James Barber

Hi chazzle, Yes, my understanding is demolition of the previous building and placing hoarding and undertaking drilling would constitute starting the scheme. As I explained earlier the developer has applied to straighten the proposed structure to make it cheaper to produce - when I asked them about this it was to obtain relief from the high construction cost inflation. Yes, it is now 11 years since I originally attend the public appeal objecting to the then proposed design and then seperately proposed to the then developer that they incorporate a new library into the building.

No, I don't believe they can. I've just reported this problem to TfL.

I very much doubt the council will consult on a new CPZ around East Dulwich station for a number of years. The 2012 consultation didn't result in a CPZ and such exercises are very expensive. For the record. I asked that the council consult on a 1 or 2 hour CPZ period Mon-Fri. So most visitors to the area for part of the day would have been totally unaffected. The shops on Grove Vale would have had customers being able to park. But it would have displaced some commuter parking - not great for those other streets - and seen some parking demand evaporate as the commuters found other routes/places to park. Several street had a majority fort. A very few residents who attended public meeting from some streets near Lordship Lane wanted a CPZ 24.7 due to minicab parking/coming & goings. But the North Dulwich new CPZ is likely to increase parking pressures in our pitch and i do believe it is the last Zone 2 station area in London to not have controlled parking. For those against a CPZ the Southwark Labour group are planning to change the councils constitution which would mean such measures formally bypassing Dulwich Community Council and being decided by the council leader. I can;t imagine this is being done other than to push contentious changes through much more quickly - deliver fait accompli and hope people get on with any resulting changes. We will all have to be much more watchful for dire traffic changes.

The recent and previous Polling Stations reviews I asked that Heber School not be used. But no obvious alternatives. We can't use The Castle pub because it doesn't have step free access. The church on corner of Lordship lane and Goodrich Road also doesn't have step free access. This issue especially important with the EU referendum coming up and disrupting a second school week in the same school term is far from ideal.

Hi BNG, Yes I also feel exasperated. Suspect yes to 1. I doubt the developer would drop the library as that would require 35% social housing instead. Doubt the developer would wish to spend money moving hoarding to the land they own. They've recently asked for minor amendments to their scheme to ameliorate construction inflation- straightening lines, making things more regular to reduce construction effort. Hi The ArtfulDogger, Cameras are part of traffic study. Review the route particular cars take as well as the count and speeds at fixed points. All normal stuff that have been done before on several occasions. Hi Mrs D, No update yet. But a recent study really points to how after school clubs can make a material difference for poorer kids overall education results. So keen we see more. The recent research might encourage schools to use some pupil premium to make more happen.

I've been trying to get the Friday parking restrictions lifted and hopefully not much longer to go. If you have a ticket from there please email direct with details.

I asked M&S about 3 months ago and they told me July.

To enable drainage works the junction of Melbourne Grove and Grove vale will be closed 10-16 May. Please be aware as the northern section of Melbourne Grove is particularly busy and it will see traffic divert along Derwent Grove, elsie Road, etc.

Hi taper, That seems a bit disingenuous. DHFC have had control of the Greendale area for close to 25 years. So to criticise the community for DHFC not managing the area they've been leasing. Come on. DHFC may be the beating heart for SOME in our community. But very far from universally. The tweets etc this weekend purporting to come from fans antagonising nearby residents makes it clear that some fans really do not want to have anything to do with the local community. I'd very much like the club to be such a beating heart. But this planning application will work towards exactly the opposite. If the application is approved with MoL being taken as proposed means all our parks and open spaces will become game for developers. They'd just need to find similar 'special cases' by threatening to close other popular clubs, etc.

Hi catma, Absolutely. I think this is about box ticking. Ticking a box that all junctions across all Southwark have double yellow lines. Regards James.

Hi ed_pete, Sadly I don't think that logic follows. The government has entrusted the Educational Finance Agency to produce new free schools - which is what this will be - for the least amount of money possible. Keeping the central Chateau will have been identified as a key aspect to get planning permission. Knocking down the chateau I believe would seriously risk not planning permission. But it wouldn't see that extra money kept by the school for other facilities. Losing the chateau under the current central gov't regime would be a lose lose scenario. My understanding is that the central chateau isn't totally clear what it will be used for. It looks like keeping it will result in much more useable space than a new free school would otherwise have available. Zillions of things it could eventually be used for - music practice rooms, admin areas, language labs, etc. All things that the free school policy tends to regard as very optional.

Hi first mate, I've rechecked the M&S approved plans and latest planning application to replace handrails with a brick parapet. The approved plans have a stair case box structure brick fronted going from ground to 1st floor and a little higher from what I understand of the plans. That's to the right as you look from Chesterfield Grove to Lordship Lane. To the left at 1st floor large louvred aircon plant above the high ground floor. I think that's what you're seeing.

Hi @Woodwarde, No that email was only circulated to Village ward councillors. I've not seen it. What the email fails to highlight is the current junctions with double yellow lines are typically with A or B roads. The new proposal is to add double yellow lines at much quieter junctions where we can close to zero crashes. This exercise isn't about road safety per se but about making the documentation around junctions consistent. I could see an argument for 2-3metres of double yellow lines to aid crossing roads. But the 7.5m-10m proposed double yellow lines in each direction at every junction is complete overkill. What the email from Paul also doesn't make clear is traffic management issues and decisions are being removed from local councillors in Community councils. The decision taken by the Labour administration is to centralise all such local traffic management decision making from May to the Labour Council leader. This would make it easier to take unpopular decisions by the council such as this.

Access via Jarvis Road is a daft idea. I've explained the issues in detail to the new Charter East Dulwich head teacher and his team in a meeting and to council officers. It would cause traffic mayhem and endanger pupils as well as causing even more traffic issues for residents there. The reason the Dulwich Hospital main entrance was on East Dulwich Grove is that it is an A road. Sadly it looks like a campaign against the proposed Jarvis Road entrance will be required. When originally launching this campaign for a new school and when I organised the land it is going to be built on (via the Right to Contest) I never envisaged having to then campaign against a key part of its design! apart from the entrance I think it looks fab. Keeping the central 'chateau' good. It has a brilliant hall on the 1st floor. When I originally took the campaign to meet the council leader he was keen to boost whatever PE facilities the school would have and suggested perhaps the council could help with a swimming pool, etc. I don't see that in these proposals so will remind him. Hi Newton, The Labour administration is removing traffic management from community councils and giving all decision making powers for traffic issues to the council leader. I believe this takes place from May. Councillors will be able to make representations, in extremis via Overview and Scrutiny Committee ask the leader to think agains - but OSC has a Labour majority. So local traffic management and all the issues won't have anywhere near the same local focus.

Thanks ITATM for interpreting my answer. Yet the plan is what I meant.

Hi Rosetta, I've had an email back today from the head of service. The decision to charge for Bulk Waste Collections ?16 were referred back to the cabinet councillor to consider the impacts of the poor and those on benefits. How will they find ?16 especially as fewer are thought to have access to a vehicles to drive their bulk waste to the tip as suggested as an alternative to having it collected. The cabinet councillor reconsidered and has decided to make NO exceptions. I'm sorry it took me so long to get a definitive answer on this Rosetta. Pretty depressing. We have a tory govt and now a Labour council giving the poor such a hard time.

Hi Lynne, Hmm, not casework I've come across before. General principle is vehicles that legally can be on the road are entitled to be on no Controlled Parking Zone roads. If some is living in the caravan then I would expect different rules to apply. Please email me if that is the case. I think people rarely parking them on roads as they're expensive and relatively easy to steal from the public highway. I think you'll find that's the reasons you rarely see it.

Hi HRE< Council officers have just told me that around SE22 we'll need several people committing to a Bikehangar before they'll look to install it. So well worth talking to your neighbours to also express their interest in the link above.

Hi paco, This is usually in your deeds and theirs. HM Land Registry maps usually indicate who is responsible for fences. If you have a copy of these I'll happily pop round and look at them with you.

Hi Speedbird, Offering to spend my time helping with casework to clear rubbish is different from offering things that cost real public cash in areas that that cash isn't meant to be applied to. I'm sorry the relevant ward councillors haven't funded attack alarms there. In the past I made applications for them to fund such items and they declined. They weren't a priority to them. Hi cactus, I would counsel that a Cleaner, Greener, Safer grant to put proper fencing there would physically make it harder for the flytipping. You should email Renata with an application and the ward councillors could choose to use any CGS underspends to support such an application. It would meet the criteria for the scheme. hi Lazero, Clearly with bulk waste collections now being charged by Southwark Council at ?16 some have decided to flytip. This is the approach we've taken in East Dulwich ward. If you need any help making an application please get in touch.

Planning application submitted.

I've contacted L&Q asking then to fix it and what they think will solve the problem permanently. I think it looks a sad and neglected corner which attracts such anti social dumping. Some fencing and grass or shrubs would go a long way to deterring this. I will work with them to try and get this change to happen. I suspect it won't be quick. Any yes, it's outside 'my patch' but doing nothing doesn't feel an option.

I had concerns raised that lots of extra parking tickets since the New Year have been issued in Lordship Lane. Checking with the head of parking 20 have been raised April 2015 until end of March 2016. or roughly 1.6 per month. If anyone feels this isn't correct from their direct experiences please get in touch.

My hunch is the planning application for Metropolitan Open Land behind the current Dulwich Hamlet football ground plus huge cuts to Youth Services in Southwark have been conflated into this thread. The adventure playground is exactly the type of service Southwark Labour are saying they do want to keep. However, it will be revealing if the MOL designation is as a safe from development when planning application affecting Greendale has been submitted. Equally where Sainsburys is now was originally MOL but Labour approved plans to build on it in 1992.

Hi first mate, I've not viewed the site for a couple of weeks. I'll pop along on Sunday. Hi sweetgirl, Thanks. I reported it earlier this week. I'll check at the weekend if corrected. Hi Sue, For Veolia not undertaking work correctly for Southwark Council then you should contact Southwark Council. Either via 020 7525 2000 or email [email protected] or go online or ping me an email.