James Barber

Local East Dulwich councillors have asked the Harris Federation to deliver one or possibly two primary schools for our area: http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2012/12/04/new-primary-schools-for-se22/ To make a new free school happen we need 80 families with 1 or 2 year children to state they would consider using a new school/s in 2014 or 2015. Please see attached leaflet. If you support a new school then please email me your name, children date/s of birth, your post code.

Whichever group/s decide to apply to set-up a new school will decide how they want to do it. It's a 130 page form. If they choose to just start with reception - highly likely as most owuld start in temporary accomodation - or open classes across year is frankly up to them and the parents that support them.

Hi DulwichFox, The reason the Dandy is closing it phyiscal comic but keeping an online version is because the Beano is much more popular. The Beano has moved with the times and grown its audience at the Dandy's expense. Children's literature is big. We have a whole local bookstore devoted to it locally. Chener Books has just revamped its children's section. Teenage literature is often turned into Hoolwood films - Eragon, Vampire whatever. The new Canada Water library in its first year has had over 1/2 million visitors. John Harvard Library when revamped doubled the number of visitors. Huge suppressed demand for excellent libraries.

Hi Andybol, Many thanks for reporting it. Hi dimples, I'm sorry to hear Belvoir is suffering from speeding vehicles. This road is in College ward. Sadly your councillors haven't helped the local College ward Safer Neighbourhood Police Team by providing speed (guns) measuring devices. Probably best to contact the College ward SNT Police on 020 8721 2442 or Also if you're free this Wesdnesday between 7pm and 7.3-pm they'll be outside 507 Lordship Lane.

Hi keane, The garden centre is a postage stamp compared to the size a new school would require. But expect some news later this week about new local schools - and I hope you'll support it.

Hi LadyDeliah, I think the neighbours are miffed at the idea of a pharmacy - a shop by another name - opening close to them for 100hours a week with all the deliveries, visitors, extra parking pressure. Espeically when a nuber of existing pharmacies within 500m located on existing shopping streets. To gain pharmacy permission to open 100hours pw they've also included a needle exchange. The iste is next ot a large nursery and the parents of children are concerned. We don't need another needles exchange in the area when a number already exist. Would you like a new shop next door open for 100hours a week?

Hi LondonMix, Fingers crossed you're right and it doesn't see an exodus from more mobile residents from Camberwell. Bakerloo line extension and similar. These will always be hard to make happen with current local taxation. In ideal world it would be much easier to commit more local tax receipts to fund things. Govt has now given this option but its still overly prescriptive.

Hi DJKQ, Much as I love EDF it does always reflect what everyone in East Dulwich thinks. We're self selecting those that post with many times that reading and watching but not wanting to risk posting. My email bags on this has seen no supporters of such an application but several objectors. I'm happy to discuss others issues but it would takeover this thread even more. But I disagree with most of what you've written. Happy to have an email chat abut it.

Hi SeanHitz, Quickest way is to look up the freehold on HM Land Registry. It costs ?4 for a copy of the title deed online so really quick to find out.

Hi DJKQ, The draft agreement with the E&C developer was not signed before the May 2010 local elections by former leader Nick Stanton. That draft agreement was significantly revised by Labour upon taking office and signed that July. They decided to apply a lower ratio of social housing than the previous draft agreement and not obtian a signicant capital sum for the council and overidge. I'm not legally allowed to tell you that sum although it can be found on the internet. The latest E&C specific planning application have tiny proportions of social housing or none. So little that during the by-election current council leader Peter John suggested he wanted to use section 106 paid by developers to buy flats in the developments paying S106. As for selling mgmt of council homes. That's what Lambeth did when they took power in 2006 and at the time of the 2010 elections Labour Southwark was telling us how fab Lambeth Laobur policies were. Since then Southwark Labour have insisted upon paying ?100,000 for an options report into Southwakr Council housing and then rubbishing all the options. While at the same time paying for a newly created Director of Housing and paying for a part-time cllr to lead on housing. With respect to poliical literature. It has to attempt to grab people's attention. However locally in East Dulwich my colleagues and I have on several occassions produced very detailed multipage letters to residnts which appear ot have been useful giving more background. And I'm keen despite professional advice to the contrary to keep doing this in East Dulwich. NB. The chair of the council planning committee has agreed in principle to this decision being taken by committee but awaits the hed of planning to agree or not.

Hi DuncanW, I've been copied on a number of emails objecting to the planning application. That will count for more in the planning process than posting here. Thank you to those that have expressed a view for or against this planning application. If it does go t ocommittee at least more of the facts will come out and a better cosndiered decision will occur. Hi DJKQ, What local election promises do you think I or my Lib Dem colleagues have broken? (NB Labour was the first party to stand on a manifesto for no student tuition fees and break it so a little bit rich being lectured on it from Labour supporters however much I disagree with the trading the Lib Dems nationally did in coalition).

I think they now need to make a planning application. So hopefully another chance to object then.

Hi Joanna, I'm not aware of any but a quick Google search implies lots of classes around London. Hope it goes well and congratulations.

Hi Mutrik, That is shocking. My understanding is that the 100 hours pharmacy on Crystal Palace Road would still need planning permission. So we all need to be vigilant for any notice of a planning application and ensure if council officials were minded to grant permission that it at least goes before a planning committee to be decided. If you're a patient of DMC let them know what you think - I suspect it might well push some people to find a different more community minded practice.

Hi dbboy, You are partially correct. Councillors do sit on Planning Committees but the councils constitution decides which schemes go t oa committee of councillors and which do not and the conditions between the two. Eitherway, I would never sit on a planning committee I had preconceived ideas about a scheme. Hi DJKQ, If you ask EDR shops whether they want a competitor 200m away they'll say no. The parade of shops etc on EDR find it hard enough to exist without diluting trade further. Yes, you're quite right I was having a bad day/week when I did the original post and I regret it not being more balanced as I like to think other threads I've been involved with. Hi Cardiffgirl, Yes I have he right to ask for a call-in but its not automatic. The hurdles for this are much higher now. The chair of the main planning committee has to agree after consulting with the lead council official for planning whether they agree and two councillors have to request it in the first place. Hence my concern it might just slip through witohut proper scrutiny. If it is successfully called-in it then would go to either Planning sub-committee A or B when non local Dulwich councillors would decide. Before May 2011 it would have gone to a Planning Committee of local Dulwich councillors.

I've sat on enough planning committees to have seen bad recommendations from officers and bad use of delegated powers by officers and I'm sure Cardiffgirl as a planning officer you've seen plenty of daft councillor decisions. But the point is when officers make planning decisions they make them under delegated powers from councillors. I'm personally not happy when officers are going to make decisions with potentially huge and far reaching impacts on our community. I'd sooner give local residents a chance to sit before a committee and say why they oppose or support a scheme and hear the developer explain why their scheme is a good thing. And as a councillor speak for or against a scheme. This extra hurdle often ensures much more thorough scruntiny of a planning applcation than a planning officer sitting in SE1 and their counter signing manager alone.

Hi Cardiffgirl, You're right we need more informaiton BUT no one had spotted the planning application. Without any objections it would definately not be given the scrutiny of a planning committee. Officers could grant it permission and last time I looked no neighoburs wer going to be consulted. So objecting in it in itself doesnt stop a planning application but it does ensure it is properly and fully scutinised. If it reaches a planning committee and all the evidence you suggest says it would be a fab addition to the area fine. But the first step is ensuring it receives proper scrutiny. This may be different process thant you're used to. Hi DaveR, But if it resulted in Lordship Lane shops going bust would you still support it or comnsider it trivial?

Hi LondonMix, I would anticipate a new shop where the Gaden Centre is possibly a special case in people undertkaing shopping they'd do at London Bridge instead at such a new shop also possibly taking custom away form Sainsbury's on Dog Kennel Hill. A small shop unit next ot East Dulwich station is unlikely to be destination in its self. Whereas a much larger unit at 41-43 East Dulwich Road could become an alternative. The trouble is we don;t know who is behind this application. If it was a camera shop then that would be unique to the area and unlikely suck cash out of Lordship Lane. But if it were for arguments sake a Majestic it probably owuld decrease sales in Lordship Lane off-licences and potentially push one out of business. Lots of similar risks depending on what type of shop it starts as or could ever be. Shop unit classification is very broad. hi canp, Whoever is behind this planning application I would be opposed to the planning application. I'm not in love with M&S or Waitrose. I just don't want ot see lordship Lane how it was 15 years ago after Sainsbury's opened. Hi Cardiffgirl, Of course you can contact council officials to support this or any other planning application. Sadly few people ever bother to do this. If you live within 100m of the site and it goes to full planning committee you could also speak as a supporter for up to 3 mins to the committee and then answer questions about why you think a scheme is great fo the area. Agree that bringing units back into use is good for the area. But we have shop units on the NW corner of Lordship Lane with East dulwich Grove being used a offices. For the area it would make better sense for those offices to move to East Dulwich Road and the shop units turn bakc into shop units. This takes time. The alternative is we risk turning an office into shops, driving a lordship lane business/es out of business and then have empty shop units on Lordship Lane. My working assumption from local businesses is that many are only just surviving at the moment and a shock to their business would finish them.

Hi candp, How can I be predetermined for a decision I wont be called or expected to make? I've broken no code of conduct or nolan principles. If you think I have pleasedo report me to the councils monitoring officer. On this forum I'm one of the very few people who ARE accountable - every four years the first Thursday in May. As a local politican I've expressed a view in a forthright manner. If you think its a good idea to encourage and have new retail development of off but close to Lordship Lane then submit your support for the council planning officer. I think its a dangerous planning application risking the shopping vitality of Lordship Lane.

Hi LondonMix, The developer I believe is moving onto the site in the New Year once the current owners have fully retired. They then open the building late Spring/Summer 2014. New schools. Its agreed we have a shortage of places in our area Dulwich of 60-75 per year going foreward. Increasing by 2016 to 75-90 place per year. That the Nunhead area has a similar shortage. So my ward colleagues have proposed that a new school in built on the Dulwich Hospital site which would cater for 60-90 places. I know a German English group are talking to the DfES but I'm concerned they would have enough clout to ensure the Dept of Health doesnt just look for the maximum land sale when we need a proportion of this public land. I've spoken to the Harris Federation and they're interested. Tonight the Dulwich Community Council meeting 7pm onwards will include school places (8.30pm on the agenda) and tonight is meeting at James Allenys Girls School. Hi eastdulwichhenry, London is predicted to grow by 2m people over the next 10-15 years. National, London and local planning policies reflect this to some degree. When my children are adults I hope they have somewhere to live without the whole SE of england let alone East Dulwich being over developed.

Hi DJKQ, The local economy has a finite amount of cash. If people spend money in whatever new shop this could become that's less money to spend in shops on our high streets. The applicant has made a point to neither state the end shop or that they have not decided on an end shop. But whatever the shop do we want money taken away from our high streets which is full of businesses saying they're on a knife edge? Hi dbboy, Ditto above. If it's a chain stor then much less of every pound spent stays in the local economy so if anything it could result in overall less employment. Hi neilson99, I'm delighted you dont have a problem parking around the corner of Crystal Palace Road with East Dulwich Road. Other residents have complianed they do find it hard to park around there. Until I spotted this application it would have been decided by council officials who appear to have decided to consult with no one - not even the residenital home next door. If nothing else people have a chance to make clear they support a shop there or object to it. If it does go to committee if five people object and the council officials decide to accept the objections then a committee of councillors would decide and I wouldnt be on that committee as yes with the currently limited evidence I dont think it would be good for East Dulwich. Hi LondonMix, Out of town in that it's not on a regular high street or secondary shopping frontage. Out of town in that it risk sucking retail life out of our high street Lordship Lane and other secondary shopping frontages - the existing East Dulwich Road and Grove Vale. The Garden Centre shop being replaced by another shop. That the new shop might generate footfall for the new library and anchoring that end of Grove Vale hopefully hleping all the retailers their to experience more footfall. Hi toptotty, I'm not sure how I'm being immoral for highlighting a planning application that was going to be decided with no community awareness. I never sit on planning applications I have a preconceived view. So what's the problem? Hi edcam, Yes the current builidng is hideous and by all means contact the planning officer and tell them you support the planning application. But the application doesnt include any images of how it is propsed to look. So it could be a visual improvement or make it worse. Hi peckhamboy, That's useufl thank you. Until 12 months ago it was leased by Southwark Council and they were entertaining discussions according to a Village ward councillor of housing the East Dulwich Police station. But if Southwarkhas any interests of any kind it should be decided by planning committee to ensure transparency.

Well it looks like another such shop 20 metres from Crystal Palace Road could happen. As residents around there know parking is already a nightmare.

A planning application 12-AP-3604 has been submitted to turn the large ground floor of 41-43 East Dulwich Road from offices into a shop - probably another Tesco or Sainsbury's. The planning documentation is very sketchy - which smells fishy. And the neighbouring residential block hasnt been consulted. http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9547428 If you think a new shop away from our high streets should be stopped and/or that the parking is already a nightmare around the Dulwich Leisure Centre and this shop will make it much worse then please object by emialing council planning officer : [email protected] Please copy me into any email so I canhelp coordinate objectors. To me this is a landmark planning application about whether Lordship Lane is erroded away. What's very curious is that Southwark Council is the leaseholder (it used to be Dulwich Area Housing Office) so they must be party to this in some way. Edited to correct council officers email address - thanks to Cllr Dolezal for spotting that and letting me know.

Hi DJKQ, I've not seen evidence that blocking ends of residential roads creates more traffic on larger roads. Intuitively I would think that but equally lots of evidence that traffic evaporates to some degree when routes become longer. Have you seen a study into this? Hackney where they've done this hasnt reported extra traffic on larger roads. Hi DulwichFox, Most of Southwark is now 20mph zones or speed limits. But largely side roads that had few collissions to begin with. But I've not seen great numbers of people being prosecuted. Have you? Roads like the Lordship Lane (Goose Green to Wahtely Road where the main shopping drag is) should be 20mph.

Hi juicypips666, Some councils have chosen to close libraries to save money. Others have found wayst oreduce back office costs to avoid this and others have reduced library hours at some libraries and close other services (home library service * Mobile library) as Southwark have done. But the current Grove Vale Library annual rent is circa ?30,000. The new library will be on a ?100 pa Peppercorn rent with a 125 year lease - the developer will also pay for the libraries fit out. Good question what will happen with the current library site - the freeholder will try and rent it to someone. Hi LondonMix, The developer is St.Aidan's. Hi tiddles, This development did not initiate the CPZ consultation of last year. Planning officials have insisted on the developer putting aside monies for a CPZ despite repeated remonstrations from me that the money should be given over to something the community wants/needs - more books for the new library, Goose Green School. Michael Palaeologus, Waitrose would be exactly the type of shop the developer is likely to want. It's whether Waitrose have the capacity to add such a shop to its plans.