James Barber

Hi mrsw, You raise an important principle with borough wide implications. I've asked officers about why such temporary controls don't have pedestrian facilities. I'm awaiting a response.

I was contacte to ascertain if Peckham Rye posters about dog poisoning are true. Council officers have been unable to obtain any evidence these rumours are true. IF you know of any information that substantiates these rumours please get in touch with me and I'll advise the officer investigating. In the mean time any remaining posters will be removed.

I spoken with local Police. It is a very exceptional occurence and not expected t obe repeated. To reassure residents the local Police will be knocking on every door offering free property marking kits and other crime prevention information.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson budget plans for next financial year to cut Police budgets and 455 Police officers. That's probably 1 less Police officer in East Dulwich. We only currently have 1 Police sargent, 2 Police officers and 5 Police Community Support Officers. This is really dreadful and unnecessary. He doesn't need to do this. See an alternative budget that increases police numbers while reducing taxation.

Hi mikese22, Do you mean the Rail Utilisation Study consultation? Certainly no consultation broadcast to residents in London. If you were really in the know you might have found a consultation. As an elected representative I've never been consulted. The council were consulted and made it views crystal clear. Huge social disbenefits of isolating large swathes of South London from direct train services to where jobs are located in Victoria and London Bridge. Who in East Dulwich has a strong desire to commute to Dalston the alternative being proposed? I've attached the Save the South London Line latest short report.

For many months GLA Lib Dems have been highlighting that London police officer numbers are set to fall. Just before Christmas Mayor Boris Johnson was directly challenged about his proposed cut in Police numbers as per his draft budget for 2010-2011. These advanced warnings are now being picked up on and this week were reported in the Guardian newspaper. Lib Dems proposed a reversal to this cut and to also allow extra police officers for boroughs with the higher gun and knife crime while reducing the overall budget. The Lib Dem proposals can be seen in the group?s budget amendment. How will this affect Southwark and East Dulwich? 455/32 London Boroughs would result in something like one less police officer for East Dulwich. It doesn't sound much but we only have one Police sargent and two police officers supported by five Police Community Support Officers covering East Dulwich at present.

Hi dukesdenver, Your fears about Southwark are unfounded. Southwark library staff have told me that Southwark is a member of a 42 library authority purchasing consortium. This consortium has pronounced buying power and some stock is 'selected' by supplier BUT in the sense of standing orders to fulfil: - reference stock - large print materials - talking books - best selling fiction - romantic fiction - bestselling non-fiction - some categories of childrens stock. This minimises the time to get books and gets great prices. Apart from this base stock purchasing each library selects books that its found local users want. Equally in areas of adult fiction, graphic novels and childrens fiction experienced Southwark librarians select the stock required. Further purchases are made for areas that mainstream suppliers don't cover e.g. BME intersts, local history. The way books are purchased is via Electronic Data Interfaces for quotes and using EDI for invoices is being considered. The generall principles behind why stock is chosen is: - stock select as efficiently as possible - skills and kowledge of both staff and suppliers used - newly published titles avialableto librarys users asap - statistics used to inform buyers - number of different supplier used to ensure range and quality of books Any more Q's let me know.

The latest up date I have on the TfL/London TravelWatch South london Line study. Five options being reviewed. None of them keep the SLL. Option 1 : modified East London Line service from Dalston Junction of 4 trains per hour - 2 trains to Clapham Junction and 2 trains to Victoria Option 2 : modified East London Line service from Dalston Junction of 6 trains per hour ? 4 trains to Clapham Junction and 2 trains to Victoria Option 3 : A 2 trains per hour service between Victoria and Bellingham. Option 4 : A package of measures: Additional stops in 2 of the 4 existing Orpington ? Victoria services at Clapham High Street & Wandsworth Road stations outside of peak times AND additional stops in the 2 trains per hour Gillingham or Dover / Ramsgate services at Peckham Rye & Denmark Hill stations. Option 5 : A package of measures: An additional service of 2 trains per hour between Hither Green and Victoria at peak times AND running of the existing two trains per hour Dartford ? Victoria service all day, every day, which would also stop at Clapham High Street & Wandsworth Road stations outside of peak times. Analysis of these five options will complete in Mid March which will then be reviewed with Network Rail and the Dept of Transport. My hunch would be that as the SLL protests have gone quiet the report will be held back until after national elections - sure prudah will be stated. Then local Labour MPs will be safe for another 4-5 years while the service is queitly retired with above options having 'technical' reasons for not progressing. I'm having a bad cynical day.

Sad to see that Conways screwed up telling people that works were due to start. I can understand the delay for a week with all the snowy weather but delivering another letter would'nt have taken long. Amazed at report that Nunhead ward Cllr Colley finding it hard to find out what is going on with Ivydale/Marmora. The council publishes all its centrally funded highways renovations early in the financial year. Every councillor is emailed about the decision going to be taken, then all cllrs emailed later that the decision has been taken. Cllr Colley is the chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and is meant to lead on scrutinising all such decisions. Equally each community council should know how its spending its highway renovations money and when making those decisions officers point out the centrally funded plans for the community council and tell councillors roughly when they'll take place.

Hi dukesdenver, I'll officers as although I'm dead keen on the library service I've never investigated or had casework on book purchasing arrangements.

Latest Met Office weather forecast is for heavy snow in London and SE tomorrow and Thursday - a day earleir than previously expected. I've checked and Southwark COuncil has 500 tonnes of salt/grit in stock. The government is still directing via its Salt Cell that all councils only use salt at half the rates they need to. Clearly spreading half the salt a day Southwark plans for means some areas will be left without. Not a direction Southwark needs or wants to receive.

I'm told two arrests have recently been made in this area. Hopefully it will reduce the incidents.

Hi EDmummy, The chicane you highlight is exactly the spot the single to double yellow lines I reported have been agreed by local councillors at the last Dulwich Community Council and will take 6-8 weeks to impliment. As a cyclist I've found the coaches annoying but prefer 25 coaches to 500+ cars. The discussion evolved to suggest it was outrageous that private schools should have a private coach service. I suspect the coach services would be happy to open it up to state schools if they felt demand existed.

Hi Jaws, I don't have an email from someone calling themselves Jaws. I', sorry but for whatever reason I don't know which emails you refer to. Please accept my apologies. Can I ask you to tell me the email address or subject line and I can trace what I've done with them. OR send again.

I'm a bit bemused. Its been suggested that users of the private schools coach service should use public trasnport. The coaches only really affect people driving private motor vehicles. The passengers on the coaches are children many quite young. the drivers of the private motor vehicles are clearly adults. Who is best placed of these two groups to use public transport? The Foundation schools website state they transport around 1,000 children a day. Allowing for 2 kids lift sharing per car this coach service is keeping around 500 cars a day am and 500 cars pm from areas around Alleyns, Dulwich College, JAGS. Looking atthe website it appears 25 coaches move those 1,000 kids into and out of the area. So 25 coaches vs. 500+ cars. Which is best. NB. I've campaigned for bus companies to run extra buses to support local council schools.

Hi Barry, Hope you're well. Quick update after last Wednesdays Dulwich Community Council. We're waiting to hear from the Camberwell Councillors whether they also support the new shelter for the platform facing London Bridge..

Woah. We're talking about double yellow lines on the north east side of Townley Road between the two entry roads to Alleyn's School. So the equivalent of around 2 or 3 cars that frankly never really had space to park as close to the new islands as people have.

Eitherway, the UK Met Office is predicting heavy snowfall this Thursday and Friday.

Hi tallgirl, Blimey I wish. But I'm afraid the council can't borrow money without following archaic central govt rules. They decide the marginal rate of interest we borrow at. When Tooley Street was being decided 14% interest rate. The marginal rate drops in 2014 when 70's and early 80's massive interest rates are finally flushed out of the accounts. So to buy the property would require not spending money on many other capital projects, schools, roads, leisure centres, street lighting, Southwark decent homes, etc. The sums from selling ex council offices raising ?35m so far BUT with vacant possession ie. they're empty. So again Southwark Council would have had to borrow money and reach central government agreement or more likely delay lots of capital projects. I'm afraid I spent days asking exactly the same questions as you before I was convinced. I met the Finance Director and others several times. I pitched these and other questions and we really couldn't have done it any other way. Equally any delay would have required significant capital to keep existing offices working.

Hi KidKruger, The owner has been 'found out'. He's lost control despite vehemently fighting to retain it. He will have spent a fortune and I believe Southwark's expenses will be deducted from the price. Hi Siduhe, I do really feel for the 'mock goth' flat owners. I can only guess at how painful and expensive it has been for them. Hopefully things coming to a close for them. They'll have the builders on site for soon and the hassle that goes with that but at least they'll soon not have a ruin next door. If they still have any issues about freehold ownership I could put them in touch with the officers who proved the agent was really the owner.

Hi W**F and KidKruger, The mock goth house was approved but built in an unapproved location - from memory 2m closer to the concrete house than the planning permission stated. Yes, the developer did say they would renovate the concrete house and has since that itme attempt to gain permission to demolish it on a number of occassions providing 'eveidence' it could'nt be renovated. The flat owners of the 'mock house' have been put in invidious position unwittingly. I know it meant ot be #'buyer beware' but few would ever expect such circumstances. How is the price determined. I presume a charterred surveyor based on the permissions in place and the state of the property and the legal requirements to renovate a listed building. All CPO's in these circumstance go to a public inquiry to ensure fair play. The existing 'mock goth' house is being treated as a seperate property and not connected with this. Its owned by diferent parties now. They were promised various car parking in the concrete house grounds which clearly will never happen. Hope that answers your questions.

Hi tallgirl, Buying a new building would have cost ?50m+. If we found that capital budget it would mean not doing so many other things. The Tooley Street building was the winning option from a number to house around 2,000 council officers. However, the other options were in the north of the borough where offices large enough are being built. We discounted the option of moving everyone to somewhere outside Southwark like Croydon. We didn't have an option with a vacant site anywhere else in the borough. In about 3-5 years time their might be such a site at Elephant&Castle. The first break period for Tooley Street is after five years. I'd be delighted if in five years time the council moved from Tooley Street to E&C and made money reletting Tolley Street with a racing office property market. The move has been a stunning success. It's saving more money than planned and earlier and I'm hopeful further money will be saved.

Hi bob, Public inquiry feedback as I udnerstand it. On the day council officers were able to prove that the person claiming to be the agent of the owner who alledgely lives in India was and is the owner. I believe this agent/owner subdefuge was to make any CPO much harder to execute. The counsel for the agent was left in a terrible position where they could have appeared to be aiding such mistruths. The agent/owner then withdrew their opposition, probably under counsels advice, to the Complusory Purchase Order. The game was up. What a terrible waste of the owners money. So the CPO was granted. All Southwark's costs will be deducted from the purchase price given to the owner. Southwark has lined up a developer recommended by English Heritage so the purchase will be sold on stright away. That new developer has already lined up planning permission. I must say the council officers have done a good job despite what some generous residents have termed a 'slippery owner'.

Hi VikkiM, Not sure which audit you refer to. They do so many. Last Corporate Assessment by the Audit Commission said Southwark Council "Southwark Council is performing well. The Council's ambitions are challenging but realistic and focus on crucial areas for the people of the Borough. They are based on a good understanding of the communities it serves. Core services such as recycling, waste management and services for older people have improved. The Council with its partners are achieving good outcomes for communities in a challenging local context. The Council has a clear view of what it wants to achieve. Its ambitions are framed around the key themes of People, Places and Services, and are designed to tackle inequality, revitalise the Borough through major regeneration projects, and improve the physical environment, These ambitions are underpinned by clear priorities which are shared and owned by partners and are championed by senior councillors and officers. The Council works well with its partners. It provides good community leadership, with the police, in tackling violent crime, an important cause of the fear of crime in the Borough, and on wider issues such as social inclusion and the green agenda. The place shaping agenda is progressing with ambitious, large scale regeneration plans for the Aylesbury and Heygate estates, the Elephant and Castle and Building Schools for the Future." I've been a member of Southwark Councils Audit and Governance Committee for three years. Each year the Audit Commission challenges how Southwark Council accounts for the value of council houses. Quite complicated as some are due for demolition such as those on the Aylesbury. Each year Southwark has to employ the person who wrote the document the Audit Commission are supposed to measure Southwark against to explain yet again to the same Audit Commission people how they should do their job. Each year the Audit Commission doesn't produce a basic project plan. I've tried doing a Freedom of Information on them to extract such documentation. They refused on public interest grounds. Every year The Audit Commission put their fees up much higher than inflation. If we want to change to a private external auditor the Audit Commission decide who it will be if they deign they'll allow it. My personal experience of them has been exasperating. They are judge and jury and don't give me any confidence they know what they're doing. Each council should have a duty to obtain competent external auditing. The Audit Commission perhaps should regulate such auditors but not undertake them. It seems total conflict of interest that they should decide if they are performaing well.

Hi tallgirl, When you move officers from over 30 offices to one office you no longer need to have 30 sets of receptionsits and security guards employed by the council. You don't need to spend time travelling between offices for meetings. You don't needto have 30 sets of other support staff. You have one boiler to maintain not 30. These are the obvious savings. These savings are considerably more than the rent for that one new building. Equally those 30+ buildings vaied from quite ok offices to really terrible buildings. So retaining officers in some buildings had been really hard. So things like recruitment costs have been high. High turnover of officers in some teams had affected performance.