James Barber

Hi Metallic, Every ward has an equal allocation of capital and revenue funding to allocate to local projects each year - respectively Cleaner, Greener, Safer capital projects and Community fund revenue funding. This is beyond the strategic projects to address other issues. As a Councillor my lot sometimes spent some money outside the immediate ward boundaries where residents from the ward we represented would see a benefit. But this is the exception. I'm sure all wards/Councillors would welcome more applications.

Good luck keeping it. You mentioned local councillors and MP. Any of these can act as a "Designated Person" where Social Housing involved - arguably this would apply to you as Southwark freeholder - https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/designated-persons/ My experience as a former Council was the threat of doing this was enough to get an officer to stand down from silliness (my view). Specifically ask you Councillors and MP who is willing to be a "designated Person" for you. It will be telling who steps forward to help practically.

Research currently under peer review into equity of LTN's across London - https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/q87fu/ Highlights: - LTN's more often in deprived areas - BAME residents slightly more likely to live in LTN than white residents - LTN's varied widely - LTN demographically nearly idnetiifcal to surrounding areas

HI P68, I'd assumed the same.

You can report missed bin collections here and usually fixed in a couple of day - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/bins-and-recycling/general-household-waste/report-a-missed-collection Saying that January was a car crash with 29% of staff absence due to COVID.

You can see Southwark Council housing estates via the following mapping website -https://geo.southwark.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main What this doesn't show is Registered Social Landlords - Housing Association, Almshouses properties or Southwark Council street properties. The London Datastore states (based on 2011 Census) Village ward has 15.5% social rented housing - doesn't include leasehold properties where Southwark Council are the landlord. England average of 17.6% of homes being social rented housing. Another 18.2% private rented in Village ward, England average 16.7%. https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/ward-profiles-and-atlas

While and post being a Councillor I raise several hundred incidents of graffiti each year. I've not done this during COVID as i understand the staff have been deployed to COVID related activities. This must get back to normal soon. Anyone can report graffiti via this - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/street-care/graffiti If you want graffiti remove from your property use the council website as you can provide the disclaimer. Or FixMyStreet - https://www.fixmystreet.com

During my time as a Councillor we looked at this several times. We even had a report commissioned by Southwark Council. Hopefully they won't blow money repeating it! To put traffic lights there we were told Lordship Lane would have to have no parking from Goose Green roundabout to outside the Coop. Even then it was extremely likely TfL London Buses would block such lights. It would also mean pedestrians having to wait uptimes o 2 minutes to cross East Dulwich Grove. Effectively downgrading the pedestrian priority. The Pelican crossing and raised junction was an attempt to get some improvement. My lot thought a Zebra crossing right on the pedestrian desire line was needed - probably with a pavement build out into Lordship Lane. This would maximise pedestrian priority.

Hi sand12, If you look at the London roadworks system - http://public.londonworks.gov.uk/roadworks/hsmap It shows works 6" water mains to be cutaway and replaced 19-25 February.

The application states it would be car free. Current businesses along Melbourne Grove, with the LTN through traffic blocked, are unhappy. Some kind of ground floor active use could encourage people along Melbourne Grove towards those businesses. Currently the former warehouse use (for a West End boutique) and dead rear garden walls of 1-3 Railway Rise opposite don't draw people down Melbourne Grove. With the Melbourne Grove GP closure/move removing some of the previous footfall. And no.3 being derelict land for a number of decades. This corner of East Dulwich really needs some TLC.

Health is covered by ICNIRP guidance/rules. Worth asking the planning officer to request the ICNIRP report and plans from the applicant and that these are published on the councils planning documentation e.g. 4G antennae roughly shouldn't face anywhere humans will be for 10-15m. Combinations of mobile operators signals no the same mast can make the exclusion zone even larger. If you oppose such a mast that meets ICNIRP rules, then planning objections around aesthetics, etc is more likely to be successful.

Collections are always impacted by any changes to teams - when teams are moved between routes it usually takes a number of weeks ot settle down again. With COVID lots of staff changes. IF a collection is missed then report it AFTER 6pm online via this URL - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/wasteservices/missedcollection/ Everyone is working hard to keep things as normal as possible in this difficult times.

And of course those without spare laptops can make a tax efficient donation to support this via https://www.justgiving.com/goosegreen-primary OR via Charities Aid Foundation - https://www.cafonline.org/system/charity-search-results With no charges to anyone. A Charity to help charities.

The applicant Parkhill successfully obtained planning permission 19/AP/0387 for a partial development on to of the single existing flat adjacent to ESPH on Bassano Street. This subsequent planning application is classic salami tactic. Get a bit of what you want and then very hard to refuse the final brick in the overalll scheme. Hard to imagine this strategy was'n't all thought through in 2019 by Parkhill. Parkhill redeveloped 29-31 Lordship Lane - would be good to hear from any residents there about the quality of the flats to give a context for this application. What is proposed is an over development of the site. Nothing answering the blank frontage the current ESPH presents to Lordship Lane. Clearly rubbish and recycling storage, bicycle storage isn't adequately addressed in the application. Tow main problems. Southwark Council current administration is overly friendly to developers. National government has made it harder for councils to refuse permission. COVID and Brexit means further increased pressure ot allow such schemes to get the economy moving and start to claw our way back to pre Covid and counter the BRxit hit over the next few years. But letting standards slip impact the next 100+ years the look and feel of East Dulwich. If anyone needs support responding to this scheme please email me.

Southwark Labour have issued a statement saying they will stop the auction and will now consult with the school. Well done parents and the school for applying sufficient pressure. Now the hard work begins of negotiating the building transferring to the school and the money required.

Hi first mate, I have supported CPZ around East dulwich station for 1 hour per day Mon-Fri 11-noon. I was the chair of Southwark Cyclists 20 yers ago and still cycle. I still have a driving licence as well. Some historic local full road closures have made a material positive difference - Thorncombe Road, Gilkes Crescent, Friearn Road Or partial e.g. Oxonian/Zenoria. New style of this LTN appear to be seeing dramatic increase in people and walking. Causing immense frustration for those that wish to keep driving or neighbouring A and B roads in the area. Is this balance right?

Please do pass the footage to the local Police Safer Neighbourhood Team. if they're stealing from you it's likely they're stealing from others. If you need someone to shop for you please email me [email protected]

This does have the appearance of Southwark Council sneaking this out and bouncing the community during a pandemic. I suspect very few Labour Councillors were aware this was coming. But it is surprising how none appear ot have publicly stated this is unacceptable. It will be telling if they rise to this challenge or try and ignore it and ride out the storm. If you're against selling this school short make lots of noise with ward and cabinet Labour Councillors - I would say the same if they were from my lot Lib Dems.

I'm amazed. The council supported the Belham Scholl - but it now transpires held back some of the property to sell. When Dulwich Estate tried doing this to the Judith Kerr School those same Councillors were vocally against it.

Perhaps worth also asking the asylum centre staff at Barry House, 263 Barry Road, SE22 0JT.

Hi Rockets, I did chair Southwark Cyclists 20 years ago. But I do cycle, walk, car, public transport locally. I would genuinely like to understand the 2,500+ petition against the local LTN's. If those are genuine local residents then it needs to be looked at again. Equally, if the LTN is going to stay then we need to make it work better and get people tempted to shop in those Melbourne Grove shops. Perhaps a new street market at the Grove Vale end.

Effectively these proposals for Townley Road are producing a School Street. I don't think they're using the name. Much more ambitious than previous School Streets in that it a popular route rather than a culled sea almost on one drives down. The change to Townley Road etc have been trailed since before COVID. The council believes they have consulted on them. Some of the reasoning comes from complaints about how dangerous school coaches and traffic levels on Townley Road can be. Previously threads on this forum, and also direct complaints to Southwark Council and Councillors, about traffic on Townley Road. Often from drivers complaining about School Coaches blocking their journeys. Be careful what you complain about!

Number is issues. In real terms driving has never been cheaper. Installation of the CPZ, LTN planters and COVID at broadly the same time has made this more painful to digest than it needed to be. COVID. Traffic levels are reported as now higher across London than before COVID. Lots I guess avoiding public transport. So even if nothing was done more congestion was more likely. All day CPZ aimed at commuter parking should have been a PPA operating for small part of the day once commuters had started to return to the area. Study several years ago showed 22% of our local shops custom came by car but in the current climate that 22% could be make or break for local businesses. Closing roads seems to be the only thing that changes driver behaviour. But the consultation on this feels incomplete so bound to get lots of opposition. So I welcome the LTN idea. Locally we have a long history of such closures making the area better. But they take considerable time before they become truly accepted e.g. Friern Road, Gilkes Crescent, Oakhurst Grove, etc. But concerned about how residents have been engaged. But my reflection is relying on people driving to do the decent thing and not rat run, except when essential, has never worked - and technology is making it ever more unlikely to work. I would personally prefer see more often closures with camera enforcement to non Southwark residents to stop rat running. Often quoted ot me that half of Southwark traffic start and ends journey outside Southwark so huge proportion of rat running down streets never designed for such traffic levels.

Due to an earlier incident this evening in the Peckham area, and to prevent further violence, a Section 60 has been authorised by a senior Police officer covering SE21, SE22, SE5 and SE15. This will last 24 hours expiring at 18.40 tomorrow Friday 09 October. What does this mean? The Police can stop and search anyone in these designated areas / postcodes.

Hi FairGirl, I was Southwark Cyclists chairperson for several years ending from memory 2002. I bought/rented the southwark Cyclists URL way back pre 2000 and it was only around 15 years that I transferred maintaining these payments to Southwark Cyclists. I am a member of London Cycling Campaign - have been since 1992 - which automatically makes me a member of the local Southwark branch called Southwark Cyclists. I have also been a member of Living Streets which makes me a member of Southwark Living Streets for similar period but never leading them. Surprised to hear my name is still against the Southwark Cyclists URL. You asked about other possible stakeholder groups - many are asked but not so many choose to get involved. WRT to Southwark Cyclists - it felt like we were often banging our heads against brick walls when we were consulted. Personally. I think implementing a CPZ and LTN's at the same time makes it very hard to digest together. An all day CPZ as a trial instead of, as my lot proposed in 2021, a 1 hour CPZ during a trial is the wrong way round. With a Climate Crisis it is strange how so many are so adamant nothing should or can change. We need a 90% reduction in our CO2 emissions to have habitable planet. FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Indeed the Cllr's statement very much reads like > - > > "after consulting with Southwark Cyclists we > have > > decided that there is a simple fix: we will > remove > > more parking spaces and replace them with cycle > > racks." > > > > In all seriousness the pressure is now mounting > on > > the council and councillors as each time there > is > > an article or news report like this more people > > say: "wow, do the council really know what they > > are doing". > > > > We know from Cllr McAsh's statement that there > was > > no consultation with shop owners and this is an > > utter dereliction of duty on the council's > part. > > It may also make the closures unlawful due to a > > lack of proper consultation. > > Curious to discover quite why Southwark Cyclists > hold so much sway, as Rockets you said in another > post elsewhere, why would Southwark continually > include this lobby group in decision making > reports - when TFl will have all necessary data > required. > > Popping onto their website and reading their > campaigning material, reports, minutes is quite > edifying. The url is the name of an East Dulwich > former councillor until 2018. > He states on his (former) councillor page that he > was previously chair of Southwark Cyclists - the > fact his name is in the url suggests he is still > heavily involved and he states he lives locally. > > I am possibly the last person to be aware of what > feels a relevant connection. > > Over in Oval, it has come to light that one of the > first LTNs that was created there is home to three > local councillors...