James Barber

Hi Fuschia, The rules barring local councils from creating schools is generally bizaarre. This daftness started under Tony Blair's premiership many years ago - it is nothing new - but unfortunately has continued under Michael Gove. Tony Blair wanted new academies to be created, Michael Gove free acadamies - practically very nearly the same thing. The main difference is how Michael Gove has made the Dept of Education deliver his policies. One ray of sunshine is the Localism Bill where a local council in theory could apply for the right to open new schools. The government would probably apply the filter to this of whether a local council was getting good results in its schools.

An application has been made for convenience store at L&I News 323 Underhill Road to sell alcohol from 6am to 11pm 7 days a weeks. Licence application 840150. Please see attached ot follow this link: http://app.southwark.gov.uk/licensing/licenseregister.asp If you are for or against this you have until 11 February to tell council licensing officials - [email protected] Please do let me know what you think.

Hi David, I'm sorry you feel so aggrieved but I don't follow your logic. Harris have not been imposed on you. If you choose not to send your children there they won't go there. But sufficient parents have come forward to fill its intake for 2014, 2015, 2016 and amazingly a good proportion of 2017. The good thing about a new local school is that it will ensure we have enough places for all our local children. So it's less likely parents would have to from necessity send their children to a school they don't want to use.

Hi LauraW, I have no conflict of interest or area of benefit and it does not 'smack of corruption' as you suggest. Harris Federation is a registered charity.

Paxton Green Roundabout consultation is currently taking place: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200431/street_improvements/2584/paxton_green_roundabout_improvements Effectively it's to make it a little more goose Green like - hopefully the end product will be much more Goose Green like reclaiming lots of unnecessary tarmac. Whatever your view please do take part in the consultation.

The number 63 find it hard to turn in any snow is really down to ward councillors ensuring this site is in Southwark's gritting plan. As the-e-dealer is pointing out buses are routed over Dog Kennel Hill which is equally steep - and apart from dodging meteors they run except in the most severe conditions when Lordship Lane buses struggle anyway.

Hi Ladydeliah, But they must teach evolution by natural selection - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20547195

Hi EDownunder, Most I've spoken to are Goose Green. But I've clearly not spoken to everyone!

The permanent expansions proposed are places like Langbourne school. That school currently is one form entry and undersubscribed. It's a really tricky place to get to - and the head is wonderful. Some of the schools like Ivydale taking buldge classes are really struggling being asked for a second year in a row to bulge. Renata we didnt have chaos in 2009. Locally we had one bulge class due to GLA forecasters not spotting a small bulge. 2016 is a whole new ball game. Stop being ostrich like.

Hi Lauraw, Tony Blair put an end to local councils building or opening new schools. Either we have more primary schools OR bulge every local scholols ever year. The ideal size of a primary school is 2 or 3 form entry. So bulge schools to the degree required on a permanent basis will damage children;s education. So on the basis we need more places and I dont want to damage our kids education we looked around for school providers. of Harri's 10 ofsted inspected schools 9 went strsight to outstanding and the 10th to good. This level of performance is above any local education authority. If I was a cyncial politican I could have sat on my hands and then said how terrible lLAbour was for relying solely on bulge classes and how terrible the results were becoming. Hi bemusedED, I'm sorry to alarm you. Not my intention. By 2016 the forecast is that we need up to another 90 primary places pa in Dulwich and another 135 in the wider area. Many children from the wider area already use Dulwich school mostly Eat Dulwich schools. That demand in 2016 would require 7 or 8 bulge classes. So we (ED councillors) have been encouragin gthE judith Kerr primary school to locate in East Dulwich and they start in 2013. We've also approahced a number of education providers but Harris were by far the most helpful and successful track records. They would, application going well, start 2014. IF we show sufficient parental demand potential another second Harris school starting 2015. At that point we wonuldnt need any more bulge classes. Other such as cllr Hamvas have said we don't need any more schools and that we can bulge our way out of it permanently.

This gives the background. http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2012/12/04/new-primary-schools-for-se22/ Local councils can;t build new schools - havent been able to since Tony Blair's education lasw. The coalition have added the name to academies but in essence the same thing with knobs on. Either we find an education provider/s to build 2-3 new primary schools in our area or existing schools will have more bulge classes than is good to maintain existing let alone improve standards. After a lot of searching we think Harris is the best by far. Them provisding places will also enable tie in with their secondary school places. As caroandcj have pointed out their a long standing thread in the family discussion area.

Hi TonyQuinn, That's a bit unfair - all the main parties accept major cut were and are required. What is cut and how are the points being debated. I agree with Renata that TfL will take a lot of persuading to extend the no.63. The best way is to undertake a study forecasting passenger numbers and revenue. We all think it would be self funding. TfL need convincing. Officers estimated for me that such a study would cost ?5,000-?10,0000. So I've highlighted here that TfL gives Southwark ?100,000 pa to spend on any transport issue. So a tiny part of that could fund such a study - exploring the concerns highlights raised. Or the ward councillors could use some of their devolved revenue funding for such a study. So if you want the extension email Renata asking her as ward councillor to use devolved budget for study and or email cllr [email protected] to use some of is devolved TfL transport spend on such a study. Further post here are interesting but won't make push the extension along. Take some direct action.

Hi Renata, I missed the last Dulwich Community Council as was my youngest's Christmas concert. So please stop telling me I should have been to a meeting I could not attend. I read all papers from meeting whether I can attend or not and pass comments to colleagues. Expanding Langbourne is a fine idea but it's already under subscribed as a one form entry school. It's a location few can easilly reach. It therefore doesnt solve any problem. The shortage of primary school places of up to 235 places comes from the CAbinet report 20 November - http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g4248/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2020-Nov-2012%2016.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=10 page 92-100. A proprtion of the Camberwell shortage of 3 to 4 forme entry (90-120) will imapct the Dulwich area as it borders and some of the Peckham and Nunhead wont impact our area because its not so close. So overall they probably even out roughly. Hence why we have a shortage in the south Southwark are of up to 235 places. Glad to see you are now agreeing free schools is part of the answer. Hallelujah.

Hi LondonMix, My understanding is up to 235 extrs places will be needed by 2016. Harris have applied for one two form entry school. But I will during the interview stage ask about expanding it to three form entry ie. 90 extra places pa. We're still looking for supporters so that we can potentially apply for a second Harris primary school. Judith Kerr with 50 places will hopefully settle on East Dulwich or Peckham Rye area. IF all three things come to pass we'll have something between 170 and 230 new primary school places. The alternative plan from the current council is to have 7 or 8 bulge classes in the area every year. Which with only 10 schools would soon swamp those schools and see performance dive.

Hi Minder, I meant points D & E in the admissions code. But I also hope that the school will be established in ED. In our wider area we need an extra 235 primary school places by 2016. This school owuld provide 50 of them. Yes, sufficient families (89) have given their support to this school so the government agency has given the go ahead.

Hi David, Sorry, I'm being terribly pragmatic. I'm a local councillor. Since Tony Blair introuced Academies they've been the only show in town. Whether I like them or not my personal preference will have no impact on the national policy. BUT I and my colleagues could have said we wont work with them, etc. The outcome insufficient good primary school places for local residents OR the Labour led Southwark proposals of ever more bulge classes in schools that can longer cope with them. Now as it happen I was personally dead against academies and the more recent free school flavour of them. And you're right no evidence to suggest academies are universally a good thing - quite the opposite. You have to consider who is planning to open a school and what their track record is. Hence why I'm delighted we persauded Harris Federation to apply to create a new primary school once we found sufficient local support. Of the 10 schools they've started and that have been rated by Ofsted 9 went straight to outstanding and having met the chief executive several times I'm clear he was pretty miffed that the tenth was 'only' rated good. In their application they've set themselves the target of being in the top 10% of primary schools for attainment and pupil progression. If Southwark were able to create new primary school their is no way a politician of whichever party running Southwark would have been brave enough to set such a target. So I'm now a supporter of free school and academies when the provider is going to produce a really good school and set and from their track record meet really high targets. As for Local Authorities. Under the Localiam act their is nothing to stop them applying to central government for the ability to create new schools. If my group were in power we would apply. But I'm pretty clear we'd also be working closely with excellent providers who can create great schools rather than bulging beyond good results for our children.

The formal consultation phase 1 has been launched for the proposed Judith Kerr Primary School. http://www.jkps.org.uk/consultation-phase-i/ I would encourage East Dulwich residents to comment. They're effectively asking whether we want one in SE22, admissions codes - I've prefer point E to be dropped and point D be 100%. Please do respond to the online consultation.

I would suggest reading the actual report: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/6933673/130109%20-%20Academies%20Commission/Academies_commission_report%20FINAL%20web%20version.pdf My understanding is that the Harris Federation is one of the chains referenced as being stunningly successful.

Hi Fuschia, Attached is a copy of my objection to a new shop at 41-43 East Dulwich Road. A nursery from a transprot perspective is mostly busy when the Dulwich Leisure Centre is quieter and vice versa. So combined I don't think they'll have impact. But a shop is likely to be busy when DLC is busy - Saturday's etc. Hence why I have a differnt view for each of the two applications.

The planning application for new 100+ nursery places at Crown House, 41-43 East Dulwich Road was refused by Southwark Council but the applicant has appealeded it. It was refused as the council doesnt think they've made enough efforts to lease it as office spaces portecting local employment. And also no transport report. The former is odd as with such huge shortages of nursery places many are unable to go back to work. So this feels a red herring or illconceived. The transport issues interesting. When the council applied next door it was allowed BUT on the condition they produce a Travel Plan. So I've contacted the planning inspector who will decide the appeal supporting the application IF a condition for a Travel Plan is added. The planning inspector can be contacted at: [email protected] reference APP/A5840/A/12/2185756/NWF What's very frustrating is that until May 2012 this planning application would have been decided by the dulwich Community Council but instead council officers miles away made the decision - wrongly in my mind.

At the Council Assembly debate it was suggested that a transport survey was required to provided evidence the no.63 being extended would make sense. It was estimated this would cost around ?10,000. So that Friday I made a Cleaner, GReener, Safer application to the local ward councullors for that sum for that survey. Equally ward councillors could make such an application and indeed allocation. If they think it's importat, and I hope they do, they'll fund this survey which should help prove it would be used. The ball's in their court.

it was meant to be July'12 but now Jul'13.

Hi Dopamine1979, When you move in neighbours don't know you so don't keep an eye out for you and your stuff. You're not as aware of an area and you don't have drilled habits of locking doors and windows. Best things people do when moving in is invite neighbours round for a pleasant drink. The quicker you know your neighbours the safer usually you'll be.

I removed the one outside our house the day I moved in. They shout 'burgle me'. The first siz months of moving somewhere you're at significantly more risk of being burgled.

When the original lease was being proposed a colleague and I were not convinced. It was arranged for us to have a long session with the council's finance director and seperately council leader. We felt things would change with the Shard developement/More London settling down, other riverside developments. We were also concerned that with each rent review the lease would get ever more expensive during it's 25 years. Moving Southwark's HQ to Tooley Street rather than supporting the Elephant & Castle regeneration didn't feel ideal. So it was agreed and contracted that at five years an option for the council to buy the freehold of the property. 2013/14 the marginal rate of borrowing for the council plummets after historic borrowing at eye watering rates are flushed through the books. So I'm delighted that that option has proven so useful. It means once the council owns the property it saves some money each year. It also means it has more control of its costs not being concerned about rent reviews. And it could choose to move to another cheaper building in the future and make a profit. Hopefully the E&C regeneration will be part of such a move.