James Barber

Hi alex_b, I've not heard of any such issues with Southwark's parking contractor around CPZ permits etc. I've asked councillor colleagues in areas that have CPZ areas. I actually live in a Southwark CPZ area Champion Hill and we've never had any issues with permits or visitor parking permits. i think the difference council estate parking permit cost of ?25 and public highway of ?125 odd. The latter clearly doesn't;t reflect the cost of issuing permits. But they do seem effective as solving commuter parking and can be limited as around Herne Hill to a couple of hours a day and even o1 hour a day has been agreed as workable by the contractor. But it would change a tangible increase in support to make it worth a council consulltation again. What we might do is run a survey as we supported residents on the East Dulwich Road end of Crystal Palace Road. A clear majority didn't want controlled parking there so we didn't ask the council to run a consultation. It doesn't make those that wanted it happy but they can then see why one cannot proceed.

Hi Sally Eva, Yes the Highway code does state don't park within 10m of a junction. But the highway codes is for any road up to and including 60mph roads. These measures are being introduced AFTER our speed limits, depending on the road, have been reduced from 30 or 40mph to 20mph in recent years and when we've no reported crashes at these junctions for at least 5 years (I've not checked further back).

Hi rcmacf, Parking around your street and area is clearly very hard. WE had a public consultation and insufficient residents supported such controlled parking. I'm afraid we'd need a clear sense residents opinions had shifted to undertake a further consultation on this. Experience suggests residents for controlled parking are vocal until a consultation occurs. At that point residents against make the case against. Recent changes have been controlled parking introduced around North Dulwich station and already talk of that spreading further towards us. Both the new super health centre replacing the Dulwich Hospital and the Charter East Dulwich school will potentially have significant staff with minimal staff and patient car parking. This will add further parking pressure to the area.

Southwark Council also undertook such a consultation 18 months ago. I've repeatedly chased for the output of the analysis and was told repeatedly they didn't have the resources to undertake this analysis. So you can imagine my surprise that the consultation is being repeated. Perhaps the first consultation didn't give the result that was required?

Hi edhistory, Yes the cabinet member/councillor who has taken this decision, that is subject for potentially being called in, is Cllr Ian Wingfield the for Environment and the Public Realm [email protected]

Latest news UPDATE 16 May - Southwark Labour have ignored Lib Dem ward councillors and their Labour ward councillor and the 85% of the 77 responses objecting to the implementation of double yellow lines across East Dulwich. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50013476&Opt=0 See 14th page onwards of this appendices 1-7 document -http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s68318/Appendices%201%20to%207.pdf The officers could provide no evidence of any crashes for the junctions involve in this mass double yellow line rollout. The Labour councillor agreed the recommendations. Expect to see a LOT of extra double yellow lines across East Dulwich. A great deal of money is being frittered away on this. I will attempt to get this decision called-in for a review by thE overview and Scrutiny Committee. To compound the issue Labour Southwark have also decided to remove 6.5m of parking on Worlingham Road - also for spurious road safety concerns. The sight lines were not considered a danger when 30mph. Now the speed limit is 20mph they want longer sight lines - http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50013480&Opt=0 What should cost around ?10,000 officers are now saying will cost ?31,000. You could not make this up. I will try and get it cancelled.

Hi The ArtfulDogger, I'll try and find out.

Hi bargee99, The speed humps we have are not designed to slow people down to 5-10mph. They're designed for 20mph. People are accelerating an decelerating to go above 20mph between humps. Speed cushions have almost no impact reducing speeds.

Our local Police would like any reports of this happening. They will investigate and get the bottles sampled to identify the content - and potentially any DNA if it is urine. Before anyone asks DNA test cost ?17 ea.

Hi bargee99, Apparently huge part of the PM issues is tyre wear and tear. No amount of diesel or petrol engine banning will get rid of that - electric vehicles have tyres. WRT to speed humps - trying to go faster between the humps is the issue.

hi bargee99, I've also not been able to find the original research. The NICE report reporting was mangled and I'd like to see the source. The Air Pollution campaigns haven't taken up this angle of removing speed cushions which is strange if the evidence is clear or researched well. So I'd reserve judgement. One piece of research doesn't usually mean spring has arrived. Alliance of British Drivers. I have spoken to them in the past and chap admitted membership of sub 500. Evidence is usually not something they're interested in. So frankly I'd ignore them. Their local rep. used to campaign for the rights of all drivers to drive around Dulwich Park for instance. Hi Robin, Uou've mentioned the previous London mayor banning speed bumps. That mayor funded lots of raised treatments across London. Where di he ban speed bumps? his TfL funding has funded many during his term in office. In 2008 he wrote an article about getting the hump with humps. But he didn't do anything discernible. I am trouble by the suggestion I don't listen to you. I've regular pushed to support CGS schemes you've applied for. Often when we're at meeting walk you home sharing ideas. Baffled. And if I've misunderstood any comments you've please accept my humble apologies. Sorry.

Hi bargee99, Can you please point me at this research?

Hi Abe_FRoeman, No, the Melbourne Grove (south) people applied for funding to fix speeding/traffic issues. They install suggested that might be humps. It then got confused when someone suggested closing the road. We agree to fund a stud initially to give options. Of those options we've agreed to fund speed bumps and added an option, recalling past CGS applications, for Chesterfield Grove to be normalised if it can be. If this isn't clear please PKM me and perhaps we can take over the hone or meet up over the weaken. as clearly ping ponging via the forum isn't working. hi rich, The whole point of devolved funding to ward councillors is that we do pick and choose.e I'm sorry we don't always fund your proposals - but we often do. You will have picked and chosen when you were a councillor! Hi nxjen, The East Dulwich Society has been formally folded with the remaining funds and members transferring over to the Dulwich Society. The Dulwich Society has a good proportion who live in East Dulwich. For a number of years the Dulwich Society had more members than the East Dulwich Society. The Dulwich Society has good active sub committees which I'm expecting to cover our patch as well as they cover Dulwich Village and the surrounds.

Hi Abe_fromean, the actual CGS applications contain lots of personal details from the applicants. So you would get a redacted version. The actual content is broadly in the minutes of DCC meetings. What do you actually want? Residents applied for CGS funds to solve what they perceive to be speeding and traffic issues on Melbourne Grove south). We funded a study and then we've funded the option for sinusoidal humps - the kinds we've previously funded on Ashbourne, Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove (north). These costs are shared between East Dulwich and Village wards. We had other options to consider as councillors from that study but actually are seeking to fix the East dulwich side where Chesterfield meets Melbourne Grove. We've had several CGS applications to do this over the years but with M&S not using this route we now have opportunity to do this. Counci officials are checking what this would look like and cost for us to consider as ward councillors but we've allocated ?15,000 for now. If you'd like to walk the route with the report I'd be happy to do this with you or anyone else this Sunday am.

Hi first mate, I have and will continue to keeping raising such problems with Planning Enforcement. I hope it doesn't reach state where we need to consider legal direct action to get M&S to listen and act in a civilised way.

I despair. If you see moped with covered number plate 'patrolling' looking for criminal opportunities you ring 999. The operator will then classify. Deciding not to bother the Police is helping these criminals proceed unimpeded. Last time I spotted this on Half Moon Lane I called the Police. They absolutely wanted to know this. Mention on the forum someone heard sawing and didn't call the Police. My dealings with the Police they'd sooner deal with a false alarm than miss stopping and apprehending criminals. Every one of these criminals apprehended stops dozens of future crimes. Usually solves dozens of past crimes. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE call 999 if you see or hear something suspicious. 101 is for non time critical reporting of events or information.

Hi Abe_froeman, Hmmm. Should be there somewhere in minutes. I'm sorry I wont be able to make the time to search through them. Delivery conditions. M&S are ignoring this condition have mistakenly screwed up their service yard somehow. Apparently rubbish trucks are collecting from it before 5am.

I'd ask what they intend to do with the photographs. If they plan to post on social media, print, etc. then they'd need your consent. Equally you could take their photo.

Hi Abe_Froeman, You can see minutes of Dulwich Community Council meeting here - http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=176 The delivery condition is about time. It doesn't specify any route and M&S have stated in writing that they can't use the delivery yard for deliveries. Hi bargee99, Roundaobut are notorious for being more dangerous for pedestrian and people cycling. In fact I was knocked of at a mini roundabout two weeks ago. I was lucky not to be more seriously injured and unlucky the driver 'didn't see you' in the first place. They admitted guilt, two witnesses, Police have decided not to take it any further. I can't recall the source so take this with a pinch o doubt - but I recall reading roundabouts 14 x more dangerous on average that traffic lights. I'm not proposing traffic lights before some says I am!

Hi pugwash, Please offer my help to your acquaintance, I would be happy to help them resolve this.

Did you call 999?

Charging for busy waste collection has led to more fly tipping. You can no longer make a quick call to report such issues - which is also delaying removal. It is much more hassle to be a good citizen since the current administration made these changes. You could download an app like FixMystreet to help report these types of issues. I've not found the southwark website good for this.

Hi Jacqui5254, I'm sure it will be fine. But I am sorry you were a little hood winked.Assuming it is a test you will have helped ensure the 2021 census goes that such better. I'm not convinced by 2021 we'll all be more trusting of the internet and personal data security! I will be aiming for a paper copy to reduce chances of personal data being hacked. Regards James.

Hi Pugwash, I wasn't;t aware of such a mini census being issued to some residents. It stands little chance of being a success under such circumstances. I had one resident call me about this and I concurred with their suspicions. Sorry I know nothing more than you. I received such a census it would go in the recycling. I would not fill a form in with lots family personal details outside the normal census years without being very convinced I wasn't being taken for a mug.

Hi first mate, Planning Enforcement does work it's just they don't have the resources to fight everything brilliantly. They also need more teeth. They should b able to close a commercial business that flouts the rules. That would ensure much quicker and helpful compliance. Great example - on the side of the Londis is an advertisement for a local solicitors. It is illegal. Enforcement have concurred. But they have chosen not to fight it. Presumably because a lawyers could give them the legal run around. So a local law firm knowingly is breaching advertising law and just doesn't care. So we will get traction eventually withM&S but it will be a long drawn out battle for reasonable behaviour. Attached s latest photo of M&S breach - deliveries just before 6am and not after 7am.