James Barber

Fab.

Hi peckhamboy, Bother, let me check my maths - I plead in advance very long days. 4.30 x twice a week x 52 weeks a year = ?447.20 or ?37.27 pcm (or off peak ?34.67) 2.30 x twice a week x 52 weeks a year + ?50.10 axess card = ?289.30 or ?24.10 pcm (or off peak ?21.51). 12 months x ?24 = ?288 Apologies for my poor maths. Its 10p a month more expensive using Axess peak times and a bit fiddlier having to take money.

Hi Loz, If it happened I wouldn't expect a large number of front gardens to go - most potential ones have gone already. But some of the few left might go. I also don't beleive a loss of legal parking would occur. It will make it plainly clear where parking taking place against the highway code is definately not allowed. Hence why some streets have seen more than 100% parking. Stopping such inconsiderate parking is partly where the safety argument comes from. Hi Penguin68, I can assure you no administration likes to hear about inconsiderate extreme enforcement. If anyone feels hard done by appeal and contact your local councillor. When I've received such casework of unfair ticketing I've helped get those ickets cancelled. I think your suggestion of building multistorey car parks to solve the problem would just encourage more car use along our roads and make East Dulwich station a destination for far more people to drive to. Equally why would people pay to park in a multi storey car parking next to free residential street parking?

Hi Michael, I'm sure I've written this up in the past - eitherway.... Regular swimmers at the Dulwich Leisure Centre could use a Leisure Axess card gives a good a discount this card costs ?50.10 or ?72.30 for a family card. ?2 off peak adult swimming and ?2.40 peak time for Axess card holders. Non Axess card holders pay ?4 and ?4.30 respectively. So if someone swims twice a week at peak times they'll spend ?19.20pcm as opposed to the old swim only membership which cost ?24pcm. Hope this explains why officers have changed things.

Hi Renata, You're repeating the explanation Cllr Veronica Ward made in an email to loyal Labour party members which was full of mistruths and inaccuricies to cover herself. Yes, your adminsitratino wanted to also celebrate Christmas on Friday the 4 November as well as not calling a fireworks event on Guy Fawkes weekend Bonfire night but instead the "The Colour Thief: A Winter Extravaganza Celebrating The Changing Of The Seasons". As I said at the time BONKERS. At the September Dulwich Community Council we were told by Cllr Veronica Ward that the council had made no commercial commitments and a consultation with the community of what they wanted would take place starting 7 weeks before the proposed event and ending 5 weeks before the event and that the council would have no trouble organsiing a complex event with only five weeks when one of the those weeks was half term making it harder for schools and clubs to organise. That consultation was pulled by your adminsitration after a week from public ridicule But if you're now saying a commercial commitment had been made then you're now telling us Veronicia was lieing.

Hi bonamoe, Cllr Jonathan Mitchell is taking a well earnt holiday this week.

Hi karter, Yes, it is clear on the East Dulwich Forum people are generally against controlled parking near East Dulwich station. But those that have stated they live in the proposed streets for the controlled parking seem to be in favour. My own personal experience of meeting people on doorsteps is those closer to the station in the proposed zone are very much in favour. This means that potentially weighing up the wishes of people near the station who say they're suffering parking problems against those that are not currently suffering parking problems but fear they will if the zone is implimented. The damned if you do and the damned if you don't problem. So I await the consultation results with keen interest. Hi Ris2011. Petitions without full names and addresses although interesting are a problem. With the North Cross Road Sunday Market consultation it became clear that not having to give such details made the responses such that it threw the whole consultation in my mind under suspicion. It looked like one side had really doctored the results, Its also important for the petition to have clear wording that people are signing up to. If its a loaded closed question that also wont help your cause. If you wish to discuss this via email. I'm keen that the best overall decision is made and would like ot ensure that any petitions are done such that they could carry weight.

Hi bawdy-nan, Council officials have been very quick to explain that 20mph is the minimum speed limit a local authority can have on a public highway excepting Home Zones. apparently where we all see 5, 10, 15 mph signage is on non public land. Weirdly public parks fall into this category. BUT your suggestion of planting etc to create a Home Zone I believe would make lower than 20mph possible ie. 10mph. The following Sheffield document has useful ideas - http://www.homezones.org.uk/public/resources/documents/SheffieldHomeZoneGuidelines08.05.01.pdf http://www.homezonenews.org.uk/ But this is probably the most helpful: http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/liveable%20neighbourhoods/DIY%20Streets%20info%20sheet_FINAL.pdf In November the next round of the Cleaner, Greener, Safer funding will be launched. Why don't you and your neighbours apply for funding to doa DIY Street? If I can help in any way ask me round to meet with you and your neighbours.

Hi rahrahrah, You make a very good point especially as its only 70m long! So I've asked officers how or if we can make Plough Lane 5mph. fingers crossed it not difficult in the circumstance of being a short residential cul de sac. NB. The signs are roughly ?50 each. It used to cost ?15 for a cycle logo on the road so it must cost ?50 of less for 20mph in the road.

Hi Ris2011, It is key that people respond to the consultation. If collecting signatures please ensure you have the full address and printed name to ensure it carries any weight. This allows officers if they choose to double check against the electoral roll. I wouldn't want lots of effort against the proposals to be wasted.

Hi first mate, It's not still being pushed. It's still being demanded by many residents but clearly not by all residents. The last time a formal council consultation took place was around 9 years ago.

Intersting idea from Salisbury - "a group of local residents in Salisbury, including a number of pensioners, have reduced anti-social behaviour, illegal parking and graffiti since they started to patrol the suburbs in hi-visibility jackets." http://www.crp-news.com/htm/n20111018.348010.htm Any takers for East Dulwich?

Hi BobBy P, We visited Melbourne Grove 1-63 odds numbers and evens 2-44 ie those homes in the proposed zone. I'm sorry if you think I'm predetermined in how I will react to residents consultation responses. I'm certainly not clear on what the outcome will be. I'm sure the administration and the cabinet member Cllr Barrie Hargrove have not predetermined their views. Yes, the consultation is asking people whether they agree with the proposal or not but if residents are clearly against I will be campaign to ensure it doesn't happen. Hi Prickle, Only managed to visit even numbers on Elsie Road stopping at 6.30pm. Like i said we will be calling before the consultation ends.

Hi DJKQ, You're right it never occurred to me when the council had a large events budget to push for the then Lib Dem led council to devolve the major events budget. We should have spotted it but we didn't. too busy fixing other things. But when you plan to halve the budget and initiate big changes everyone then does take a look. I'm clear that the Lib Dems would seek to devolve this budget. If labour had done that every councillor in Southwark would be on the hook for making the required savings happen and maximising the relevance to their local communities.

Yesterday we we asking people whether they had any issues we could help them with and we also asked whether people were in favour of controlled parking or not. If people wanted to talk about it we answered questions and I hope I was pretty unbiased in my replies. Hi a-m, Over the last few years people. I the area have unsolicited contacted council officers asking for controlled parking and complaining about parking pressures. For those 40+ people to reach the right offices to have their contact recorded probably means others have similar issues. The last formal consultation over a much larger area took place nearly a decade ago. My colleagues on the southern side of Grove Vale ran a survey in all East Dulwich ward about 3 years ago. Hi Peterstorm1985, Reading the Home Owners Council papers for the next meeting where controlled parking on estates is present the parking permits are free for the first one - but they have been running a deficit of ?550,000 pa. They're now hoping to resolve this by renegotiating the contract. The report isnt clear if the council housing parking enforcement contract has been renegotiated with the highway parking enforcement contract as the report implies one new contract saving exactly ?550,000. Another query to resolve to ensure no cross subsidy. Hi Penguin68, I used to live in an all day scheme. I was delighted to ensure that one of the options is a 2 hours mon-fri option which should mean most people could choose to avoid needing visitor permits. Are you local to the area the CPZ is proposed? One of unhappy consequences if it proceeds is likely to be a few more front gardens being turned over to car parking.

Can you tell me when these 3 burglaries occurred? I ask as a prolific burglar was caught late August. Regards james

Have you thought, are you able to walk the 15mins to Kings?

I spent yesterday with colleagues undertaking a mobile surgery on most East Dulwich ward streets in the proposed CPZ area. We'll visit the other ED streets before the consultation finishes. Perhaps not a representative sample - people in on a Saturday afternoon. Melbourne Grove (1-63, 2-44)and Derwent Grove overwhelmingly in favour. Elsie Road 50:50. Grove vale in favour. I should say that the 10-12 mon-fri option was the clear winner. I highlighted that all residents should respond if they want to help decide whether it happens or not. It's great to see lots of debate here but only responses submitted to the consultation will end up in the council officials report to Councillors. And no my mind isn't made up but responses here don't show where the person commenting lives and we know some forumites provide thoughtful comments but live outside the area and in some cases even the UK. I used to live in a Southwark CPZ area some years ago and it really wasn't that painful once I obtained some visitor permits.

Hi Andrew1011, You make a very useful suggestion about road making at the junction of Melbourne Grove with East Dulwicg Grove. Practically this old be very cheap to do but I'll ask what the overall processs would cost. Tnk you.

Hi prickle, No I've not had a response yet. On reflection without a parking permit they'd get a ticket in majority of spaces which would not be pay and display. For the pay and display it would cost from what I recall ?2.60/hour so for one offs that might be attractive but for most non residents commuting people adding an extra ?104pcm is probably too much.

Hi Alan Medic, This is my understanding. When deciding to understandably cut the total events budget the council administration decided to move from 12 to 3 events - one in the north, middle and south. They then left officers to come up with a plan. They appear to have largely left officers to their own devices. To me a Lib Dem it was obvious that you just divide the total budget up and get the eight community councils to decide what events to support and officers just vet organisations have public liability, child protection policies etc. Anyway, officers came up with the idea of celebrating bonfire night, divali, Xmas and Hanukah on one night around the 5 November. As it was meant to be celebrating so many festivals theY came up with the snappy name! Tha actual mast plan was issued only very recently. But we had wind of the south event in an email to all Dulwich Councillors and asked that the south event be explained at a Public meeting once our private emails pointing out how daft their plans were were ignored. At the public meeting Dulwich Community Council the cabinet councillor and director plus events officers were present. They had written in the officer report that the Friends of Dulwich Park were in favour of the event when those friends has contacted Dulwich Councillors telling us a fait accompli had been presented to them and given a choice they wanted to preserve the park from such a large event. Private emails had also told Dulwich Councillors that the Police were happy to support the event but at the public meeting we asked local Police who said it was the first they'd heard of the event and were horrified. The root cause is a centralising top down approach while leaving council officials to their own devices. Hope this helps explain how we got here.

Mon-Thurs up to 10 stalls are allowed. Fri & Sat up to 30 stalls.

I also think an eyesore and have reported it. ...but Southwark have signed a dealcwith JCDeceux for 80 free standing advertising displays on our pavements. The first for Eadt Dulwich is planning app 11-AP-3314. http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9542256

Hi puzzled, I've been away on family holiday for 3 days. I'm cussing you! The Colour Thief......was going to be a celebration of bonfire night (with a bonfire), divali, Christmas and hannukah. The friends of Dulwich park were against it? The Dulwich society were against. Local Police said it was the busiest weekend of the year due to all the pre booked firework nights in the Dulwich area and they couldn't support another one. We have lots of local firework displays in the area. Sending ?78,000 on a one hour event that could be rained of. So Southwark Council after having much feedback the idea was bonkers in private and at a public meeting in the Dulwich Library decided to press ahead. It then cancelled once the press were involved. Southwark has now found it can have a great bonfire night in Southwark Park for only ?25,000 leaving a considerable sum over for an event yet to be decided in the Du Which area. I'm hopeful that will be a super boosted Dulwich Festival.

Hi Calculus, But one of the options is for the controlled parking to only operate 10-12, which is the minimum period thought enforceable and can be enforced using the same people who enforce the Herne Hill CPZ which operates 12-2. Hi Trizza, I'm just back from a 3 day holiday with the family. I didn't get one with them this summer due to mothers illness. Hi Karter, I was under the impression such zones boost house prices but that wouldn't influence my reaction when the consultation feedback is in. And no I haven't a clue how people will react on the streets the CPZ is proposed. And yes I do support this consultation and residents being asked whether they agree with the 40+ who have complained and asked for this. I am proud to have ensured one of the options is that residents are being asked about any controlled zone operating 10-12. And no I haven't prejudged what my reaction to residents responses. If it's clear they are for or against that will be what I try to ensure happens. My only caveat is that the views of those on the actual streets will carry more weight for me as they have to live with the parking stress. Clearly those neighbouring should be taken into account but the idea residents in Nunhead or Forest Hill have an equal weighting is bizarre.