James Barber

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.

Hi Pam50, SpringTime, Please escalate such issues to a local councillor so we can look at the specifics and generic problem - that way we can try and solve both.

Hopefully not long before both Upland footpaths open... Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 03:28 PM To: Barber, James Cc: O'Toole, Helen; Law, Ian Subject: RE: 97 Crystal Palace Road / Upland Road Dear Councillor Barber, Following the email below I can now provide an update on this issue. The developer seem to be failing to open the footway by tomorrow and enforcement action will proceed, they have been informed of this. Unfortunately this does not mean that the footway will be open, as they have not made it safe for people to use as of today. The developer is under significant pressure to re-open it as soon as possible. I will send an update when we have some positive progress. Yours Sincerely

Thanks ianr.

Hi ITATM, TfL have suggested utter tosh for the site involved. We've had no local development to make bus stands within the area less available. They've no re routed any buses to other bus stands. They've obviously cut and pasted an irrelevant letter. They've still not de numbered specific bus stands for specific bus routes- they created this to support bendy buses - removing this needless sub division would free capacity up at existing bus stands. They've also said in writing they need this bustard 24.7 to be near the facilities. The facilitates at the souther end of Friern Road which it took me three years to get in place fighting TfL all the way. Importantly I doubt bus drivers would walk from Barry road to these FRiern Road facilities. So their argument really works against keeping the current overnight bus stand. If they wish to proceed then it could be the first traffic scheme where a ward councillor gets to call the decision in - local traffic management schemes are no longer decided by ward councillors but centralised to a cabinet councillor. We can also formally object to any traffic notice. Push comes to shove take more direct action against this ridiculous TfL proposition.

Or this map...

Latest response I have... " Hi James, I was hoping to be back to you sooner; please accept our apologies for the delay. A quick update is that our Buses team representative is speaking with the Urban Design team at Southwark Council. They are working towards an agreement which we anticipate will be mutually beneficial to all concerned. I will keep you informed as soon as I've been notified." The email chain started 11 October when I was first contacted. My response was the part-time bus stand inst required. That the bus route numbers bus stands should be change to any bus stands. Where the Barry Road bus stand currently sits should be changed - probably disabled parking space and general parking. I'd welcome others views on this.

Hi RobMiller, Apparently yes. I'll prod. Hi pispky, The current East Dulwich ward boundary runs - Grove Vale, East Dulwich Road, Crystal Palace Road, Upland Road, Friern Road, Underhill Road, Dunstans Road, Upland Road, Lordship Lane, Melbourne Grove, East Dulwich Grove, round the hospital site, railway line to Grove Vale. Peckham Rye ward for the former old East Dulwich Police station. But the PKR ward councillors have taken no interest in this development - they should have called it in. I have been interested once te pavement and highway were closed for too long. Dulwich Leisure Centre - East Dulwich ward. We ensured it had a ?6.1M complete renovation - still needs some more work getting the aircon to work sufficiently well enough.