James Barber

Hi Israphale, This is a really tricky problem. Victorian Sash windows can be drafty and the few recent burglaries in East Dulwich have often involved forcing them. Single panes also leak heat like crazy. ?10,000 is also a lot of money. Could you break your order up to be done over time? Or have chunkier ones at the back. Of course asking estate agent advice might be another way to gauge the value implications beyond your own view of the aesthetics.

Hi Alex K, Whether a car is electric or hybrid or petrol or diesel it occupies the same road space. So not sure your undoubted longer term personal planning helps reduce parking pressures. Environmentally also tricky. 60% of the energy used by a vehicle is in the making. Electric and hybrids take more resources to construct so have more emebedded CO2 in them. If people have to drive then using car club cars makes better eco sense than eletric or hybrid as fewer cars around to achieve the same mobility. Hi Intexasatthe moment, This must have been tried somewher - have you spotted any research on this? I don't get the feeling we're seeing lots of strange gaps between parked cars that aggregated together means parking opportunities are being lost. But if someone has researched this. Hi Giles, Sounds a neat idea but I don't as a councillor have the time to administer it. I don't get the feeling local businesses would support it. They were clear in their deputation to the Dulwich Community Council that they don't support controlled parking - offering them a voluntary form with no sanctions. But do feel free to suggest it to them. What's stopping Southwark audting and publicing businesses and organisations transport plans? You only get an opportunity to make this a planning condition when a building is redevelped. I don't see much of East Dulwich being redeveloped over the next 20-50 years. If it were Southwark wouldn't have the resources to do what you're proposing.

Hi Annabel42, Please email me or PM me your address and the missed collection details and I'll try and help. Since the food waste/fortnightly collections started many more complaints about the service. Hi Zak, I'm sorry you feel that. The problems haven't magically gone. Another family on Derwent have told me they're selling up and leaving the area and the deciding factor for them was inability to reasonably park in the area and feeling East Dulwich vibe wasn't for them anymore. Hopefully other locals bruises will heal quicker. The Labour administration applied to Transport for London for the funds to investigate controlled parking. Of the 130 something complaints over 3 yr period about parking pressures from all of Southwark 44 came from this tiny area of Southwark. Failing to investigate could have been viewed as maladministration. It's absolutely clear most of the streets consulted don't want any controlled parking. I'm chuffed my special request that the consultation results be reviewed by both the Camberwell and Dulwich Community Councils took place - if this hadn't happened I suspect we would now be having some form of controlled parking decided without discussion by the cabinet member. My only regrets are the consultation document wasn't even handed and the mis information, possibly from genuine long term fears, of people stating controlled parking was proposed across all of East Dulwich. We knew before the DCC meeting that the 3 Tories and 1 Lib Dem would be voting no and after the Labour leader said no we were pretty sure the 2 Labour cllrs would vote no as well. So 6/9 cllrs had made their decision before the meeting. As ED cllrs we didn't want to make up our minds until we heard from the deputations and debate. Politically it might have been wiser to play a game of voting no to please the most people but I didn't enter politics to play games with peoples lives. So I conferred several times with my ward colleagues. We voted for a solution and felt despite the imperfection this was the right thing to do. Deputations - We had SSBA representing some of the Lordship Lane traders telling us it would reduce visitor parking and we had Zenoria and Derwent residents telling us 1hr controlled parking Mon-Fri would see more parking for shoppers and visitors. The Zenoria ones saying 1hr Mon-Fri wasn't enough and the Derwent ones begging for 18month experiment. We had Giles eloquently highlighting the risk of anything spreading. No one was offering any alternatives to solve the problem. Either they argued no problem existed, then why the oppoisition to streets that wanted controlled parking, OR their is a problem and they don't want any risk it might spread and be dissapated more widely. Can we please get back to what this thread is meant to be about. People highlighting problems that I try and help them with. If anyone wants to debate controlled parking or parking issues their are other threads for that. If anyone is desperate to debate it with me I'll happilly meet up over a convivial pint.

Apologies for those who asked me to email the adjudicators report - just done it. It is clear that the problem was having a stated adminissions criteria and then not administering it. The appeal includ evidence from local Police that the routes were safe. Evidence from the ordnance survey that other schools used a different layer of data. That Chater school was effectively using distance by car and not safe walking distance. That the methods used by the school were contrary to a surprising number of statutory requirements. So anyone who applied on the basis of the advertised criteria should not be disadvantaged and an injustice has been resolved. That Southwark council appears to have supported the status quo is worrying.

I'll email a copy to those tat have sent me an email address tomorrow evening when I have a chance and investigate filling on google docs and providing a URL. The adjudicator makes it clear in their report that they expect their adjudication to used for 2012 admissions and have checked that the timings will work. Residents who led this, and they've done a really thorough job, are also pushing for any waiting lists to reflect the adjudication.

I'll happilly email the report to anyone who asks for it but at 2Mbs I can't post a copy here. And yes it effectively moves the catchment area north and east.

The campaign to have the Charter School admissions policy administered differently has been successful. The school with support from Southwark Council tried to fight this. In a frankly damning report from the Secretary of States adjudicator the school will now have to truly use safe walking distance from the school as per their admissions policy and not the closest driving distance that they were actually using. The report is 2Mbs PDF so I can post it here. Edited to add link to report. Sections 52-57 were eye opening. The campaign obtained supporting evidence from the Police, Ordnance Survey and others.

I agree Loz. I raised this at full council but no change of hear from the administration yet.

Southwark Council has an agreed Green Travel Plan with Goose Green School July 2011. During the bout of planning applications for this school I asked that a Green Travel plan be a condition but Goose Green School was already preparing one and didn't need any nudging whatever. Another sign of a well run school going places. East Dulwich station is a Zone 2 station. Making it zone 3 would deter rail commuters from parknig in the area but costs East Dulwichresidents a collective fortune. So not a real option. Electric cars occupy just as much space as petrol/diesel cars. The electricity used to power them comes from coal, nuclear, etc and the emebedded energy used to make them is higher than regular cars. A false green option. Car Clubs. Research shows that over time each car club car replaces around 25 private vehicles. But of course any released spaces do seem to get abosrbed by others parking. Sadly Southwark Council is about to increase the charges it makes car clubs from ?450pa for each space to ?650 pa. This at best will supress the further rollout of car clubs. We could all cycle and walk more...but not much incentive to do this to free spaces up for visitor parking. Alaos a bit tough people on streets wanting controlled parking to have been told to be nobble to avoid displacement parking on other strets and then try and persuade them to give up their cars for more visitors/commuters to park. So I don't feel able to do that. Car parking at Dulwich Hospital. To make a remote car park secure would take good security. That costs money. So you'd have to charge for the parking. Why would anyone pay to park somewhere they don't want to park over free parking near where they want to be? OR you offer it for free but which council budget do you cut to pay for it? Capital costs of multi storey car park ?30,000 a space above ground or ?50,000 below ground. Road pricing. That would reduce car ownership but more car use. Currently most people view the costs of using a car at the marginal rate of fuel rather than the total cost of ownership. Increasing the marginal cost of each mile would reduce car use and to lesser degree car ownership. Moving VED this way would make sense also replacing CCZ.

Hi buggug, The original poster in October said a spate of burglaries was occurring. It was. My post was to show that the Police think that this spate has ended in East Dulwich and to give that Police feedback to the community. If you'd stayed last night after the DCC interval you'd have heard our local Police sgt talk about this.

At the East Dulwich ward Safer Neighbourhood Team panel - held at ED Police station last Wednesday 18/1 - local Police stated that East Dulwich WARD is bucking the current rising crime trend. Lowest reported crime rate for three years. That no consolation if you've still been a victim of crime. They specifically said no Xmas binge occurred of burglaries. During last 4 week 4 residentials burglaries had occurred and over the last 12 weeks 15 residential burglaries and 8 non residentials one. East Dulwich ward has 5,300 homes and about 400 businesses (mostly shops). They believe this is mostly due to apprehending one person who has not been given bail and property marking kits with recent signage added to lampposts. This person had no historical connection to the area but were housed on licence in the area. The high reoffending rate is national issue but caused local burglary crime. This individual will probably serve 5 years and then be a problem. If anyone/s want to make this person a project to help avoid reoofending that would really help the community - contact me. During those same 4 weeks - no robberies, 7 vehicles crimes in the WARD. BUT huge increase in common assaults up from 7 to 21 largely due to a massive fight outside The Bishop involving 50 people on Christmas Eve. Amazingly no reference to it on the forum. It appears a group of 4 non locals visited the pub and assaulted a number of people.

Well done to the NO campaign and espeically Giles - you clearly won hands down. Before the meeting we had a very clear idea of how the Tory and Labour councillors would vote. I didn't know how my ward colleagues would vote. Anyone who know Cllr Mitchel and Shimell will know they do not do what I want all the time. As they hadn't experienced the forum feedback they were more robust on this issue than me. I thought the Zenoria residents deputation was a real surprise. They were begging for controlled parking 24/7! Several comments that a big public car park should be built where the Dulwich Hospital is. Making it secure would require a fee... If any one has ideas about helping with car parking pressures near the station - other than controlled parking - please contact me by email. Not sure I'm masochistic enoguh to check into this thread again for some time. After the break lots of ironic smiles when the local Police report back highlighted vehicle crime issues from people not being able to park close to their homes. Hi buddug, The interval. I didn't get to show my head there in the foyer as a shopkeeper from Lordship Lane collared me about Puffin crossing installations and lack of parking. Useful feedback but I missed the sandwiches until later. Happy to meet you or anyone else to discuss local issues.

Hi buddug, If you want to guarantee not missing anything then I would advise being there from the start at 7pm.

peterstorm1985 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A less expensive (to the residents) option would > be to make those streets with the greatest problem > less attractive to the dreaded train 'commuters'. > Blocking one end of those streets would make them > a time risk for anyone wanting to jump on the next > train, such that they would try another street > first. The minor additional irritation for > residents would, presumably, be acceptable, > particularly as the blocked street end would, > potentially, create an additional two parking > spaces (those that would otherwise be too close to > the junction. > Hi Peterstorm1985, I had asked about this in the past before we introduced spedd humps on these roads. Melbourne Grove the shops would object due to blcokngi of passing trade, Derwent and Elsie couldn't as you have t have a place for rubbish trucks to turn. One-way streets result in greater speeding - not having to consider anyone coming the other way and they also deter cyclists who wont cycle the long way round.

Hi buddug, Camberwell councillors had no streets wanting controlled parking. They could'nt vote for controlled parking on a different community council area - that would set a really awkward precendent. So of the two options they were practically being asked to consider they chose option 2 over option 1. IF the results and reports had been of 3 options for controlled parking only in South Camberwell I would have done exaclty the same thing.

Hi pipsky2000, Apologies. Just found your email from the 12th. I've privately emailed you how I would suggest progressing the issues you've raised. I wouldn't necessarily use FoI as it wont necessarily fix the anti social problems.

Hi easytiger, Clearly the majority of people who responded are against controleld parking. I'd be delighted to know what the alternatives you're proposing are? Nothing would give me greater pleasure (in the next 36hours) than voting NO tomorrow with a clear solution to the problems residents in some East Dulwich ward streets have.

gsirett Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Listn to what SSBA (the traders association) have > ot say on Tuesday.......I know those points do > sound dramatic but they are based on reaserch from > the Chamber of Commerce. It is EXACTLY what has > happened in other areas. SSBA reps also turned up at the Dulwich Community Council to try and persuade us that Lordship Lane didn't need a new crossing outside the Coop. Fortunately other traders present pressed the case for it and the consultation had majortity of traders who responded in favour. "they represent a perspective but they don't represent all traders" as one trader very forcibly told me last week. I find it hard to understand why traders would want commuters to park locally before shops open and return after the shops have closed in preference to a few streets having controlled parking freeing up parking outside the controlled hour. If I could understand why they prefer the former to the latter I'd might understand that part of the no campaign better. I get the domino fear and that is why I'm wavering. But the spurious arguments make the no campaign look a bit silly at times.

gsirett Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jasmina Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I live on Tintagel Crescent and I'm against the > > CPZ scheme. My neighbours that I've spoken to > are > > also against the scheme. I'm wondering if > there > > is anyone on Tintagel or Elsie Road who > supports > > this scheme? > > You need to speak to councillor barber, he knows > loads of people who support the scheme. Apparently Hi grisett, I think I wrote very early on in this thread before the consultation results that from my colleagues and I experience of knocking on doors - and we asked open non leading question about what people thought about controleld parking - that clear majority on Derwent Grove, majority on Melbourne and 50:50 on Elsie. In the last 6 weeks I've had 21 initial emails about the CPZ 6 against and 15 in favour. PM messages through this forum roughly 50:50. And about half a dozen CPZ phone calls asking for advice about how to get people responding for or against the proposals. BUT I've had over 100 other emails about non CPZ subjects over the same period and they typically keep me running at around 100 emails a day of email traffic following casework up etc.

I wonder what people think of Scottish independeance? Should only the people of Scotland (Derwent Grove) get to vote or should the whole UK (grisett and co) decide on Scottish independence. Do people think that more than 50% of the whole population should vote for independence of just a majority? Eitherway, it would be really appreciated if the CPZ thread could stay there.

Hi DJKQ, I agree. The consultation was of 22 streets and whether they wanted to have paid controlled parking or not and it was clear the consultation would be considered on a street by street basis. It also asked residents if they'd change their mind if a neighbouring street were to proceed. All the streets in South Camberwell ward were against. Currently I'm almost jealous of those Councillors. Nice at decision. Several street in East Dulwich ward were for or I vapour our if neighbouring street were planned to proceed - fear of displacement. So if it had been a referendum then yes a clear no result. So I hear loud cries of fowl from either camp - the no camp being clearly much larger and so far louder. If we vote no on Tuesday then residents on some sreets can legitimately claim the Consultation was rigged saying it said the results would be used on a street by street basis and that they hadn't been. Hi buddug, Are you really surprised that as an Easy Dulwich ward councillor I've had my constituents contacting me in the way and proportions described. Clearly email bag of other ward Councillors will have different proportions.

The keys are standard across Soutwark notice boards. So my guess is several hundred sets across Southwark. I explained ages ago that I took the first anti Southwark Council CPZ notice down. The notice boards are Southwark Council property. Currently the notice boards are left to locals to use. My fear then and still is that if anti Soutwark notices are placed then local discretion might be removed and our community and others would lose out and we might've need to submit em via some central Southwark Council function. If Southwark were to allow partial notices it would be legally required to ensure balance. The whole thing a minefield which is why after the first notice I'd hoped it wouldn't crop up again.

I've have not taken down any notices telling people about any community councils. I'm usually the one placing them. I did originally take down notices about the CPZ making wild assertions about Southwark Council - but it is a Southwark COuncil notice board and I don't want all material controlled by the press office if it ever discovered what had been put up. Throughout I have suggested people make their view known and attend the community councils - it was my request to cabinet cllr Barrie Hargrove that he allow community councils to review the officer papers and make their recommendations to him - which he kindly agreed to. Otherwise this would have been all decided by him in December. I get sent community council poster/notices by the committee chair and I place them when next passing notice boards. I also get frustrated at them being removed. I don't know who has the keys for them near Grove Vale. Also the locks on Melbourne Grove notice board appears to have been changed so I've not been able to place a community council poster their for some time.

Hi grisett, But you're a Village ward resident. I've had lots of East Dulwich ward residents and some businesses tell me they want controlled parking. I've had some say they don't. I've seen lots of comments on this forum but most of the East Dulwich ward residents who live on the conusltated streets I've spoken to say they're angry about the forum but didn't want to get tangled up in the CPZ thread.

Hi Eddie, The Labour party ran on no student fees but introduced them. At a national level in a coalition you don't get your whole manifesto implimented. And yes I will be attending the meeting and I have no intention of abstaining - I think I've abstained once in 6 years and that was at a main planning committee. Hi davidh, I think you're misrepresenting my email - feel free to post the whole email here with your original. Hi grisett, I think I was always going to offend you - even if I do vote NO on Tuesday. The consultation was clearly asking streets what they thought, it said the results would be analysed and reported on a street by street basis. It wasn't a referendum. Clearly all the roads consulted in South Camberwell said no so it was an easy vote to make. In many respects I wish we had the same consultation results in East Dulwich ward but we don't. SOme of our streets have said yes and others have said yes if a neighbouring street were to get controls. Someone/s have been dishonestly going around telling people parking meters are proposed for Lordship lane/North Cross Road - they're not. Others has been told controlled parking across all East Dulwich is proposed - it isn't. This smearing makes it hard to take into accoutn the petitions because we don't know whether they're about what people think is proposed or what is actually proposed. What I find disappointing is people with real problems have been lost in all this and no one is suggesting any other solution/s. As for Liberal Democrats. We have no whip on this or any other commmunity council decision. I'm reasonably sure Lib Dem Cllr Crookshank-Hilton will vote NO. The Village ward Tories I'm sure will vote NO because they have no streets involved and you've organised a petition against which they'd be sensible politically to follow. I'm sure if the situation was reversed they'd also be in a quandary to decide what's best. Politically the easy route would be to vote NO but I've knocked on all these East Dulwich doors many times and will be knocking in the future and I have to be able to explian my vote - not just say I felt bullied.