James Barber

Hi Pickle, I'm sure they'd be delighted. The tour of the reprocessing plant was/is really interesting. Let me know if you need help organising it. My last visit with a scout group was a Friday evening 7-8.30pm. Hi P68, You make a good point and I will ensure the call-in covers this. Thank you.

Southwark plan to charge ?16 per collection from October. We've asked for the decision to be called and reviewed but it is likely to proceed with charging. So please go through your homes and identify anything you want to dispose of that can't go to a charity shop and arrange a collection.

Hi P68, I think you mean the amenity of driving not general amenity. The amenity of cleaner air for example can be damaged by the presumption of peoples right to drive along any and all streets.

Hi Andrew1011, The section of Melbourne Grove that has 15% etc. That 15% is a larger number than most East Dulwich residential roads total traffic volumes and yet residents on many of those roads want speed humps. So I still think it has a speeding problem. But it isn't as bad as some other roads in the area and definitely across the borough. Hence why other locations in Southwark get a priority for central funds. Hi Jenny1, I'm keen for the new petition group to suggest the Terms of Reference they would like a study to follow as per our emails and previous posts on this thread. And well done getting so many petition signers - I know how much effort it takes.

Hi wulfhound, At a quiet ways meeting I asked if they had the aspiration that the London Cycle Network originally had of cycle routes safe for unescorted 12 years olds. They don't. They should have such an aspiration if we're to collectively try to stem global warming. But they don't. Appears targeted at nervous adults - which is a useful start.

Just had confirmation that council contractors have this vehicles on list for removal which should happen in the next day or two.

My lot have requested the Southwark Overview Scrutiny Committee (OSC) review this decision about charging for bulk waste collections. This has been agree and will take place 17 September. If you have views you'd like the committee to consider about this proposed new charge on residents please email me. Our grounds for requesting this were: - not included in council budget setting in February. - decision didn't cover the likely impacts in messier streets - decision suggested more good would be donated to charity with no evidence for this assertion. - the decision maker failed to make any responses for requests to meet to discuss this decision - so lack of openness. - decision stated meets Medium term Resources strategy but doesn't explain why it meets this - we think per item the proposal is for much higher charges per item than other London boroughs. - no evidence of the likely impact of this decision. - report stated this decision delayed until systems in place- so the decision appears already made. - no explanation on the impact on people with lower incomes or people without cars.

Hi first mate, I receive around a 100 councillor emails a day. So I don't recall the email. Could you narrow it down to a time so I can retrieve it more easily please? Hi edhistry, I haven't asked for double yellow lines outside 32-34 Melbourne Grove. I've asked what officers would recommend to solve the problem of disabled residents at these two homes being able to be collected and dropped-off to attend day care centres. The traditional disabled parking bays wouldn't seem appropriate as these residents can't drive. Double yellow lines would preclude anyone parking - including the minibuses that collect them. If you have any suggestions that would be helpful. Or do you think I should ignore the plight of these dozen disabled people?

Hi first Mate, But we didn't have any Dulwich Community Council meeting 10 April 2014. If I ever agree to any double yellow lines I would have insisted on at least an equal removal of parking restrictions somewhere else. That's been my colleague and my policy for eons. But we only get to agree things such as double yellow lines at a community council as as their wasn't one I'm mystified what you're trying to get at. Parking wardens are more than self funding. The parking enforcement service runs a large surplus. I'm not clear what Community Wardens an extra police officer would manage? The current limited number of community wardens the council has are almost exclusively limited to crime hot spots in the Peckham, Camberwell and close to London Bridge.

And don't forget that we have one of the three UK refugee reception hostels in southern England in the former church at southern end of Barry Road - beside junction with Etherow Street. All sorts of nationalities but there here and need your help.

This was how I used to transport kids when they were younger: http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2011/07/11/nihola/ But we do now have a family car as well as bicycle for all family members.

Hi edhistory, Yes the special care homes at those addresses are finding it very hard to load and unload their disabled, some in wheelchair residents. So officers are investigating how they can be helped.

Hi DulvilleRes, Councillors on planning committees have a legal duty to compare planning applications against national and local policy documents. I was, shall we say frustrated, they couldn't interpret those policies and vote against the application. But they, having gone through all the evidence didn't think they could vote for or against the application. It is a quasi judicial process. IF a council refuse and the applicant appeals and wins then a council can be charged all costs and losses of the applicant. This can be considerable sums. This can weigh heavily of councillors on Planning committees especially when council legal advice is the council would lose an appeal. It is rare for councillors to be so sure of the arguments against a planning application in such circumstances. Sadly the planning process doesn't have a right of appeal for objectors. I myself have voted for planning applications that I didn't want approved but our hands were tied by policies. Thankfully this has been really rare for me. The flip side is often policies have enabled us to stand up and stop planning applications or add conditions. I'm sorry no one explained these circumstances behind planning committees decision making.

Hi pipsky2008, Not in Southwark at the moment. Until 2014 my lot had a couple of barristers. The council leader Cllr Peter John (South Camberwell ward) is a barrister and I believe still practices in commercial law. If you want to email me or PM with your issue I can try and offer more information/help.

I'm double checking Southwark Council are aware to deal with the mess.

We definitely need more traffic Police - they've been drastically cut over the last 20 years. But each Police officers costs around ?60k. So all the road works, studies etc. in East Dulwich ward would pay for one officer without a car for one year. We have provided the tools to measure speed etc. for our local Police officers.

The quote I posted - please read it again. It sounds conciliatory to me. NB. The closure wasn't proposed by me. I counselled them for full road humps. I originally thought it a good idea. But on reflection wouldn't wish so many residents to have to turn right into Matham Grove, Then right into Lordship and and then right into their road. Hi Dadof4, Yes the CPZ didn't proceed around ED station. I was the wrong side of the argument - but I didn't flip flop for electoral gain. I stuck with East Dulwich ward residents and those streets that wanted controlled parking and the Grove Vale businesses that would have benefited. And you think that's the worst type of politician. " We would be delighted if the study could consider ways of stopping our street being a rat-run alternative to Lordship Lane and of keeping vehicles to the 20mph speed limit. We don't believe that increased signage and speed guns alone can be effective enough, though we'd welcome both. As our petition has shown, many of us are interested in the idea of a barrier (as suggested to us by councillors) so we'd be grateful if that could be explored. We are also interested in understanding how pinchpoints could work and where they might be positioned. The junction with MG and East Dulwich Grove continues to be overloaded at certain times of day. We would be interested in how both a barrier and a pinchpoint might impact on how that junction functions. In addition, we would like the study to look in detail at the knock-on effect of both of these interventions. Our belief, based on other streets' experiences, is that traffic would fall across Melbourne Grove and the streets that come off it (Ashbourne, Chesterfield etc), but we would like to get better information on this with the help of the study. We have no desire to simply push the problem elsewhere. "

The original Melbourne Grove residents have suggested a Terms of Reference for the feasibility study: " We would be delighted if the study could consider ways of stopping our street being a rat-run alternative to Lordship Lane and of keeping vehicles to the 20mph speed limit. We don't believe that increased signage and speed guns alone can be effective enough, though we'd welcome both. As our petition has shown, many of us are interested in the idea of a barrier (as suggested to us by councillors) so we'd be grateful if that could be explored. We are also interested in understanding how pinchpoints could work and where they might be positioned. The junction with MG and East Dulwich Grove continues to be overloaded at certain times of day. We would be interested in how both a barrier and a pinchpoint might impact on how that junction functions. In addition, we would like the study to look in detail at the knock-on effect of both of these interventions. Our belief, based on other streets' experiences, is that traffic would fall across Melbourne Grove and the streets that come off it (Ashbourne, Chesterfield etc), but we would like to get better information on this with the help of the study. We have no desire to simply push the problem elsewhere. "

Thanks P68, f71, A1011, But can we please get back to local issues in East Dulwich...

I'd also add that the electoral roll is checked versus Dept. of Work and Pensions record of where each person says they live. Effectively taking National Insurance number as unique identifiers to avoid people registering to vote multiple time - unless they're a student, etc. The aim is to reduce electoral fraud. The initial new system matched over 90% of people automatically with DWP records. Locally we've seen very little change in the overall number of voters. But we used to see the same person registered twice or more - probably clerical errors - and I've not seen this since. So my hunch is the general election small increase in turnout was related to removing spurious duplicate voters. But if anyone need help with their electoral roll entry and is finding getting a correction difficult get in touch.

Plenty of evidence that GENERALLY creating new roads generates more traffic. M25 classic example. Closing roads leads to traffic evaporation. People constantly make decisions about whether they can be bothered. Make it easier then they are and vice versa. It sounds like davidk is suggesting trial experimental closure - for whatever reasons - resulted in traffic evaporation. This doesn't mean it isn't a pain in the proverbial for some. The closure of Townley Road hasn't led to dire traffic levels along Lordship Lane/Melbourne Grove as far as I'm aware. People are amazingly smart and adaptable.

The proposed feasibility report of up to ?10,000 will have its terms of reference discussed at the next Dulwich Community Council 9 September 7-10pm Christchurch Hall, 263 Barry Road.

Why first mate? Neither North Cross Road or Whateley Road carry large volumes of traffic. I totally agree the local road works are painfully and unnecessarily long in being completed but exaggeration doesn't help our argument.

Harris Girls have been booking and using Peckham Rye pitches for years. I've not noticed any sliding - has anyone else? So we have Harris boys going by coach to Dulwich Village and other schools being coached to Peckham Rye park. Logic would suggest the other school/s be coached to Dulwich Village and Harris boys walk across the road but I doubt this will happen any time soon. The only open space being consumed is by a proposed new council leisure centre to replace Seven islands Centre in the NE of Southwark.

NB. Southwark Noise team have told me they've only had 3 complaints about noise related to Alleyns School in 2015 two from the same person. The noise team responded but the noise had stopped. I can't stress enough that if you don't report the noise it didn't officially happen. That the noise team response is based on number of complaints from different people. Whatever the anti social noise please don't suffer in silence unless you're happy for it to be repeated. The noise complaint number/teams in Southwark is Tel: 020 7525 5777 and operates: Monday 7am 2.30am next day Tuesday 7am 2.30am next day Wednesday 7am 2.30am next day Thursday 7am 2.30am next day Friday 7am - 5pm 6.30pm to 4am Saturday 7am - 5pm 6.30pm to 4am Sunday 8am 2.30am next day