James Barber

Hope you've reported this to the Police. Even failed attempts should be recorded so they can see patterns and change patrols etc. accordingly. If you haven't reported it yet then from a landline call 101 the non emergency number or 020 7230 1212 of calling from a phone system that doesn't yet work with 101 - work PABX for example.

I posted about these works on the councillor thread well in advance of them occurring and explained they were for one day.

The final planning condition has been granted and the Education finance Agency and Harris Federation can start the demolition.

Blame the councils mismanagement for the disruption - poorly managed contractor. Blame me for the diea of improving this junciton. I never imagined in my wildrest nightmares the implementation could be so hopeless. I applied for this to happen in 2013! If ever their was a case for great devolved local government. Managing a contractor from SE1 to do these works clearly hasn't worked in any way shape of form. In November Southwark's administration is throwing a party to celebrate it's creation from two other councils 50 years ago. Would the old Camberwell Council that included Dulwich with its highways yard just of off GRove Vale have allowed a contractor to do this - very much doubt it.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I arranged for 8 fence panels to be arranged this > Tuesday and needless to say the council guys... Hi Rockets, This is the response I've had: " Thank you for your enquiry concerning the bulk waste collection service experienced by a Southwark resident which has been passed to me to investigate, I can respond as follows. The service requested was for collection of 8 fence panels with attached fence posts and 4 bags. The bulky waste collection crew went to carry out this job on 29th September. They found that the fence panels could not be safely removed as they were breaking up in hand as soon as any attempt was made to lift them, and also some of the fence panels were overgrown with trailing vegetation making them more difficult to safely handle. The collection crew took such items as they were safely able to and left the remainder. The collection team do use calling cards to advise residents if they are not able to do a collection but they did not do so for this collection as some items were removed. Based on the information available it was not unreasonable for the collection crew to have left some items because they were not safe to collect. Nevertheless, there are a number of aspects raised by this enquiry that can help us to improve the provision of the bulky waste service in future, these are: ? At the point when the service is booked it needs to be made clear that items must be presented for collection such that they will not fall apart when picked up and carried, are free of trailing vegetation, cables or other trip hazards, and where appropriate are bagged, boxed or tied, all to enable safe collection. ? Calling cards are to be left by the collection crew for any job that is only partially completed as well for any jobs that are not completed. ? The database records for the collection that are shared by Veolia and the Call Centre are updated accurately to identify reasons for partial or non-collection. I hope this response deals satisfactorily with your enquiry. Please let me know if you have any further queries. "

All three side road junction with Lordship Lane need some resurfacing. So I'm delighted that Southwakr central funds are being used in East Dulwich. I don't believe this has anything to do with M&S coming to town. Southwark Counci ljsut isn't that organised if even someone somewhere in the council wanted to make things better near ot M&S. I don't disagree many paths in our area need renewing. We don't have the devolved budgets to fix much of them and central budgets aren't catching up on such delapidations. My lot would use capital funds to again start catching up as we did when we ran the council.

Some small highway resurfacing coming up 13 & 14 October. 1. North Cross Road between Lordship Lane and Nutfield Road 2. Shawbury Road at its junction with Lordship Lane 3. Chesterfield Grove also at its junction with Lordship Lane. At some point in the near future we'll also see Lordship lane resurfaced around its junction North Cross Road and then a week or two later anti skid surfacing added.

Hi rch, It won't be electricity as Southwark has tens of thousands of street laps and several thousand illuminated highway signs.

Hi treehuger, I've tried several times to either get those devices fixed or removed and the ones at the other end of Barry Road. The Street Design Manual doesn't allow the deployment of such devices on our streets. Once of the dafter decisions the council made in 2012. I will endeavour to get them removed again - the council will not replace them or allow CGS funds (I've tried this approach) to replace them with working ones.

Hi BNG, Sorry I heard some news yesterday and been meaning to share it. The scheme for the site had a planning application to make it cheaper to build - make the core concrete squarer rather than odd shapes. Suggestion that so much work for builders that build costs rocketing. This application Southwark planning asked the developer to withdraw as planners were minded to refuse. Without these changes the development has stalled and is being reassembled and hope is to start building later this year. It is now officially 10 years since I originally suggested a new Grove Vale Library as part of this scheme. Frustrated. Hi first mate, Certainly far from ideal.

Hi first mate, Many thanks for pointing out the inconsistency between the consolidation traffic management order and being advised it represented no local changes and a traffic management order from April 2014 for Chesterfield Grove. This is the explanation I've had from council officers: " Dear Councillor Barber Thank you for your enquiry dated 22 September in which you enquired about changes to parking restrictions on Chesterfield Grove. As part of the Lordship Lane signs and lines review completed in spring 2014, we introduced 5m of new double yellow line adjacent to the vehicle crossover to the west of No 2a Chesterfield Grove. It replaced a single yellow line of the same length. This is the only change to waiting restrictions in Chesterfield Grove in recent years. I have attached two photographs of the length. As you can see, the purpose of the restriction is to prevent parking adjacent to a vehicle crossover. Were the yellow lines not there, it would still be an offence to park in the location. However, officers felt at that time that a double yellow line would give a much clearer message to keep the crossover clear at all times, and indeed a single yellow line was positively misleading. I am sorry to say that this restriction was introduced without approval from Dulwich Community Council. I must, however, stress that we did fulfil the statutory traffic order process, including three weeks of consultation and that therefore the restriction is legally enforceable. 5m represents 0.4% of the yellow lines that were repainted as part of this particular project and an even much smaller proportion of the all the regulatory lines that were reviewed, had new orders made but were unchanged. In terms of cost, the 5m represents 0.2% of the total spend on signs and lines. The vast majority of the works in this project did not increase restrictions and therefore officers did not prepare a full report to Community Council. I do apologise once again that this change did not go via the normal decision making process with a report to Dulwich Community Council but hope that you will understand what a small component of the project this was. If you consider necessary, I would be happy to send a report to the community council seeking comment on whether the restriction should be kept or removed. I await your comments in this respect. Yours sincerely, " Hence why I didn't have any recollection and couldn't find any paperwork. As the impact of this is to my mind adding clarity I wont be taking the matter further.

Hi daveybigpotatoes, Yes and no. ultimately you'd think this was wooden dollars. But the EFA's budget doesn't get increased if another regional government body charges a lot of money. So less money is available via the EFA to build new schools. On the design. That is extremely easy to say. All the design changes have cost more money. Money well spent in our local area but ultimately means another school will have less money spent on it.

Hi first mate, Interesting you should buses. a local resident has been using their smart phone to measure the speed of buses they catch along Barry Road. Regularly over 30mph.

Hi RCH, Such a decision would be taken by ward councillors for East Dulwich and Village wards and I've not been involved in agreeing cancellation. So I've asked the CGS team the latest status.

Hi Speedbird, Welcome to East Dulwich ward however you intend to vote. I'm sorry my original post about personal alarms wasn't clear enough about being limited to ED ward residents. I can't spend public money on who I want as it has to be fully accounted for. So these personal alarms and their distribution is via local Police who have to confirm the recipient is an ED ward resident. I have in the past also applied for Crime Prevention funds to be created to provide such kit in all neighbouring wards - sadly other councillors didn't think this a priority for them despite the support of their police officers..

Hi Abe, The Educational Finance Agency had to match the bid for 50 flats with massive supermarket to be built on the site. I don't know that land sale value. But you can imagine. Hi rch, What CGS busdget cancellation. As the applicant and a local councillor I've not been told this. Hopefully a misunderstanding about merging two indentical CGS applications. Feeling optimistic after a useful prod from MarkT.

Hi MarkT, Yes, you're right ANY INTERESTED PARTY can write in via the planning officer. And I'd encourage them to do so. If it was an informal or formal hearing we could have attended in person as I anticipate doing for the 2/"A Crystal Palace appeal hearing. If anyone has further objections they should email the case officer [email protected] stating they're emailing about the planning appeal for planning application 15/AP/0192 2-3 Railway Rise reference Ref. No: w/15/3135088 please copy me [email protected] you can see the three documents the application has provided as the basis for their appeal here - worth reading to put any objection in that context - http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/0192&system=DC Such submissions must be made within 5 weeks of the appeal so the deadline for us is 28 October 2015.

Hi Charles, I think that's for recycling plastic bags handed into them - you know the bins they have at the exit of the local Sainsbury's store on Dog Kennel Hill.

Hi Charles, Are you sure. To have such thin plastic I'd imagine a very consistent polyethylene mix which I didn't realise you could get from recycled plastics.

Hi dc, I'm a Southwark councillor. When my lot led the council officers repeatedly told us to charge for this service but we didn't because we didn't want an increase in fly tipping. Since then even more compelling evidence about the broken window theory and crime generation.

Hi chazzle, Southwark Council refused planning permission for the planning application seeking the demolition of 2 & 3 Railway Rise and replacement with new building with 135m2 retail space and flats above. The applicant submitted an appeal on 23 September. Apparently appeals typically 80% decisions taken within 14 weeks. So probably we'll hear this one on or before 30 December 2015 - as per government website - http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/appeals/appeals-against-refusal-of-planning-permission/ The concept of demolishing such aged properties at one end of a row or pair has local precedent e.g. 255 Lordship Lane. But the site context is different. I'd prefer them to remain. Hopefully the planning inspector will hold a similar view. Edited to be less defeatist!

Hi uncleglen, sadly people haven't. This new law should see a dramatic reduction in plastic bag numbers and hopefully save lots of oil from being used for this. One of the Lib Dem ideas in the former coalition not since undone by the tories.

The final design took on board lots of feedback and will have lots of brick. But it is limited in the budget the Govt's Educational Finance Agency can award on top of the ?6M price tag to acquire the land from the Met Police. And we still need to organise a police base in the area.

Hi Chief, I'm an opposition councillor. I've raised a large number of specific cases and have seen a few successes in getting things done. But the choice of contractor is the Labour administration. The enforcement of the contract terms is the Labour administration. If you have specific casework please email me so I can try and help.

Hi Abe_Foreman, The ward does have two other councillors. We also have rules to support councillors being unavailable for up to 6 months or longer. So to suggest South Camberwell wouldn't have representation is to suggest the other two councillors aren't available - which they are. it is a shame to spend ?20,000 when money is quite so tight. But if he felt he really couldn't wait and was told the cost to our community in hard cash then he is obviously has to leave. And I'm sure he found this decision really hard. Good luck to him.