James Barber

We have a local refugee centre on Barry Road- Barry House, 261 Barry Road. If you want to help refugees please do consider helping them there.

Hi BicBasher, No I don't know. I will try and find out. Moving it would make sense. That whole outside area needs some TLC. Hi Cora, Planning dept. have contacted me to say all a mistake they will contact people about planning application.s Then gave me a long list of exceptions when they won't! So in reality we all have to assume they won't tell you. Until a few years back all homes and businesses within 100m of a planning application would be told. More recently the immediate neighbours. Now mostly you'll have to spot notices on lamp posts. Main thing is please sign-up for the email notifications. Hi ITATM, Thanks for putting clear link in.

Hi bels123, You have a valid point. I should have been more considered about what I said and not assuming everyone had been to the 24 June DCC meeting. Sorry. More recentLy I thought I had been more conciliatory and less gung ho. I will try harder. Chuffed you're tempted to come to more DCC meetings. Please say hi to me next time. Not sure the shouting loudest comment. The original group came to 24 June asking for their road to be closed and we replied by agreeing a feasibility study of a variety of options over a larger area that if this forum and the petitions are representative won't result in closing the road. Hi spider69, I did. mostly reiterating that we'd agree a feasibility study that would cover all the local roads as far as Towny. That Chesterfield and Ashbourne Grove were given full speed bumps despite have less spending and traffic volume than Melbourne Grove via CGS funds several years ago. So CGS valid used of funds for helping fix such local problems that don't appear on Southwark wide priorities. Please do come to the next meeting. We also covered the North Dulwich/Denmark Hill CPZ - recommended for approval. Hi First Mate/ richard tudor, When I've chaired DCC meetings in the past I would let Robin speak much more than she did last night. I have a lot of time for her. I often sound ideas out with her. She is a challenging person to chair. She has been given lots of air time at many DCC meetings in the past both as a councillor and ex.councillor. At the 24 June DCC meeting she was incensed and interrupted the other deputation repeatedly - it made the deputation look more considered and authorative. So I don't think last night was gagging but trying to avoid her monopolising the time available. I'm hopeful that at future meetings she will be able to have her voice back - she knows and remembers lots of back stories that can help us reach better decisions - but not at the expense of others speaking.

I spoke to some children today who use this junction. They think it a vast improvement for them. They're walking rather than cycling but still this is some good news from all that money being spent.

Hi ITATM, The deputation was really helpful and explained they'd met with the original 24 June deputation reps. That their was much in common between both. They also highlighted that if the draft minutes had been available much earlier perhaps things would not have been so heated. Draft minutes don't quite reflect what was said 24 June. The deputation then said they'd spoken with 90% of southern Melbourne Grove residents whereas the draft minutes suggest local residents. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g5156/Printed%20minutes%20Wednesday%2024-Jun-2015%2019.00%20Dulwich%20Community%20Council.pdf?T=1 The deputation did say they didn't want CGS money used in this way on a study or if we did that it be wider. I explained that we had done exactly this when we used CGS money to put traffic calming on their roads in East Dulwich. At the time Village ward councillors (Toby and Robin) wouldn't agree to humps for Melbourne Grove so East Dulwich ward councillor bumped Ashbourne And Chesterfield up our priority list for traffic calming humps despite having less traffic and less speeding than Melbourne Grove. The 24 June DCC decision recorded as: " That the community council agreed that the council should undertake a traffic study (allocation of ?10k from the cleaner greener safer funding for a study) in order to evaluate the correct option for Melbourne Grove taking into account neighbouring roads ? Townley Road, Ashbourne Grove and Chesterfield Road. " Broadly this appeared to be what the deputation wanted last night - minus a definite decision of removing the closure option from the feas. study. The charter School chair of governors helpfully pointed out that they and NHS Property were to commission a joint traffic study of the area with lots of survey at a in a months time. This might help inform any study assuming the contract isn't restrictive for that commissioning. Several of us felt a lot of angst had been generated needlessly. But at least it was all aired in public.

Irony is that the bordering private schools don't have proper covered cycle parking for staff or pupils but all wanted this junction made safer for cyclists and pedestrians.

I've been told the new deadline is now 2 October. Matter escalated as to why and how such inordinate times to do something quite so basic. Clearly the FMConway contract doesn't have enough teeth to ensure proper service levels and performance. My FOI around this still no response and data.

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. "