James Barber

Fab Malcolm. Well done. If anyone else has an idea for how to improve East Dulwich I'd encourage them to apply for a CGS capital grant - the council deliver the project - and I'd be delighted to offer any advice I can and provide advice about likely costs and whether as local councillors we would lend our support.

What bothers me is no safeguarding of a large enough construction site is taking place at Elephant&Castle. The map I have shows both tunnels currently terminate under the railway bridge at the very northern end of the Walworth Road. The obvious site to safeguard for the required construction IF the council genuinely wants it to come via Camberwell Peckham Rye abutt Elephant Road. Without such a construction site the costs will balloon and it's less likely to take place. Without such a site safeguarded petitions become so much politicl flim flam.

The lower the speed the less severe any consequent crash will be. soo all of the crashes will have some speed element.

Hi HelBel65, Entirely upto the freeholder. But I'd expect them to make a quick decision OR extend Iceland lease beyond January. But Iceland may decide with Xmas and New Year out of the way they'd prefer to not extend. So I'd expect the freeholder to get cracking deciding what they'd like to try next. Hi rch, Thanks for showing such a keen interest. The car wash does cause no end of issues for some Chesterfield Grove residents. So resolving those and potentially them relocating to less problematic location coudl be a win win. But that depends on some pretty big decisions and offers by the current land owners. Thankjs AbDabs. I agree with you all development isnt automatically good as Calsug postulates. HelBel65 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When will we find out?

Genuine question I'd welcome feedback on. Melbourne Grove between Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove is in two political wards. Village ward to the west and East Dulwich ward to the east. It has speed cushions already in place and is entirely residential. Northbound average speed 18.2mph but 85th percentil 22.4mph. That means 15% travel faster than 22.4mph. Southbound average speed 17.9mph but 85th percentil 21.7mph. That means 15% travel faster than 21.7mph. So 3 vehicles in every 20 driving at excessive speeds. Do you think we sohuld make this 20mph?

Hi silverfox, Why should I be ashamed? average speeds will come down to safer limits. Fewer people will be injured and the severity will reduce. Over the last five years the total costs for crashes on this section of Lordship lane are estimated to be ?1,332,045. This is based on DoT costs which are UK averages. I would suggest the acutal cost for London would be even higher. Often on this forum you suddenly see a thread that lordship Lane is closed for a number of hours while the mess from a crash is sorted out. We're all paying too high a price for such crashes and this measure of 20mph will help reduce it. But of course people who never get injured or killed never get to say thank goodness it was done. I think you should be asking why Village ward councillors have refused 20mph along the section of Melbourne Grove they share with East Dulwich ward. Mrs TP, The 20mph speed limit has meant many signs from side roads have been removed. Overall signage has been significantly reduce along that section of Lordship Lane.

Hi unlurked, NO I asked whether others on the forum agreed with people on the doorstep that the ares would benefit from a Waitrose or M&S. East Dulwich even on this forum was very divided.

20mph on Lordship Lane between Goose Green Roundabout and it's junction with southern end of Melbourne Grove opposite the now closed East Dulwich Police station. Hi richard tudor, You were walking along Grove Vale from its junction with northern end Melbourne Grove. You weren't on Lordship lane. Not ure about where you've said you spotted exiting 30mph. If it was close to the junction of Lordship Lane with Whateley Road/southern end of Melbourne Grove then that's correct. Hi spider69, Yes the majority were slight. But five were serious. The costs of these is huge according to DoT calculations. If you compare numbers and severity of crashes this now 20mph section of Lordship Lane has more than other local roads. DoT report https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9275/rrcgb2011-02.pdf states cost per minor crash per injured person at ?14,611 alone. or average cost per slight injury of ?23,136. So the annual cost over time of crashes along this section of Lordship lane is huge.

I have asked the head of parks about this issue. Whether people/groups booking have ot leave it in a tidy state. If not when wil lthey have this added. And if they do have this condition why it's no being enforced and how many people/groups are now banned from bookings due to the state they leave behind. Many thanks for raising it. Suspect it's a generic Southwark parks issue.

Hi malcolmchurch, I can just imagine how tricky this is - espeically when icy. A great way to make this happen is via Cleaner, Greener, Safer capital funding. I would really suggest you apply with this idea. https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=998 Please do email me when you've done OR if you're not minded to apply.

M&S were VERY specific that their shop would not generate more car journeys. Their experts stated the aresa currently didnt suffer parking stress. The Planning Inspector was clear that the M&S/freeholder assertions were likely to be wrong. Based on the evidence and the inspector seeing fo themsevles the aresa DOES suffer parking stress the appeal was refused. It was good work from Southwakr COuncil Planning Officers - well done to them - and local residents objecting. East Dulwich were delighted to play our part in this. After a refused planning application has been refused their is no further appeal process. An applicant can only take such a decision to court IF they think they can prove the prccess wasnt correctly followed. We know Waitrose are happy to use the Iceland shop as is when the Iceland lease ends January 2014 (Iceland don't want to pay the proposed rent increase). Worst case for those that want such a shop M&S walk away and we get a Waitrose in the New Year. Most lilkely scenarios is M&S accept the site as is.

The twinkly light failures were due to dodgy goods sold by Philips replaced at their expense. BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichFox Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > Like painting Bollards pretty colours and > carving > > Totem Poles. > > > > DulwichFox > > You forgot the twinkly lights outside the station > that need mending at huge expense

The new 20mph speed limit goes from goose green roundabout to Melbourne grove. This section of road does have a high incident rate of crashes. Please see www.crashmap.co.uk In our area it is one of the most collision prone in East Dulwich. Lordship Lanes further south does have crashes but not the same incidence rate and largely are junction design issues. As said before on this forum further south from the new 20mph speed limit area of Lordship Lane is the border between East Dulwich ward and Village ward. As Village councillors were unable to agree to Melbourne Grove between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane being 20mph despite the speed cushions already in place they were certainly not able to agree Lordship Lane from Melbourne Grove southward to become 20mph.

Hi Louise, Waitrose when I spoke with them were very clear they would be delighted to move in ASAP to the existing shop footprint. They think it's fine and they anticipated the planning result M&S experts failed to foresee.

M&S planinng appeal has been rejected by the planning inspector. Please do read the attached report for the full details.

Latest and please do read the attached for the full explanation. The M&S appeal has been refused.

Hi edhistory, No. Southwark Council transport officers told him he had to pay for such a bay to aid passenger drops off and pick ups as well as any shop deliveries/waste removal. They were explicitly told the previous garden centre arrangements of reversing into Railway Rise were not acceptable. Hi timein, I think supermarket is perhaps a little grand for the size of unit planned.

The new development with planning permission 2011 for the old garden centre categorically has a new grove vale library. It's taken significant effort to ensure this. I think the confusion is that the 2011 planning permission due to economic situation changed the scheme from 22 flats and a new library to 22 flats a new library and a shop unit. That shop unit has turned out to be Morrisons local because M&S and Waitrose didn't want to take the unit (too small for their ambitions for ED). The new library will be double the current library size. Hopefully it will feel bigger than that being one large space with outside if narrow terraces. BUT the library will be to the rear with a wide passage way to reach it and massive letters saying library. Is this sufficiently clear and answering your question?

It's that time of the year for cycle and traffic counts. They do this with a video survey apparently. " Dear ward Councillors, I am writing to advise you that between the 28th September and 13th October 2013 the Council will be undertaking cycling counts as part of our annual monitoring programme to see how travel is changing in our borough. These are undertaken via camera which will be installed in various locations in the borough including your ward (see attached map for locations). These videos will be used to count the number of pedal cyclists using that road and no other purpose i.e. enforcement. Should you get any resident enquiries over the next few weeks please feel free to inform them of the reason for the cameras or forward them on to me and I will be able to provide further information. "

Hi unlurked, I thought my responses dealt with whatever issue people have had problems with and explained how people could report matters themselves. Equally many people posting requests for help have tried the official channels and are escalating issues to me as their local councillor. For those that don't have or don't wish to have access to this forum we regularly print and deliver Focus leaflets and letters about specific issues, write a regular column for the SE22 magazine and we have posters on noticeboards. All detail how residents can contact us. All take considerable effort. Any volunteers to help? As for being CC'd on planning emails from residents. That's simply to know how people feel about a scheme and whether we've missed something we should have called-in for councillors to take the final decision rather than officers under delegated powers. The idea that planning officers would be intimidated by this is ridiculous. I also make no apologies for trying to shape and in my mind improve the area. Little point in being a councillor if you don't have a purpose or sense of direction. Still an awful lot to do but we've made massive strides even while in local opposition for the last three years. Now can we please all get back to local issues on this thread please.

Hi rahrahrah, Appeals such as that from M&S/freeholders normally take 6-8 the case officer tells me. Hi Jeremy, Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrisons suggests M Local format sell "...wider range of ready-to-eat hot food such as pastries, coffee, rotisserie, porridge and also a salad bar...". and ask anyone who appears under 27 years of age to show ID. I'd also suggest having an active store front should in theory make that area safer. Some pictures of an M Local store http://www.retail-week.com/stores/analysis-morrisons-convenience-format-m-local/5047853.article

Hi reddulwich, The primary purpose of this thread in the General Issues area of the forum is to help with casework. The lounge is normally reserved for political debate. Yes the national party is in coalition and it feels good to have Lib Dem policies and views implemented. Your comments could just as easilly be made for our actual MP Tessa Jowell. She voted for the orignal Labour introduced 'bedroom tax' which buggug and yourself didnt raise objections about on this forum. In some respects it's great to be in a political party people have such higher expectations e.g. student tuition fees where people hardly raised the issue when Labour broke exactly the same election manifesto pledge when in power.

Thanks everyone. You kind thoughts and comments are really appreciated. People at Kings were fab. Lady who helped picked me up and all stuff billowing everywhere was especially fab. Right ankle 5 or 6 double stiches (I was too wimpy to watch) are killing me despite the nurofen. I hadnt appreciated how painful it would be until the adrenalin reduced and local anesthetic subsided. Apparently I was very lucky with tendons and artery. Hobbling to work I REALLY have a sense for how useful dropped kerbs and accessible public transport are. So you'll all be glad to hear I wont be knocking on your door for a week or so. But I will be phoning people to see what's bothering them.

It is sad that when canvassing for every person who says to me they post o nthis forum, 9 say they feel too intimidated to post. For the record. The 'bedroom tax', which is a reduction in housing benefit for surplus spare bedrooms, was first introduced by Labour with respect to housing benefit related to privately rented accomodation. I don't recall buddug asking pointed questions of Labour councillors then. The tory part of the coalition have extended it to publicly owned accomodation. Lib Dems obtained a number of concessions related to armed force, disabled children, pensioners and I'm pleased to see the courts are extending these exemptions - most recent was far reaching about where a bedroom wasnt used as a bedroom but for medical purposes for a disabled adult. But the principal of encouraging people in publicly subsidised accomodation with spare bedrooms to move to smaller homes making way to those with terrible overcrowding seems reasonable to me. The nudge is a 14% reduction in housing benefit for 1 spare bedroom. If someone is living in a Southwark council home the 14% would equate to sround ?12pw which is a lot of money to someone on benefits. But renting home for ?92pw is something many can only dream about. The rules do allow a spare bedroom to be rented out for upto ?80pw tax free without loss of benefits. Locally this is compounded by the council targetting the sell-off of 1 and 2 bedroom council properties. Exactly the property sizes so many are now looking to move into from larger properties that so many others need due to overcrowding.

Many many thanks to the lady on Townley Road close to Lordship Lane end who came to my aid when I crashed earlier today. Fortunately after a big scare about tendons just a few stitches to an ankle. Eek and phew. Great treatment at Kings.