James Barber

The attached photo is a large advertisement on the side of the Londis star - corner of North Cross Road with Lordship Lane. This large isn advertisement doesn't have advertising consent - permission to be there - and is illegal. Southwark Council Planning Enforcement official have said they think it does'n't cause enough harm. To me that feels like a very slippery slope. What do other think? Is it fine if this remains and we essentially give up trying to restrain mass advertising in East Dulwich? Or should we fight this one. Officer stated "It was not considered expedient to take enforcement action owing to the location of the sign and the immediate character of the surroundings. Insufficient visual harm resulted to warrant formal action." I do have concerns that council officials didn't want to take on a firm of lawyers over this - ironic that a law firm would breach so flagrantly planning laws.

Hi 1st Timer, You should expect and receive a much better service than this. Please email me privately so we can get to the bottom of this. Last week I had a similar case involving a Blue Bin.

Hi Robbin, I objected as I didn't want M&S to have longer licensing hours than their planning permission. I was trying to avoid them then coming back for longer opening times. I failed. We now run that risk. The new M&S will already have much longer opening hours than the previous Iceland store.

We used to locally have Clarkshaws until they moved to Brixton. Wouldn?t it be great to have a new local East Dulwich Brewery? Any takers to make this happen? I'll buy the first half dozens cases...

Clearly the obvious compassionate thing to do is allow the brother to visit ASAP. But I also wonder why they don't ship the bone marrow overnight from Nigeria now? That may be why the home office is resisting.

Cool :o) Well done everybody who objected.

Hi cella, The promise of free swim and gym technically is happening as you describe but not exactly the spirit when this election promise was made. It didn't come with such caveats even when challenged. it was simply and directly stated as free swim and gym.

One of three possible reasons in my mind: 1. They intend to seek a change to the planning permission they have - and seek longer opening times. 2. Tidiness 3. Incompetence. We can probably discount the 3rd. We'll see in the next few months if it's the 1st.

Hi Azalea, rendelharris, And long may it remain that way for you. Hi rahrahrah, I live on Champion Hill. This has been public domain since 2006. Of course people who are the most materially affected carry more weight in such a discussion. Hi P68, Yes knock on effects occur. Weirdly I didn't see anyone complain when the new CPZ at N.Dulwich station was implemented which clearly will push people parking more towards E.Dulwich.

The new contract starts 21 June a Tuesday and lasts for seven years. The provider will be Sports and Leisure Management.

Hi rahrahrah, Do you live near East Dulwich station? or do you live somewhere else and want to maintain your free parking options? I've asked you this before on this thread and you've blanked the question which I assume means you fall in the latter category. Your argument to me would carry more weight, would appear principled, if you were from the former category.

Now you mention it - this is weird. I'll find out.

Yes the M&S store applied for longer times to sell alcohol than their planning permission allows. I objected to the licence application. Pretty standard conditions have been added to the approval. The key will be resisting if they ever seek a new planning application to amend that condition on opening hours to match the alcohol licence. They've also submitted another licence application to revise the drawings they submitted around the self service tills. No substantive change.

Upland road pavement closure close to Crystal Palace Road. Council officers have responded to me: " Dear Councillor Barber Thank you for your enquiry dated 13/05/2016, in which you requested information regarding the following: The ongoing footway closure on Upland Road.I can now provide you with a full response to your enquiry. We share your frustration regarding the footway remaining closed, and I can assure you that we do not approve footway closures without justification. In addition to our regular inspections I have visited the site with our Traffic Manager Ian Law. We have made it very clear that we want to footway open as soon as possible. The developer has stated that their program has fallen behind several times and they are extremely keen to clear site as soon as they possibly can. We cannot open the footway until it is safe to do so. If we forcefully have the scaffold removed we are left in the position of having an incomplete building that cannot be finished without further footway closures at some point in the future. Due to the proximity of the build to the narrow footway it has not been possible to have a usable width at any point during demolition or construction. The other option available to us was to have a temporary barriered footway located in the carriageway. This was deemed unsafe due to the narrow carriageway and position of the walkway in relation to the junction. In addition, we would not approve a temporary footway that would push pedestrians across an access point for construction vehicles. The developer has requested that the licence was extended beyond the point we have granted it for. We will not issue it for long periods because we want to keep pressure on them to finish. In the meantime we have asked that site hoarding closest to the junction of Crystal Palace Road is moved inwards to improve visibility at the pedestrian crossing that has been kept open throughout the works. In addition, we have denied another developer across the road any licences at all until the works on 97 Crystal Palace Road are finished. We also managed out the need for any footway closure for another development on the opposite side of the road. " I;ve asked why line in the sand have they expressed to the developer.

Hi ruffers, Around October time the next round of Cleaner, Greener, Safer funding will be open for applications. Get in touch and I'll guide you through completing the paperwork - anonymously. I have even persuaded Labour councillors about applications, filled the forms in for them and successfully applied in there names in the past - no names. So I've lots of practice.

Red Post Hill outside North Dulwich station will be closed 9pm-6am 11-13 June for Network Rail works. Any queries call 020 7525 2014 and speak with the council highways team.

I formally asked and was my request was rejected for the Judith Kerr playing field to be given the status of Metropolitan Open Land. The current administration of Southwark Council decided to go for Borough Open Land. This has a lower less important legal status than MOL. So it is correct that the two cases are different. Southwark is duty bound to offer more protection from development of MOL than of Borough Open Land. If Hadley's gain planning permission then it bodes badly for Judith Kerr School and well for replacing playing fields with Almshouses. As you've said taper we will see.

No I've not heard and have chased. Will escalate via Caroline Pidgeon Assembly Member.

I've received the attache invite - which clearly I've bluntly refused - to heart about their proposals for this. Please see attached copy of invite. They also holding a public exhibition Wednesday 8 June 4-7.30pm & Saturday 11 june 2-4pm at The Herne Hill Methodist Church Hall. I would encourage people to attend and give them a piece of your mind - whether for or against turning schools playing fields into housing.

Hi wonderwoman, Contact our local Safer Neighbourhood Team [email protected] asking for a Crime Prevention visit. You should then have 121 advice about what measures to take. This should also already have been offered as part of the victim support and cocooning to reduce the chance of a repeat offence against you and your family. If not please email me to chase.

I'd be truly agog if they gain planning permission. I was approached by the almshouses charity as were all local councillors about this. I made it clear that I doubt any sane councillor would want to grant permission for a few almshouses over 300+ children having proper outdoor space. What will perhaps raise the DE hopes is if the Dulwich Hamlet Football Club are given permission to build a new ground on Metropolitan Open Land. MOL has a higher preservation station than Borough Open Land.

Hi mrsilencio, The offer of free ground motorbike anchors is still in place for all East Dulwich ward residents - any resident can email with their details so we can organise this. We also have free motorbike property marking kits - again any resident can email me their contact details and we can get this organised. I will ask our Safer Neighbourhood Panel Ward Panel to make motorbike crime number one priority. The Police can get a list of all registered motorbikes in the ward and proactively visit offering our free anchors and property marking kits. I will also contact the borough commander asking what other measures he plans to solve this problem.

Hi bawdy-nan, I hope I didn't sound complacent. a limit of 40 is a very round number. I'd like to understand if their is science behind this number or is it a political compromise and actually the safe limit should be lower. If it is a well found safe limit then we can be reassured that soon well be within it. The great news is we're debating this now the withheld report is in the public domain. And this speaks volumes about Boris suppressing science. What sort of leadership does that indicate!

The report shows some local schools being above the 40 limit at around 42 in 2010. That by 2017 forecast to be at 37 and by 2020 around 32. So the title of this thread and the news reports isn't quite right. It should add the caveat in 2010. I think we'd all like to have seen this report in 2013 when originally prepared. What I think would be useful is to repeat the report stating the schools actually on or above the EU current safe limit. I'd also like reassurance that the limit is actually correct or is it a compromise.

Hi rahrahrah, which street do you live on? Is it Melbourne Grove so you;d rather not have this suggested investment where you live or do you live on a road with worse traffic issues you think should be a higher priority, or do you live on a road you think perfectly fine and without a traffic problem but would rather people living on a street where they think a problem not be improved? What's your angle? 85th percentile drive at 24 mph or less. Which means the remaining 15th percentile drive at speeds higher than 24mph in a 20mph area. Traffic consultants perhaps don't think that's particular speeding but many residents who live there do and some don't. I think we can agree on changes that will make it easier to walk and cross the roads, without chopping mature trees down, make the road easier to read and reduce speeding so even fewer speed along there. To me that isn't self interest or gesture politics. Hi Abe_foreman, No, they still exist but I suspect they just don't like being flamed on the forum for having their own opinions.