James Barber

Hi Tessmo, I've asked for copy of latest safety audit. I will share anything I receive here.

Hi Tessmo, The Charter chair of governors at last Dulwich Community Council said joint traffic study with NHS and Monday night when I met new head, deputy chair governors, Southwark officers and project manager said joint study. If different studies by each party then more overall spend and risk that gaps between two different studies. They said 90-95% of current Charter pupils walking or public transport. Risk at new school of 5-10% of pupils being driven/collected which would September 2016 equate to 6-12 cars am and pm expanding to ultimately possible 120 vehicles when school finished. So initially no problem. Bigger risk I suspect is staff driving to/from school. Has to be said it appears the nearest private schools have much higher proportion of pupils being driven to/from schools. So any work to reduce the Charter East Dulwich pupils being driven needs to be applied in the private school direction as well. hi Sunglasses, I can't pretend I'm not chuffed. But huge number of people have worked very hard to get us here and it has been a bumpy if fascinating and stressful ride. Can't wait until late 2020 when new school finally finished (delay due to NHS) and new super health centre in place.

Just received attached letter - so exciting that the feedback from residents we turned into a secondary school campaign has reached this stage.

Hi silly woman, NHS have been proposing 100 car parking spaces for the new super health centre. Presume for staff and patients. This does seem an awfully large amount of car parking. The Charter school is planning for much less parking. I intend to test this idea in two ways. First their current school is about to have a CPZ implemented around it. residents there think the school staff are a major source of their parking stress so when staff can't park on local streets we'll soon see if the school has a problem. The school has a travel plan which will include surveys of how staff and pupils get to school. This will be needed as proof for the temporary site and permanent site to prove their point about so little parking. I hope they can demonstrate they don't need much car parking. As Sunglasses pointed out earlier - better more space for kids than cars. Both the NHS and Charter are planning to procure a joint traffic report which will include parking surveys, traffic flows, estimates of impact of the development. But worth remembering this used to be a very busy full hospital with hundreds of consultation a day, in patients, 24/7 it even had A&E. So the site has had lots of traffic in the past coming and going.

The once proposed Super Cycle Highway along Lordship Lane was canned several years ago. So no this junction change was not part of that.

Hi first mate, Sorry pragmatism. Is this the most significant issued in East Dulwich and Southwark that I should divert all my councillor energies to it over and above continuing to work on more school place - no. Have I raised this repeatedly with council officials and as a group in capital planning yes. And insurance claims are decreasing so on that measure it appears not to be getting worse. Although the planned near stopping of council spending on highway and pavement renewals will have an impact eventually.

I read earlier that we've reached a stage with global warming of a 5m predicted ocean rise. We must all change our habits severely to try and mitigate this and from making it worse. I'm trying to be a near vegetarian, cycling most commutes, 100% renewable electricity. I still need to do much more to reach 90% reduction in CO2 produced to sustain my lifestyle. Closing this road hasn't been with great consultation, isn't well signed to warn people, probably shouldn't apply to residents. But the principle of helping people change lifestyles is good. We just need much better execution of such ideas.

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.