James Barber

I work for a private company. Today ends a 90 day consultation about changing the occupational pension for those of us who have worked there long enough to have one. We're moving from an accrual rate of 1/60 pa to 1/85 but keeping the normal retirement age of 60 years of age. Original proposal was 1/75 retiring at 65. The actuaries had stated that keeping it at 1/60 60 years of age retirement would cost the company each year 33% of the salary pa. So I presume the govt has had similar advise. As for Labour understanding. Locally they've changed the date of full council assembly and have made it clear they won't be crossing any picket lines.

The St.Anthony's bulges we different in that they were half class bulges taking them from normal 1.5form entry to 2 form entry. That St.Anthony's objective for some time has been to expand to permanent 2 form entry and taking 1/2 form entry bulges has convinced everyone of this. Managing 1.5 classes per year is a good deal more complicated than 2.

No.12 bus route is a target for fare evasion issues with TfL - I asked after seeing people duck onto the new buses through the rear doors.

Hi the-e-dealer, I'm no fan if Boris but he cancelled unfunded projects. Ken Livingstone was very clever to talk about projects and fund then with relatively tiny sums to give the impression they were happening when they weren't. Boris cancelled them. We need Madrid style local government. They decide to build a new tube line, spend 6 months designing it, 3 years building it and the firt trains run before reelections. Amazing.

Last night this advertisement consent was refused. I spoke against it as a ward councillor. it did strike me as rather odd that a pub chain such as Greene King would need 12 months to refurbish a pub. They must have it down to a fine art with dozens of their 2,000+ pubs being refurbished at any one time.

Hi BeccaL, Apparently all of the Fireman's Alley is public highway managed. The last full detritus sweep was three weeks ago and the next one is due next week. Litter picking happens every other day. Can you please keep an eye of this and if it isn't fully swept next week let me know. And yes sweeping every four weeks isn't often enough to be a clean and tidy borough but this is what the administration has chosen to reduce spending on.

7pm 24 January Dulwich Community Council will be held at St Barnabas Church 40 Calton Avenue SE21 7DG and the chair person has agreed to largely hand over - as much as he can - the meeting to discussing the CPZ. 7pm 10 January Camberwell Community Council is proposed to be held at Jessie Duffett Hall, 92 - 94 Wyndham Road, London SE5 0UB. North and east of Grove Vale is covered by CCC, south of Grove Vale by DCC.

Hi Fred, I agreed about the accountability. That's why I put so much effort into reading and writing on this forum. The developer gets planning permission and Southwark Council/residents get s shiny new library and several hundred thousand pounds of other stuff. Not sure how Grove Vale could have been resurfaced without traffic being diverted down Melbourne Grove. Once you decice to divert the traffic you have to decide how to support busses on diversionary the route. I think you're being very noble to complain about parking pressures but be against controlled parking. Good on you. As for overcrowding. I think that's national policy to do with population strategy or lack of one. People have to live somewhere. Most house conversions to flats happened an awful long time ago. Since 2006 I've seen very little change. What's having more of an impact is people rented out homes and several adults living there. And families now seem to be hanging around. The population predictions for Dulwich area without new homes beign built are that we'll see an extra 6,000 people on top of current 33,000 by 2031 and then shrinking back again.

Hi grisett, The funding is from TfL for the CPX consultation. If I had talked about the 20 flats replacing the garden centre in the context of this CPZ consultation - you would accuse me of putting extra pressure on the residents of lcoal street to vote for controlled parking. I have suggested to people that they consider future developments. I apologise if anyone feel misled on this thread that I didn't mention these 20 new flats which are likely to be completed 2014/15 or that they may well add extra parknig pressure near the station. I have mentioned this development many times on my blogs and in tweets and on this forum. It never occurred to me people would consider 20 new flats in several year times materials compared to the 1,146 homes in the proposeds streets. I'm not perfect BUT I AM CERTAINTLY NOT CORRUPT AS YOU@VE SUGGESTED.

grisett, You've effectively suggested I was corrupt. You say you owe me no apology. Does that mean you think I am corrupt? If you do then you should report me to Southwark Council's monitoring officer [email protected]. If you don't think I'm corrupt you should say so publicly because at the moment you've made a public allegation which could affect my employment now and into the future.

Hi monica, The consultation ended 11 November. I would hope local Southwark Council notice boards would carry current timely notices. Carrying a notice about a consultation that ended nearly two weeks ago is hardly timely. Carrying a notice about the Dulwich Community Council - Tuesday 24 January for peoples diaries - where it will be discussed will be timely and as soon as I receive that notice I will be placing it on local noticeboards. Hi Penguin68, What sad national stats and direction they're going in. Let me try and find out - just pinged an email trying to get this data for East Dulwich and South Camberwell wards.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is true that the averages for ED ward would > suggest that 'speaking with forked tongues' would > be a viable epithet here, but the polled part of > ED ward (such a strange and truncated area) might > still have lower car ownership than the ED average > - the fact is that nobody, including Mr Barber, > knows - and the ONLY information which Mr Barber > had of any accuracy, but which he chose not to > share, shows that this part of the ward would have > to be, on average, unusually car free for his > arguments to hold any water at all. > > His previous discussion about the plans for the > Garden Centre development, and his participation > in the relevant decision, make it clear that, at > the very least, he was compartmentalising issues > to an extraordinary extent not to see, admit or > discuss the linkages here. > > When it comes to the next opportunity to exercise > a democratic vote which is not obfuscated or > gerrymandered no doubt some of us will remember. Hi Peckahmboy, The data from that Transport Assessment is based on the 2001 census. The data provided to me by officers for the 1,146 homes in the proposed streets was from this summer and I was told 41% homes have access to a car - I believe council officers can ask DVLA for car ownership data that consultancies and inidividuals can't. But I've never tried to get such data so perhaps this assumption is wrong.

Hi easytiger, The TfL chap who attended the Dulwich CommuitY counci lwas their to talk about TfL decided work. The circa ?3M fudned TfL works in Southwark that happenevery year are decided by Southwark. So unsurprisingly he couldn't talk about tactical Southwark works TfL funded when he is their to talk TfL strategic stuff. I understood the SSBA have submitted a petiton with 250 local businesses signatures not residents? AND A DEVELOPER IS NOT FUNDING THIS CONSULTATION. If/when a section 106 agreement is signed they will eventually around 2014/15 give ?20,000 towards a CPZ consultation. I don't see any appetite for another such consultation within 3-4 years. Do you? So in all likeyhood that ?20,000 will sit in a council bank accounr for a number of years. The 72 Grove Vale S106 agreement had this problem and evenutally the ?50,000 was spent on the orignal Herne Hill CPZ consultation. This is why I have repeatedly asked council planning officers to divert their ?20,000 requirement to something more useful lcoally. Hi grisett, Apologies but the suggestion I was effectively paid of made me mad. As a local councillor I will always be asking lots of questions and seek meetings with planning officers to ensure the best possible result for East Dulwich. So of course I'm well informaed. I'd hope you'd be horrified if I wasn't. 20 extra 2 bed flats on top of ED station is not likely to generate much car ownership and part fo the scheme is free car club membership for all occupiers. It carries more than 1:1 cycle parking.

Hi Fred, You are being outrageously unfair. The Somerfield flats were decided before May 2006 when East Dulwich elected Lib Dem councillors ie. before my time. If you have a problem with the planning decision talk to then Labour councillors who took council officer advice. I believe the decision date was 2005. Hi Peckhmboy, I can assure you their are 5,200 homes in East Dulwich ward. I've knocked on them all repatedly and haverepatedly delivered our popular ;-) Lib Dem leaflets to them all. The stats I have for car ownership come from council officers and public data.

easytiger, The developer isn't contributing to this CPZ consultation. The consultation is over before they've signed anything. I've repeatedly asked council planning officers that the S106 doesn't include this as they're are better things to spend ?20,000 locally.

Hi Monica, I have to admit guilt. I removed both posters about the CPZ from the ED station notice boards and the one on North Cross Road. I didn't remove it from the Copleston Road notice board and was annoyed it had'nt remained until the end of the consultaton. I try and keep these notice boards fresh and the consultation deadline date had gone by more than a week.

grisett, mention what?

Hi Fuschia, Just had it confirmed that Southwark Council no longer work to 2 hours SLA to remove dog poo but now a 48 hours SLA - largely because they now expect the alternate day litter pickers to remove. But that they will try and do it in 4 hours where possible. To report it online you need to used ther Street Cleaning/ Swpeeing Request or call 020 7525 5777 or 2000 - both numbers given on different web pages. Please try this and let me know if it doesn't work for you via an email.

Hi grisett, I'm sorry you're so very badly misinformed and that you appear to have taken such umabrage with my actions. Your questions feel like an attempt to smear. No legal agreement has been signed with the developer. Council planning officers are asking for ?20,000 to be incldued within the Sectino 106 agreement with that developer towards a CPZ consultation. But I repeat nothing has been agreed or signed. And no developer will retrospectively pay for a CPZ. So in all likelyhood the money will sit in an accoutn for many years to come until another S106 consultation happen one day. As happened with the S106 for 72 Grove Vale which I understood was used towards Herne Hill CPZ eventually. You've suggested I voted in favour of the development - no I attended the planning committee as a local ward councillor and spoke in favour of that scheme as I believe Grove Vale needs a proper local library and this scheme will deliver an excellent one. This new library now has cross party support. With regards to the proposed CPZ. I have time and agian stated its a choice between experiencing parking pressures or paying for permits and having the inconvenience that causes and that for every resident that balance will be different. I have suggested and encouraged everyone to respond to the consultation regardless of their views or locations. I have tried to ensure I've found answers to everyone's questions - CPZ consultations are very expensive and don't happen very often. I think I've answered most of your questions. But I'd also add developers never ask to pay extra money in S106 or to restrict their home buyers from being able to parking locally. The developement is for 20 homes 10seconds from East Duwlcih station entrances out of a consulted area of 1,146 homes. It doesn't make a material difference and I doubt many people in said 20 homes would want a car - they would also be given car club membership for 3 years from memory by the developer. As for any relationship. Please see my declaration of interests. I have never taken or received anything from any developer ever. I've been offered pints in pubs twice as part of rounds and always refused. I've been offered bottles of wine by grateful residents and have always refused on principle that I never accept gifts of any size - excepting the odd chocolate biscuit.

Hi Pugwash, I'm really saddened to hear aout this. It doesn't sound like foxes if so regular a pattern and number. Nappies could technically be clinical waste but can you imagine the palova it would cause to families - so I'd hope not. You need to try and work out who's doing it. If it persists then we'd need to get the Anti Social Unit (SASBU) involved. Please keep me posted. Hi BeccaL, I thought it was a public right of way and would be highways. But its not shown on the Southwark Council map or Google maps. Or at least Firemens Alley is shown from Lordship Lane to Dulwich Park but not all the way through to Dulwich Coomon (South Circular). So I suspect the northern half is highways and southern half council housing. Which bit is causing the problem? On Saturday the southern half from memory didn't look covered in leaves but I was just walking past. Eitherway I'll report the issue and ask questions over who runs it and why its not shown fully on maps.

Hi northlondoner, I've just been assured that litter picking is occurring every other day on Hindmans Road and it was last swept 3 weeks ago and will be swept next week. If you find its not beeing swept everyother day could you please send me some picture of the same spot over several days?

Hi Penguin68, Ill find out as I was also wondering this. NB. The Integrated Waste Management Facility will finally open to the public and be fully operational in the New Year. You can then visit.

Hi Sue, I was called last Wednesday asking about this issue - I think they read the forum. I gave a potted history which they largely seemed to use and told them about your question. Sorry if you didn't want that! Hi savage, bloonoo, I agree. So I asked council officers who agreed to run an experiment. 2/4 of the Friern Road council blocks were given bags with handles and the other two without. They're due to report back whether it made a difference to food waste collections. As soon as I have that info I'll let you know. Anecdotally for my household. No handles is making me consider buying my own bags with handles or giving up as I find it really fiddly and I'm a keen recycler. So I suspect many will have given up for collect food waste sparodically.

The original application was for an 11m x 8m hoarding illuminated from the back. I understand that this application is for 10m x 7m hoarding lit from above and slightly out with 400w halogen spotlights. Hope that helps clarify things.

Hi EastdulwichRose, East Dulwich is a huge area - close to the heart of Dulwich Village in the west and as far as Forest Hill Road on the east. We're talking about 20,000 homes and 45,000 people. 60 burglaries in a month is clearly 60 to many but at this incidence rate it would take on average 28 years for each home to be burgled. Taking preventative measures such as those listed by TigerMountain dramatically reduces your chances of being burgled from that. Hi joom, You should talk to the newspapers about your case - clearly ridiculous. Email if you want to be introduced. Hi drew, One of the three East Dulwich ward Police priorities is fighting burglary.