James Barber

I've had some casework before on crane aviation warning lights. From memory if the crane is 150m of greater above the surrounding ground height then it would need lights. I suspect the crane in question may have previously been used for such a location. Risk of placing such lights if the crane isn't 150m of confusing any pilots and disorientating them. So perhaps the lights have ben removed or switch off. No aircraft should ever be flying above East Dulwich at a height they could crash into this crane.

Hopefully it will help - I've reported the building to Planning Enforcement. The change f form offices to flats would have involved detailed proposals for where their rubbish and recycling would go. It just needs to be used and it appears sadly enforced.

Hi Jakido, The Traffic Management Order become valid 23 October. BUT The signage lining will be in place for Saturday 11 November. So I would counsel only acting as if the TMO is in place then. Hope that helps. Jakido Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello > > Do you know if there's been any progress on > extending north cross road market? > > Thank you.

Hi Siduhe, I've had an anecdotal comment that signs had been tampered with hence the more permanent version. The council has to have these signs in place while a temporary closure. It can't keep re installing the more temporary versions. This could be because some are 'fired up' but it is wasting council tax payers money to commit such vandalism. If the council had made its mind up to keep the road closed it would not install diversion signs but cul de sac signs.

Hi macultd, I believe the school has an archivist so perhaps worth contacting the school. For general outside photos the Southwark Local Studies Library (based to read of the John Harvard Library, 211 Borough High Street).

Hi Sally, Yes, but the start date will be when the lines and signs are physically changed.

You would not believe how much effort has gone into getting Southwark Council to try these. Good luck with your CGS bid PeckhamRose. And if anyone would like a motorbike ground anchor where they live in East Dulwich ping me an email with your address and I'll get the ball rolling to make this happen for you.

The formal Traffic Management Order -https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/4620/Waiting%20Restrictions%20North%20Cross%20Road%20Market%20-%20Public%20notice%20dated%207%20September%202017.pdf had a deadline for response of 8 September. Allowing for processing it gould be in place imminently...I;ll find out exact date.

Hi rch, You spotted that as well. I've submitted a bid for devolved highway renewal budget to cover that and some other issues on Lordship Lane as well. rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for posting the footway refurbishment > locations, James... I've walked through them now > and it appears that the entire west side of > Lordship Lane from Goose Green almost up to > Melbourne is going to be refurbished and then the > section from North Cross down to Frogley on the > east side is going to be done. > > I'm assuming that they are going to upgrade the > pavement to the same granite paving slabs that > were used on the side of Lordship from North Cross > to Shawbury so that the entire parade eventually > matches, but I'll try to confirm this. > > The one section on the west side that doesn't > appear to be included is the really bad patch > between Sage Mews and Bassano Street (112-114 > Lordship), which I posted the attached photo of on > another thread... but conveniently, I've just > applied for a Devolved Highways CGS grant to > address that section. > > There are some other serious sunken pavement > problems up by Jade and Oddonos which won't be > addressed by these works either (which a second > Devolved Highways bid that I put in could be used > to address), but I'll discuss those on the other > thread.

Hi evilmanic, How ridiculous - I've contacted council officials to ask if this is true. A 6 months delay to get a parking bay suspended to allow a water leak repair is so outlandish I find it hard to believe as a Thames Water excuse. evilmanic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi James, > > As I think has been reported here before, there > has been a water leak on Forest Hill Road for > about the last 6 months, it's a slow leak but it's > quite slippy from the algae there and once it ices > over, it'll be worse. > > Outside the SeaMaster chip shop, 36 Forest Hill > Road. > > Thames Water say that they've been waiting on a > parking bay suspension for 6 months to fix this > but nothing has come from the council, can you > speak to some people please?

My understanding is that these leases have reverted to Southwark Council. BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James, please could you possibly chase up the > siuation with regard to the lease on Green Dale > fields? Meadow Residential have now given up their > planning appeal for the two applications regarding > the proposed DHFC/housing development, but it's > not clear from their latest statement if they're > carrying on with the legal case against LBS trying > to keep the Green Dale lease.

The old adage 'be careful what you ask for' seems to apply to this... I've asked whether any of these works will take place during December - crucial period for local businesses - and if this is planned that those plans be amended. I've also asked if the works could instead take place starting in the New Year. " Dear Councillors, For your information please find attached notification letter being delivered to local residents/businesses relating to Footway Refurbishment works starting on Lordship Lane ? Location As shown Below; Site Address: Lordship Lane, Footway works ? (1)Outside 6 - 24 Lordship Lane, (2)Outside 45 ? 91 Lordship Lane, (3)Outside 72 ? 78 Lordship Lane, (4)Outside 96 ? 110 Lordship Lane, (5)Outside 116 ? 118 Lordship Lane, (6)Outside 128 ? 138 Lordship Lane. Footway Refurbishment.From: 03/11/2017 To: 05/03/2018 Footway Closures, Multi-phase signals and No parking Restrictions Please see attached Map showing planned extent of letter delivery; please let me know if you would like any amendment/addition to the extent of letter delivery area. We will be more than happy to accommodate any such request. The works are programmed to commence on 3rd November 2017 and will be completed by 5th March 2018. However, this date may be extended if poor weather conditions prevail or any unexpected circumstances. The above proposed start date may be subject to change due to unforeseen circumstances. The works will be implemented during Monday ? Friday, 08:00hours ? 17:00hours, we shall endeavour to keep any inconvenience to a minimum and would like to assure you of our best intentions at all times. If you require any further details please feel free to contact me. We apologise for any short term inconvenience the works may cause to local people. "

Hi Rollflick, I thought it was very clear that step lan is to reopen the road as it was before - one lane controlled by traffics lights. The consultation I thought was about whether to instead keep it closed. The lead Councillor was reported in Southwark News giving this context and view - from memory he expected it to reopen on this basis. The problem is going about 3 tonnes would require ?1M and a number of train line closures. If someone wanted to organise a crowdfunding to raise that ?1M the council I'm sure would be happy to spend that money making the bridge permanently able to carry any legal weights. Otherwise I think it is perfectly reasonable for the council to NOT spend your and my tax money doing this. Hi ITATM, It was stated Camberwell Grove was a main road. It isn't.

Hi EdButler, TfL and most councils have policies to remove railings wherever possible. The largest Southwark example of this was removing them from the Walworth Road - where they corralled people walking and made the road feel more like a dual carriageway. But it might mean a location where railings are removed should be made large to avoid overspill into the road of parents with kids. Is that the situation hear?

Hi rch, The Charter School East Dulwich has 43 planning conditions of which it looks like 18 need to be discharged before breaking ground or going above ground. By my reckoning 9 have been partially for the current part of the school or totally discharged. The new Health Centre - 37 planning conditions of which 14 need to be discharged before building works gets under way and ZERO have been applied to be discharged so far. Worrying. Hi wolrdwiser, It is awful. I have asked council officials to fix this. I will ask again. I'll also look at the original plans and check if this is a planning enforcement issue as well.

One correction. Camberwell Grove is neither an A or B road. So it is not a 'main road'. It may well be a convenient road to drive into/out of town. Camberwell Grove has over 1,000 residents. So the air quality improvement to this residential road must be marked of limiting motor vehicles access. I'd encourage everyone to register their views and respond to the formal consultation - for or against - reopening or keeping closed to through traffic. Final thought on this from me. Towns and cities that want to maximise people walking and cycling often create blocks with one way in and out for motor vehicles but very porous for walking and cycling. They see a factor increase in people walking and cycling. But it ensures motor vehicles access for those with a real need -http://urbanaccessregulations.eu I would like to see this road open but only to Southwark residents during rush hour - and the same on other current rat run streets - Chadwick, Lyndhurst etc. Sadly that's not on offer so keep the closure for now.

Hi ed_pete, I'm also a bit concerned that nothing is happening. Today I was corresponding with a planning team leader ands if I could have schedule of the planning conditions both the new school and health centre and where they are with pleasing them. Fingers crossed i can get this before the weekend and we'll see where they've reached.

Hi green bean, No, I will chase. Apologies for the delay. Promise by head of planning not delivered.

Hi Sally Eva, Such as scheme has been suggested in the past by Councillor Ian Wingfield for Dulwich Village. Allowing Southwark residents to drive through but not non Southwark residents unless they stay on the main roads i.e. the A roads. Half of all cars start and end journeys outside Southwark. Suspect now with GPS route finders now more likely to follow back roads such as Camberwell Grove. The idea being to make the school run safer for kids to walk and cycle to school. If such a scheme were to happen then several railway crossing such as this could make the area much more pleasant for those not driving and for Southwark residents who drive. Enforced via ANPRS. In the last 25 years London population has increased from 6.8 to 8.8 residents. The same is forecast to happen again. Doing the same and keeping the same road conditions assuming this forecast happens shouldn't be an option. 25% more traffic on our local roads. In fact we're seeing the opposite. TfL are nipping away at the existing bus services. Today I learnt that the no.42 bus route will reduce from one every 10 min to every 12 minutes.That a 17% reduction. Same with 176. Hi edcam, Camberwell Gove being closed in the middle has made it much more attractive and pleasant to cycle along - or at least it has for me when I'm huffing and puffing southbound homeward bound along it.

Hi Jacqui5254, I'm sorry you needed to escalate this to me. Glad we got this foxed for you in the end. I have highlighted the generic problem to council manager hoping it will be permanently fixed.

The latest is that Southwark Council has allocated ?15k for bridge strengthening which would allow vehicles single lane up to 3 tonnes - partial reopening of the road for motor vehicles. That weekend train line closures had been booked but due to operational reasons Network Rail have had to cancel these closures. My guess would be they'll attempt to organise this in the new year. To have un restricted access would cost ?1M of bridge strengthening and extensive train line closures with bus replacement services - I'm not clear how many weekend train embargoes but a number is what I'm told.

The consultation states overall traffic is down 15%. to repair the bridge would involve significant closures of the railway line and cost. Unfortunately the consultation didn't explain those costs and closures.

Hi seenbeen, I have contacted the council team about this via [email protected] and the councillors casework team asking when they will stop giving skip licences to this property. A one month skip licence is ?76.50. So hardly a deterrent to extended skip presence.

Hi Jacqui5254, Yes the bulky waste service the council provides has become truly awful since they introduced a charge for it. The charge has meant a reduction in people using the service so fewer crews employed to provide it. That reduced capacity and peoples rightful expectations being higher for a paid service, combined with the council no longer taking phone call queries has create this appalling service. My lot given a chance would restore the service as free to residents with the ability to phone and talk to someone empowered to fix problems - enough electioneering for today! If you email me the specifics of your case I can escalate the problem and get your problem fixed.

Hi Jacqui5254, Best to email me the details, reference number/s etc to [email protected] my council provided IT is on the blink AGAIN.