James Barber

Update on the road lane closure outside Caffe Nero. " SGN had a valid emergency permit for the works for the date applied for but the permit details did not up-load to the Southwark web site although it did up-load to the TfL web site. We are currently looking nto why the permit failed to up-load. " Hence why these works gave every appearance of being unauthorised.

I've provided the contact details for the Schools Police Liaison constable - please use them t report things like this cazzyr. While adding to this thread may be cathartic it wont necessarily change anything. email the Pc asking people to report to him problems.

Apologies for not providing the below response from the Director of Environment and Leisure at the start of the week. Huge thanks to the originator highlighting this serious issue: " Dear James, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you about this. The General Manager (GM) has already taken steps to address the concerns in the following ways: ? The faulty door to the female wet change is now repaired and fully functioning which helps to ensure privacy for users ? The male cleaner who has entered the changing room whilst females were inside has been warned that that behaviour is not acceptable and is aware of the appropriate course of action which is: when a male requires entry into the ladies changing rooms during opening hours (maintenance, cleaning etc) we send a female colleague into the area to check it is clear first, they then give the go ahead to the male to enter or ask him to wait, they are never left unattended as the female will stay by the door to notify customers entering that there is a male in the area completing a task. . The male lifeguards accused of inappropriate behaviour towards a female swimmer have been spoken to and advised to think before they act and communicate with each other on poolside as this may be misinterpreted. They denied the accusations against them and the GM is satisfied with their explanation ? The male lifeguards have offered to apologise to the user who thought they behaved inappropriately ? I will ask the GM to arrange this and for her to be there to provide re-assurance Please be assured that the GM will not condone any bad behaviour from her team, and takes matters such as sexual harassment very seriously. She has committed to continuing to monitor the conduct of staff to ensure a high quality, safe and appropriate service is provided to all users. I hope that this sufficiently responds to the concerns raised but please let me know if not or if you have any further questions or comments related to this matter. Best wishes

This is my understanding of this issue - from the School Safer School Police Officer: " In relation to Nigel Road and surrounding areas re: students gathering, it?s purely that, students gathering, and not causing any criminality whatsoever (maybe on minor occasions low level ASB i.e littering), but due to the large numbers of students gathering, this, of course, looks and can be perceived to be intimidating by members of the public. The Senior Leadership Team (SLT) at Harris Boys? Academy are extremely proactive, the most proactive SLT on Southwark borough; they always respond to incidents immediately and are always willing to meet with members of the public to resolve any issues/concerns. In relation to this particular concern, the SLT and I have been working in partnership and have undertaken the following: 1. Regular partnership patrols with Senior Leadership Team and Police 2. Working in partnership with Southwark ASB Unit, where they have issued ABC?s and presented workshops at the Academy 3. 1-2-1?s with identified students 4. ASB presentations to all students 5. A joint letter from the Principal and I to all parents/carers re: acceptable behaviour in the community 6. ASB flyers handed out to students when patrolling 7. Shopkeepers and local residents have my mobile number should issues arise; they can call and I will respond immediately. Of course, depending on the urgency, members of the public are always advised to call 101 or 999 should a concern arise and Police is sought. When calls are received direct to the Academy the reception staff always e-mail the SLT and I so that we can respond and deal accordingly, with the advice to contact 101 or 999 should they have an immediate concern. I am always available Mon ? Fri, 7am ? 5pm - Should any members of the public wish to raise any concerns then of course they can contact me at [email protected] or 07917 210932 and I will duly respond immediately and I?m also more than willing meet/discuss. Harris Boys? Academy and I have a very close working relationship with the local community and we will of course respond and deal with any issue/concern accordingly and, if required, students sanctioned accordingly. "

As long as we still get our new Grove Vale library twice the size of the current sized Grove Vale library! It would be an amazing location for any such M&S or similar business. I was surprised Morrisons back out but I guess as a macro level they haven't a c loo about East Dulwich.

Hi pop9970, I thought I was clear that no new tax is being proposed. What is being implemented is removal of the ability to deduct buy to let mortgage interest payments from buy to let businesses tax bills as it has been for a number of other such exemptions. The general idea of this type of interested tax deduction has been used resulting in other unintended consequences such as Thames Water being bought by private equity, they borrowed huge sums resulting in higher water bills to pay this avoidable interest - and huge dividends extracted from TW. Number of others have done this including Boots for example. The actual idea for the ability to reduce tax bills by the amount of interest a business pays was aimed at encouraging businesses to invest to boost productivity of businesses and to grow businesses. If this concept is going to continue it needs to be honed to truly support productive businesses only. As a society we need dramatically lower property prices. But continuing to subsidise buy to let mortgages isn't a method to get there.

Lets be clear. This isn't a new tax. It is about removing an exemption from paying as much tax. Tax payers have been subsidising the income of people who buy properties to rent them out. The interest payments for buy to let mortgages for such rented properties were tax deductible. It encouraged buy to let businesses to maximise loans because the tax payer paid the interest. This perverse incentive resulted in much more demand for properties to buy forcing up prices. WE need to see less demand for properties to buy and more supply to see average homes prices down to the long-term historic trend of 3.5 times average income. Sadly I don't see sufficient policies from this government (or any over the last 30 years) to rectify this huge imbalance.

Bi Kiera, Yes i would but ideally it should be two ward councillors.

If you get stuck please escalate to me and I will take up with this schools management. But first try the school liaison Police officer please.

Hi ed_pete, No I wasn't aware of the meeting - as not in East Dulwich understandably I wouldn't be told by council officers. And I wont be back in the area due to day time work commitments until late this evening. Are you able to pop along?

Hi kiera, I had hear this and will be objecting to this.

This Traffic Management Order was issued in error. I've spoken to the officers involved and been assured it doesn't count as it is contrary to Southwark Council constitution. I also met with officers on Friday. Apart from being unhelpful I'm surprised a councillor would encourage peoples fear in these circumstances. Please ignore this TMO.

Hi pop9970, Council officers told me CPZ they always insist on 10m double yellow lines from corners. So no I don't believe this is a drive towards that. I do think parking on some corners is dangerous so some proportionate double yellow lines would be a good thing. I can't campaign to encourage parents to let their children walk to school and not want every junction to be safe. But 7.5m appears overkill.

The Southwark Director has asked me to pass on the councils apology for this situation and that they are immediately talking to the service provider to get these problems fixed. I'll update later when I have more feedback.

This Traffic Management Order was issued is error and prematurely. I immediately objected and tld the officer they must withdraw it. I met with council highway officials on Friday and walked a sample of the East Dulwich junctions proposed to have 7.5m of double yellow lines added. I was asked to withdraw my objections to 7.5m else no double yellow lines would be placed. Last night I appealed to the councillor in charge: " Hi Ian, Speaking with officers they have an understandable programme to review all junctions en masse, rather than the historic piece meal approach, and implement double yellow lines at all junctions across Southwark that do not currently have them. In East Dulwich this would equate to 35 junctions having double yellow lines added. The Highway Code rule 243 states people should not park within or opposite 10m of a junction (except in an authorised parking space). However no allowance or variation depending on local speed limits is included in this rule. So a rule that appears to be based on no evidence. Officers are proposing 7.5m of double yellow lines from the apex of every corner of every junction currently without double yellow lines as a compromise compared to 10m and to make some allowance for being a 20mph borough. RoSPA suggests that where a junction has an existing accident (crash) problem measures such as improving visibility can help. They suggest a 20% crash reduction for such junctions in a rural setting. They? don?t have any evidence for a suburban setting. Looking at the Crashmap website a public database of all reported crash data we can see for these junctions that over the last 10 years crashes have occurred several times around these junction but at a much lower rate compared to junctions already with such double yellow lines. The last 3 years with 20mph sees virtually no reported crashes. However, instinctively adding double yellow lines would make crossing these junctions safer. Too much lineage would give greater visibility and other research around Risk Compensation shows longer sight lines increases peoples propensity to drive faster. I have suggested to council officers that 7.5m is too much and is likely to cause more harm, through longer sight lines and faster vehicles speeds, than a more limited amount of double yellow lines such as 2-3 m from each corners apex. Officers are clear it is all or nothing. They have asked whether I would request for East Dulwich that the Traffic Management Order proceeds on the basis of 7.5m or not at all. Simple trigonometry vs. the 20mph speed limit and road widths suggest 7.5m of double yellow lines would give circa 17.5m of sightline. A 20mph vehicles needs 12m to completely stop. so 7.5m is clearly more than 20mph needs. it is likely to generate Risk Compensation from drivers i.e. they?ll drive faster. So if a crash occurs any pedestrian is much more likely to be seriously injured or worse. Whereas 2-3m of double yellow lines would equate to a sightline of between 7.2m->8.9m which for most of these roads with less than 20mph 85th percentiles speeds is perfectly adequate and rationale. So I would propose that the amount of double yellow lines is related to the actual 85th percentile speed limits recently recorded for each road involved in each of these junctions. But this would require direction from yourself to consider this or a change of heart from council officers. One this basis I can no support the proposed Traffic Management Order proposing much more double yellow lines in an area with severe parking stress than appears mathematically required. I would be happy to do the maths if officers do not have the time for this. I would be happy to spend a day with officers assessing each and every one of the 35 junctions in East Dulwich in such detail. I would then fully support a TMO based on such detailed assessments. I therefore am approaching you to seek a compromised rational approach to this problem. " I await his response.

This is totally unacceptable. I have contacted the director of the service at Southwark Council asking when it will be fixed and why it hasn't been fixed before now. IF anyone ever has such serious concerns about any Southwark, or for that matter other issue across the East Dulwich area or indeed southwark PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE contact a councillor such as myself directly and promptly.

I've voted for you - hope many others do as well.

now?

Last time they consulted on Camberwell Grove majority of residents from thet street wanted it to remain closed permanently. But it was re opened as signal lane controlled by traffic lights.

Water back on a trickle. It'll be a while before the pressure is back to normal. Do check you've not left any taps on - easy to get flooded after a water outage.

Gallery Road closed due to water leak resulting in SE5,15,21,22,23,24 residents having no water - which should be bak on in what must now be 45-75minutes. Police may have attended if someone reporting it as blocked road...

SE5, SE15, SE21, SE22, SE23,SE24 affected problem as others stated on Gallery Road. Thames water say they've been on this since early. Their plan is 'Shutting in' the leak to close the leak to then work on it. This should mean water from other areas starts filling our pipes. Takes time for pressure to build back up. 60-90 minutes estimates if everything goes to plan we'll have water again. Great lesson for the kids about how critical water is to live styles.

It would make sense for Royal Mail to open source that data to reassure people. flipping those physical things around on hundreds of post boxes must be a faff when under serious time pressures. I'll dig out my Royal Mail contact and ask them about this post box

apparently 7 post code areas affected.

Hi slarti b, I believe this arrangement has now come to an end. I suspect this is a consequence of the Southwark waste centre moving form the Lambeth border to Old Kent Road.