Suburban Density Zone Middle. Definition of Suburban Density in Southwark can be found on p.79 stating 200-350 habitable rooms per hectare. Sizes of room and outdoor space are requirements. So four storey building there would breach these room range without the excuse of being on top of a station for example. Southwark Council will argue it's next to the church hall which is high. But of course we wouldn't expect homes to be as tall as churches! Details of home design and repeat of suburban definition p.8 here -https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1811/1.0.4.1%202015_Technical_Update_to_the_Residesign_SPD__2011_.pdf

You are very welcome. I'm just sorry it took quite so long to be delivered and finally delivered 9 months after I stopped being one of the local councillors. Still a few more projects bubbling along to completion from my Councillor days...

Hi Pugwash, if you email I will seek to get this sorted.

Hi Passiflora, As the then local councillor I was focused on East Dulwich and then wider Southwark. hi very, The scheme proposed is an over development for the site. It breaks The Southwark Plan - councils planning bible - ignoring the area Suburban designation. I hope others joining me in seeking to get an appropriately sized scheme that meets the councils own policies. Bother. I can't make the new April date and nor can former Councillor Rosie Shimell. I will get another Lib dem activist to attend.

It was me that suggested these garages be considered for a council housing development to help in a tiny way towards resolving the housing crisis.

I guess one problem is the destination giving a rider the ability to really secure their bike.

Yes, we East Dulwich Lib Dem councillors introduced this scheme a number of years ago. Do tell other bikers about it as it does reduce the risk of having motorbikes theft.

This is all within the Parks department. And I agree MarkT, the cost and profit should at least be kept within parks.

Champion Hill has 922 adults on the electoral roll in 453 homes. So with children and people not on the electoral roll likely to be 1,200 people. This makes interesting read - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/health-and-wellbeing/public-health/health-and-wellbeing-in-southwark-jsna/southwark-profile Hi ITATM, The northern pavement E-W section starts wide at DKH and then rapidly diminishes all the way to the very eastern end. Vast majority is narrow both sides.

hi blah blah, WE own a car. We've had to replace it due to the ULEZ as it was a 2012 diesel. We understand the cost of motoring on a persona level and reading various report societal level. We are trying to change our habits but it isn't always easy to change. This RAC chart is telling on this issue - https://www.racfoundation.org/data/cost-of-motoring-index

Hi Bagpipes, The reasons the experimental TMO is that it takes several months for things to settle back down again. So I think it premature to view the current situation as how things will ultimately settle. hi sera, I don't understand your assertions. Champion Hill E-W section has narrow road lanes and narrow pavements with no cars parked between the pavements and the car lanes. The other roads you've suggested as being more dangerous do have parked car between wider pavements and the wider car lanes. So how is it more dangerous? Air pollution will reduce from 1 April when the ULEZ rules in the Congestion charing one apply - we'll see less traffic the degree I'm uncertain about but it will be less. Also, it is very early to see the current situation as anything other than a transition until people get used to the change and the numerous road works badly coordinated by the council come to an end.

Hi heartblock, Over that same period the population of London has increased by 2 million people form 6.8 to 8.8million. I would suggest that is the largest contributor to the problem. The forecast is another 2 million will be added in the next 25 year.s I would argue that is unsustainable but as things stand this is extremely likely to happen. Even keeping exactly the same traffic levels that suggests a quarter of current car users have to give up using cars or all current car users have to reduce their car mileage and ownership by a quarter. That's just to stand still.

Hi Blah Blah, Central government have been reducing the central government part of local councils funding for the last 16 years to my knowledge. Hi Jacqui5154, Owning and running a car is now the cheapest it has been for a couple of decades. Car ownership costs have not risen with inflation. Taxation on fuel has been frozen for many years. Yes, sadly many do need a car, we've yet to redesign our society to far Climate Change. I don't like the detail of what's proposed or the pricing but doing nothing generally to fight Climate Change urgency isn't an option.

Hi rupert, I'm not asserting this charge covers the cost of providing the parking - I've explicitly said it is way more than the cost incurred. What I've stated is the current council administrations position. The maintenance of the parks car parks is paid from from general council revenues. So those with and without cars are paying for that maintenance. But half the population have no access to cars. So the impact will be a proportion of the half who have enough money or inclination to own and run cars and drive them to parks. Regarding park staff. I don't know if they'll be charged. Perhaps worth asking one of the Labour councillors introducing this charge.

I thought this closure was about reducing traffic levels to make it safer to cycle along this section of London Cycle Network route no.23 and walk cycle Safe Routes To School. The E-W section of Champion Hill has narrow pavements, had A road levels of traffic, and no parked car to protect people from drivers. The air pollution is curious. Focus seems to be on NO2 levels but the research shows PM2.5's and below being the critical health factor with no safe levels.

Hi rupert, But those vehicles journeys are made through streets leaving air pollution outside the parks. The council report states the charge is to cover the cost of providing parking. 50% of Southwark homes have no access to cars and therefore currently subsiding costs to provide vehicle parking. But ?2ph is clearly significantly higher than the actual costs of providing the car parking even allowing for the lost utility of land occupied by stationary vehicles. I wish the plan was to use surpluses for local parks. At least park users paying such a charge would know it was beginning an uplift to parks. I also think the charge too high but understand Labour politicians not wanting to have to come back every year to increase it. The next increase would be after the next local election in 2022/3.