James Barber

I'm obviously not a Labour fan generally but I really don't think they have a hidden agenda against car use. The population of London is rapidly expanding. The number of roads isn't. We have to cram more people onto the same amount of road space to make journeys. If you drive around London expect even more competition for that limited road space. So either we have to collectively become much more efficient at how we use road space OR build many many more roads. The latter would require demolition of large numbers of peoples homes - they started this in the 60's - hence the Bricklayers Arms disaster. A bigger problem than crowded roads is lack of reasonably priced housing. So clearly demolishing lots of housing to try and solve a problem of crowded roads that isn't as acute a problem as housing wouldn't make sense. The drive for cycling is because new tube lines and the like take decades to make happen and cost many billions in the UK. Segregated bike lanes cost millions and be done in a year or two. IF we reach levels of cycling such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam we will have avoided tens of billions in new tubes lines, improved average fitness, and relieved the pressure that would have been on road space for extra buses and motor vehicles. But change isn't comfortable and isn't an exact science. Some changes will and wont work. The important thing is trying to solve the problems.

Hi rahrahrah, TfL has reiterated its requested that 2018 & 2019 South London suburban trains come under the cpntrol of TfL. why 2018 & 2019 that when two train franchises come to an end. London Overground to/from Clapham Junction changes 2018 to running every 10 minutes - not tuv train frequencies of every minute or two but still often enough to be a turn up and go service. We also know that when TfL takes on train services they upgrade the trains, platforms and staff the stations. WRT to 20mph Lab, Lib Dems and Green Parties all promised 20mph. But as ever the devil is in how you implement it.

Hi XIX, The decision didn't go to committee quickly enough. That's what has happened. Hi fzer71, Southwark and the UK have huge numbers of new homes with approved plans. The developers then sit on those approved scheme until they choose to build them. The problem isn't with the planners. The problem is no land taxation. So land banking in a rising house price market makes more sense for many developers than actually building them. Hi KalmietyKel, The new substation is surprising at this stage. I've seen something like this where a new lift was installed. So I suspect the extra lift provision to the proposed new additional floor is driving this.

Hi P68, I agree. But maintaining trees costs money and the council has reduced the frequency of interventions it's will to make. So it needs locations it can let trees grow with longer gaps between pruning. And with bigger extremes in rainfall trees that can survive without needing to be watered. Although more trees is one way of mitigating away the risk of flooding. I think you're spot non when suggesting building out the kerbs where that's the only way to host a tree on our streets. If done well it doesn't even need to restrict parking. It costs a lot more and the gulley drains often un just under the kerb highway interface to further complicate things. Do you think you could review the Southwark Street Design Manual and share your thoughts. I really need volunteers to critique it.

Hi XIX, I don't read all the threads all the time. I'll take a look there sometime today/tomorrow. Hi tiddles, Southwark Council how avoids putting trees on narrow pavements. Trees grow and eventually the pavement can be blocked for most people using it - especially pushchairs, wheelchairs. But this rule will with time decimate the number of trees we have. It also coincided with drastic budget cuts - so it appears budget rather than street scene led. We clearly need to come up with something better.

Hi Muggleworth, 70% of the people around there don't have a registered motor vehicle. But I did enjoy your post.

Hi Rockets, The address is 160 Tooley Street SE1...

Indeed. I think that was my point. Provide carrots at the same time as this stick to see reduced CO2.

Clearly these closures are very painful for many - forcing changes in behaviour for many who consider all their car journey essential. Equally the 70% who live around that area might welcome the relief from so many fewer cars. Big picture is this year Paris conference about what has now become irreversible climate change while humans still exist on planet earth. They're now arguing of whether we're all willing to keep the change somewhere between an extra 2-5 degrees C or not. Already the calculation suggest the oceans rising 5m over the next century - that's most of London under water. So we all need to be drastically weaned away from carbon consumption in all its forms - driving, shopping, etc. The problem with this change - and it is needed - is no alternatives that those drivers and families consider reasonable have been put in place. No new tram line, no improved train timetable, no express bus route. Not even an improved cycle route along this desire line. Without carrots the sticks seem particularly painful.

Hi RobMiller, I've reported this twice to relevant council officials and been told they're on the case. I'll make a point of cycling home that way tonight to take a good look and in the mean time chase officers again.

Hi rjsmall, Thanks for adding some more detail to this issue around P13. Thank you. I've updated my query with TfL and hope we get a reply in the next week or two.

Hi ted17, I don't recall any detail about research regarding the elasticity of people choosing to drive more or less based on more or less roads - do you? I think I've read research about new roads creating lots of new use e.g M25 but haven't kept copies of this. Do you have something showing the opposite that reducing road capacity and routes take 5-10 years for people to change behaviours?

Hi Abe-frieman, What shiny new speed cameras? All London is covered by a Safer Camera Partnership and local councils have little say is where they place cameras. So very curious about your comment?

This is the response I've just received from the now lead officer of this case: " Hi Cllr Barber The deadline for the public to send responses for this appeal to the Inspectorate ended on 11 October. If they had already written in on this application their comments would already be with the Inspectorate. There will be a site visit by the Inspector, which it may be worthwhile having the owner of 1 Chesterfield Grove attend but there is no date/ time set for this as yet. You can advise residents that the Council is recommending the Inspector refuse the application on the following grounds; 1 The proposed roof extension by reason of its lack of a setback to the rear elevation would result in an overbearing and visually obtrusive impact to the residential dwellings to the rear of the site. As such the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Framework Section 7 Requiring Good Design, Strategic Policy 12 Design and conservation of The Core Strategy 2011, Saved Southwark Plan 2007 Policies 3.12 'Quality in Design' and 3.13 'Urban Design' and The Residential Design Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2011. 2 In the absence of any information to the contrary the proposal would fail to demonstrate how the internal access and servicing area to the rear of the site would operate and allow for the movement of an increased number of pedestrians. As such the proposal would be contrary to Saved Policy 5.2 Transport Impacts 5.3 Walking and Cycling of the Southwark Plan 2007 3 The proposal fails to demonstrate how it would manage additional on-street parking demands resulting from the intensification of the various uses on the site. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Saved Policy 5.6 Car Parking of the Southwark Plan 2007. Statement of positive and proactive action in dealing with the application To assist applicants the Local Planning Authority has produced policies and written guidance, all of which is available on the Council?s website and offers a pre planning application advice service. The scheme does not comply with guidance and no pre application discussions were entered into. The Council is ready to enter into discussions with the applicants to assist in the preparation of a new planning application The local planning authority requested additional information from the applicant but these were not forthcoming. Informative In respect of reason 1 for refusal, the Council would be willing to accept a substitution of plans submitted under application reference 15/AP/2221which demonstrate a setback at the rear. As the application is with the Planning Inspectorate for decision there is very little anyone can now do to influence the process. It is unlikely we will receive a decision until some time in December. Kind regards "

Hi LondonMix, A final consultation about the Bakerloo Line is proposed close to Christmas - my hunch is a final proposal from them which may or may not include Camberwell/Peckham Rye route. IF they don't then the last consultation results will have been ignored which will give us all opportunity to get London mayoral candidates to commit to making it happen. So fear not - plenty more water under this bridge before final routes agreed. Hi antantant, Kent commuters have kicked up a fuss at the potential delay to their trains if they stop more i.e. at Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill. I doubt whether a tory transport minister will insist on these extra stops offending tory Kent MP's. But we need to do something.

I've asked the new case officer how we can help fight this appeal. The new case officers is very good from past experiences.

Hi Cora, I used to use the P13 every morning am rush hour and don't recall having any problems. It would have been even better with more frequent buses. I' more than happy to ask about what plans are proposed if any for this route. request to TfL submitted. Will keep you posted of what I hear and then we can decide if we need to run a campaign or not. Many thanks for raising this. Hi first mate, In February at budget setting my lot proposed spending more money on having what we feel is sufficient planning officers to handle the workloads. Our alternative fully costs budget, that legally has to be verified and was by the finance director, was rejected by the administration. This appeal for non determination is one outcome of this. Most of these are avoided by developers who want to have a longer-term relationship with Southwark council. Clearly this developer doesn't need that hence this appeal. I have raised this case with the new case officers and will come back to everyone what we can do in these new circumstances.

The latest safety audit can be found here - 2 x files each of 4M - http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3980/townley_road

This will be instead of re introducing the South London Line in 2018 after London Bridge station and Thameslink works finished. Hence the delays and timing. So great news for those that find London Overground useful but rubbish if you wanted the service into Victoria and London Bridge the SLL was suspended for.

Hi first mate, We called this decision in. But if it doesn't go to committee in timely way then the applicant can appeal for non determination. To be honest I'm amazed more applicants don't do this. They're burning money waiting for a decision. Problem seems to be lack of planning officers to handle the volume and complexity of cases. The officer now on this case is very good from my experiences.

Hi first mate, XIX, If you've objected then your objections should be transferred to the inspector as part of the appeal paperwork.

Guys. This junction has had an entry treatment added. That's it. It isn't permanently closed. It hasn't been made one way. It took an age to make happen. But is in my eyes a big improvement for pedestrians and should reduce the chances of crashes at this junction. it should have the same capacity as before - it will just be a little slower and easier for people walking. It will also make a nicer entrance to our street market and permanent shopping area on North Cross road. What is does do is show up the state of surrounding Lordship Lane.

I had a flat where my neighbour below and myself could hear EVERYTHING. Mortifying. I install sound insulating rock wool under the floor boards. It involve taking up every 4th floorboard, cutting the stuff to size and sliding it snuggly into place. That was really good but I then also installed sound insulating carpet underlay and then tick carpet. Huge improvement all combined. And as Convex says it does improvement fire resistance. It cost from memory about ?500 for the wool stuff but that did a 60m2 flat - I did every room. Took several weekends. But one room should be a single Saturday. Think this is the stuff I used: http://www.rockwool.co.uk/products/u/2014.product/11725/building-insulation/rockwool-sound-insulation-slab?pid=11320 Prices seem a bit lower than when I used this stuff: http://www.builderdepot.co.uk/rockwool-sound-insulation-70mm-x-600mm-x-1200mm-pack-of-8-5-76-square-metres-pack.html?gclid=Cj0KEQjwtO2wBRCu0d2dkvjVi5cBEiQAMEIVGfqameHLD-WA5-2TMwHMN3F_147murBsUmx_bHhp23kaAmCO8P8HAQ ?33.59 for 5.76m2 of the stuff. I found a bread knife was good at cutting the stuff up. Do where a mask and do really vacuum the roof afterwards.

I've had local Police respond saying about all car crime having to be reported in person at Police stations and not via 101: "No that is not correct, we do like attending motor vehicle calls and this may have been what the operator has misinterpreted. If you have their details I will get it sorted today for them."

Hi TheArtfulDogger, Electricity generation via fossil fuels has very low taxation compared to fossil fuels at the pump. So it can give the impression of electric car being cheaper per mile. Obviously if electricity generated via wind, wave, sun then fine. Plenty of eco electricity on the market so electric cars should be fine when you know how your electricity is produced. Hi edhistory, Directly or indirectly Southwark Council. I have a recollection when this was asked before that we found he was provided by a contractors as part of a large contract. Very typical practice. Better value for the buyer. Makes the contract a bit stickier from the suppliers perspective and should ensure closer working so less gaps - and councils are notorious for leaving gaps in processes.