James Barber

No, the signs are wrong and I reported them as being incorrect on Thursday. They were still incorrect Saturday afternoon. I was assured late yesterday, Sunday, that the signs are now correct. North Cross Road is being fully resurfaced this week starting today Monday 21 May - weather permitting.Obviously after the resurfacing lines will be remarked that clearly that subsidiary activity to resurfacing. I'm been repeatedly assured all homes nad businesses have had a letter delivered to them on North Cross Road explaining this but have had one business contact me who were unaware.

East Dulwich is holding street parties: Sunday 3 June - Nutfield Road, Ulverscroft Road Monday 4 June - Henslowe Road, Goodrich Road, Derwent Grove, Archdale Road. Tuesday 5 June - Worlingham Road & Ryedale For fuller details see attached. For those that don't live on one of these streets you might want to to join in with the Diamond Jubilee Picnic in Dulwich PArk Tuesday 5 June.

If you want to see any traffic counts for local streets from the last four years - missing a few surveys from Lordship lane - please see...http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?tooltip=yes and click on the button called "Southwark traffic flow survey" But I'm a map junky so some might not find this fascinating.

Hi fuschia, All trees on Heber Road now ok.

After the Olympics all those utility digs that were banned for several months will happen with a vengence. 12 months works being done in the 6 months left of the financial year.

Hi eddie, Nicely taken out of context. Bricklayers arms - occupied lots of land next to a secondary school which has no playing field there. So they bus down to their playing fields in ED. most of our local primary schools have no playing fields. Removing the daft flyover could result in said adjacent school having playing field there and our primary schools having local playing fields. The land in all cases is publicly owned by the council/schools and would involve swapping. The flyover costs considerable amounts for TfL to maintain - ?1M this year alone. Burgess Park. A neighbouring business that juts into the park burnt down. Buying our the scrap yard would turn a grotty entrance into something better. The price to do this would be significantly lower at this time. My interest is obtaining best value and also my great aunts home and business was flattened as part of the Abercrombie plan to create this park. I also see no reason why residents in the centre of Southwark can't one day have a park they're as proud of as we are of Peckham and Dulwich parks. Hopefully we can all get back to Lordship Lane. regards james eddie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Local resident to local politician: ?Can the area > behind the police station be used for parking? > > Local politician; ?Southwark council does not have > the sort of spare cash required to buy the land? > > Seems to be a perfectly reasonable response by a > local politician in looking after what all our > local taxes are spent on. However this is the same > local politician that has proposed the following > council expenditure; > > 1. Buy a business, knock down the building it is > located in and extend Burgess Park. > 2. Knock down the flyover on the Old Kent Road as > it? only serves commuters from Kent? > > So nice to see local politicians looking after our > local interests! Ya have to smile. > > Did I see that the Lib Dems were beaten in the > local election by a penguin?

Lane rental starts 11 June. This is where utilities have to rent lanes they close. This will encourage utilities to be quicker and more innovative. My hunch is that during the summer more works will take place away from main roads that have an embargo due to the Olympics.

Dulwich Village ward councillors are: Robin Crookshank Hilton [email protected] Toby Eckersley [email protected] Michael Mitchell [email protected] Sounds like the Dulwich private schools coach service. Presume Calton Avenue is an attempt to cut the corner OR deliver children en route to Allenys/JAGS.

Hi first mate, For the rear of the Police statino to become a car park would require someone to buy that part of the site from thE Metropolitan Police. It would cost a lot of money and I'm quite clear Southwark Council doesn't have that kind of spare cash - if it did then Heber School needs ?1/2m for energy efficiency, etc. The proposed 8 flats about the current Iceland. Assuming the freeholder has tried properly marketting the current offices and failed. Currently the council only enforce car free developments by not allowing Controlled Parking Zone permits to applicants of a list of addresses designated as car free. So this site clearly fails that test. I think the council is missing a trick. No reason why it couldn't contact DVLA at regular intervals to check no motor vehice registered to an address - clearly this could be abused by people registering vehicles illegally to other addresses but high risk approach for someone to do this. Developments often have sums assigned in non CPZ areas towards including their sites in any future CPZ. I don't see any reason why these sums could'nt also fund car free checks in non CPZ areas - rather than giving the impression of encouraging new CPZ areas. Eitherway I've contacted the head of Southwark planning asking whether they think such an approach is possible.

Hi gsirett, Chener Books, I did get the meetings. It's clear that the ED area doesn't want any form of controlled parking. Which is why I think it so important that losing the sole car park on Lordship lane is so significant while increasing the number of car based shoppers.

Thanks Fuschia, Have reported - how and when was it reported last week so I can also find out why that failed to work?

Hi grisett, And we also had people at the January meeting who trade on Grove Vale saying it would help their customers. The proposal was for 1 hour of controlled parking Mon-Fri to stop rail commuters. The idea was that the freed up parking from deterred rail commuters would make it easier for residents and visitors to park. South Southwark Business Association also objected to the new Lordship Lane crossings - which appear to be doing the job intended well.

Hi Mick Mac, That's obtuse. Hi bonaome, I think it's clear more car journeys and parking will be created because...The freeholder has applied to nearly double the size of the current store and have indicated they're planning to lease said bigger store to M&S. Whenever I pass M&S food store formats they seem exceptionally busy compared to our current local Iceland. So in my opinion a much busier larger store will attract more people and even a smaller proportion driving would still result in more car jounreys generated compared to the current Iceland. That removing the existing car parking while creating higher demand for parking will increase parking pressures.

Hi fatcats, The empty homes team support property owners to return properties into use. Often encoruagement and small grants does the trick. To use the blunt instrument of compulsory purchase orders takes a long time and lot of cash. Hence the preference for the former rather than the latter approach. BUT I under the CPO legislation is being changed which should make it easier to 'encourage' property owners. Southwark, last time I asked a formal question at Council Assembly, had over 5,000 such empty properties. For the council to buy at the average property price of ?300k would take ?1.5bn.

Write to the MD of Coventry Scaffolding asking when they're going to ensure this property of three flats is brought back into use. The address is: Coventry Scaffolding Company (London) Limited Coventry House, 471 Southend Lane, London, SE26 5BT Tel: 020 8659 8888 Email: [email protected]

Toddlers and babies can't walk. You get the horrible dilema - do I take the kids to the house and then leave them in the house on their own while fetching shopping or vice versa or double park to drop the shopping and then park and take kids. All are fraught with danger. Suspect this is part of the populatirty of internet grocery shopping.

Hi meister, I think it's a shame Iceland hasn't been successful enough to stay. But I would have thought M&S would be successful and is likely to employ more people as a consequence. Hi bonaome, I'm not clear that M&S wouldn't want to lease this site with our without an extension. It does seem clear that M&S is likely to generate more car trips than the existing Iceland so removing the last car park in the area seems a strange proposition.

The house at the entrance to Acre Drive is still owned by Coventry Scaffolding. They've repeatedly assured the council empty homes team that they'll be bringing it back into use.

Hi the-e-dealer, Blimey you really do hate me and the Lib Dems. If a resident contacts me by phone or email from another ward I explain to them if they're not in ED ward and I ask if they would prefer to use their actual councillor or me. Often they come to me because they had no satisfaction from their ward councillor. I'm sure that occassionally happens the other way round.

Hi Neilson99, If someone reports a safety issue to me I will immediately report it whether its in ED, other part of Southwark or indeed other London borough. A non working Peolican crossing on Firest Hill Road is a safety issue. I'm sorry if you think this makes me a hypocrite. Equally if a resident contacted a non ED cllr with a safety issue I'd expect that cllr to report it tout sweet. Hi Eddie, I've spoken to a Waitrose person referred to me by an ED forumite. I think it's unfortunate that Lordship Lane can't keep a broader sprectrum of shops and clearly many people shop at Iceland. But the freeholders choose who they lease to and how they wish to try and maximise their profits. My interests are purely to ensure a healthy and vibrant area serving the local community. Hence my support for resurfacing North Cross Road due next week, electric points on North Cross Road, food hygiene training for local businesses, hangingbaskets, shops alertboxes, etc, etc. I have no contacts with M&S or with the Iceland freeholder. Clearly buidling on the Iceland car park will cause extra parknig stress and compund the local residents who already find this unbearable. So I will be formalyl objecting to the planning application but on the grounds of parking pressures. Removing the parking is not a prerequisite of a new supermarket chain replacing Iceland. To be honest I'd hoped for a more imaginative solution to find a premise for M&S to return to Lordship Lane.

ed_pete, My understanding is the Copleston/Oglander/Grove Vale junction that the road will be raised to pavement level hence who you can see the dimpled paving slabs at pavement height and not dropping down to current road height. This should slow traffic round that bend and make the junction safer if less pleasant for those with back problems and the like. Hi mynamehere, If I or my ward colleagues can help in anyway please let me know. I'll PM you with the support I've given to other NHW coordinators. Hi Motorbird83, My understanding is that it will close and be sold by the Met Police property directorate. I'm still hoping we can come up with a better solution to keep a local Police station and generate capital that Boris feels he needs. Hi the-e-dealer, The Met no longer publishes excel spreadsheets of monthly crime figures. So we're just left publicy with the superficial crime mapping - http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/index.php?borough=md&period=year

Sorry. Frustrating to see A Peckham Rye councillor talking about a Lordship Lane issue so far from the area they represent.

Hi Cllr Hamvas, I'm sorry that Peckham and Nunhead Community Council finds planning applications quite so painful. Last night Dulwich Community Council decided three planning applications - two very contentious ones from the Kingswood area and met locally in Kingswood House. Over 50 residents attended. Your proposals, decided at February budget setting Council assembly, make the hurdle for residents to object to a planning application much higher. Planning applications will more often be decided by unelected council officials even when people have objected. That where councillors are involved the vast majority will have no local knowledge of the area affected. This is centralising and further stacks the planning system against residents and civic society groups. Renata Hamvas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James, > what you don't point out, is that the current > planning system was wasteful in terms of time and > resources. I know certainly for my CC area > (Nunhead and Peckham Rye) on several occasions > planning meetings were cancelled at short notice, > or they were opened for five minutes and closed > again (one application, withdrawn or additional > information required). This means councillors and > council officers went going to meetings where > nothing was achieved, rooms were being paid for, > papers being prepared and sent out to (costly in > terms of officers' time and resources.) Subject to > approval ny Council Assembly, what will happen > now, as at present, minor and undisputed/very low > objections number applications will be decided > directly by council officers. Large applications > will still be decided by the full planning > committee. Those that would have gone to community > council planning will go to one of two committees > for intermediate applications or more minor > applications where residents have objected. This > means that planning applications will still be > loosely be divided up into small medium and large, > but we won't have five minute meetings, as there > will be more applications per meeting to decide. > The current government, your Government, James has > slashed the council's budget. Cuts have had to > have been made across all departments. This has > meant trying to find the most efficient way of > doing things at the least harm to services. Yes, I > appreciate it will mean residents travelling a > little further to planning meetings, and there may > be some unfamiliar faces on the planning > committee, but as we all already deal with > planning and we should be impartial if sitting on > a planning committee, I am comfortable with this > decision. > > In terms of this thread in particular, It is good > to see so many local residents engaging in this > discussion, however, planning officers don't (I > think!) read the East Dulwich forum . I would > suggest that residents actually post their > opinions, look at the application here: > southwark planning > > email: [email protected] > > with your name,address and application no: > 12/AP/1340 > > > Do particularly consider how the development may > impact on your everyday living if you live close > to the proposed development, parking, noise, > deliveries, etc Positive comments can also be > submitted! It would be good if local businesses as > well as residents respond to the consultation > too. > > Renata

Hi eddie, Labour Southwark who run the council are removing local planning committees and centralising them into the Tooley Street HQ. Its also changing the threshold for when planning applications are not decided by council officers. I've heard two versions of this - 1. that the new threshold will be 5 objections for an application to be heard by the planning committee, 2. that only large schemes can be objected to. Wont know for sure unti lthe final Council Assembly papers are publishing next week. So this scheme will not be decided locally. I hope to remain a reserve planning committee member but it is rare I'm called upon to cover for a colleague. Hi the-e-dealer, Planning committees are quaisi judicial committee and I would only ever sit on a committee and help decided an item I had not preconceived views or interests in.

Please see attached crime stats from the local Safer Neighbourhood Teams for East Dulwich ward and Village ward. Any ideas to reduce crime please get in touch.