James Barber

Hi hoonaloona, My understanding is the school is still planned to open Sept 2016 so you will be able to apply. BUT as the school isn't open Southwark usually doesn't include the school in the normal admissions process. So you'd apply direct to the school and effectively get another application in. Harris. I can understand their concern that they may end up having undersubscribed schools. All rival schools challenge new free schools. It part of the warning the New School Networks gives to people considering applying for free schools. Head and governors like the status quo. Hardly surprising when they're leading such complex school operations. But I doubt the DfE/EFA will delay this new free school. for the last 2-3 years I've had casework with families with no local secondary school offered to them. That was one key factor in why we initiated this new free school campaign. The other being the 2009 bulge class children needing secondary school palces in 2016. Some comments have been made at how disjointed the system is without local council control. Local council control would have seen this free school killed at birth. Southwark Council were always adamant this school would never be needed and it was only 3 months before the 2014 local elections with 550 families signed up that it performed a complete U-turn agreeing to produce a report completely changing pupil forecasts to support the need. Additionally not all local councils run education competently and it was Labour government that removed Southwark education from the council and handed it to Atkins contractors and then Cambridge associates due to Southwark Council's then incompetence. It took several years to persuade the govt the council had been turned around before they handed control back.

Hi BeadyBoo, I escalated the issue of the temporary crossing on Friday. Was assured it was working correctly. Escalated the issue again after a harrowing description of nearly happened there - which should have been possible. Thank you for also highlighting this issue. Hi Andrew1011, yes I think that was the quote - removed from the wider quotes context about if it was feasible. But never let a quote taken out of context get in the way of the point you wish to make. Hi mockingbird, We have different opinions on what the data tells us. I think over 300 vehicles speeding greater than 25mph a day down a residential road isn't acceptable. How we solve that is up for debate. This doesn't mean I'm not fully open to more authoritative interpretations of the data, lobbying by residents or consultation results. Hi Abe_foreman, It is and isn't an ideal site. If we could have found a better site we would but it is also close to the primary admissions black holes which is good. Longer-term I could see the bus stop and nearby pelican crossing swapping places as others such as robin have suggested - again if the officer advice is that would make things safer. We have a small study about options to improve Whateley Road/Lordship Lane junction safety.

Hi Phil, The former Police station (junction of Lordship Lane/Whateley Road) will become the permanent home of the Harris East Dulwich Primary School temporarily located on Homestall Road. Plan is to have it ready for September 2016. Hi BNG, Agreed - which is why a feasibility study of options will be taking place. Residents asked for an immediate experimental closure we said no we need to assess all options and impacts. Hi Robin, I think 15% of over 2,000 vehicles a day driving at 25mph or more is a significant proportion when the speed limit is 20mph. You don't. At the time of the deputation the majority of your neighbours agreed with me. They may not now.

Hi EDAus, I think you've jumped the gun. The study hasn't even started for possible options to reduce traffic and speeds on Melbourne Grove. The petition is worded well but then you've summarised the wider study you're asking for by saying don't close Melbourne Grove. Why are you asking for a study you've pre determined the outcome. Some of the points you've listed appear wrong. If Melbourne Grove was closed why would anyone divert to Townley Road? I would have thought it makes more sense to call on the feasibility to be widened to cover the wider area and all local issues - we then need to list those local issues.

Hi Charles Notice, Don't you think closing those roads might be why they don't have lots of vehicles using them? Hi ZT, I believe milo Road was previously used as a cut through / rat-run. which is why it was closed. The fact that no one can imagine those roads being rat-runs now suggests the closures have been incredibly successful. I can't claim any involvement in these successes.

Yes, I admit it. Police funded a traffic count that showed significantly more vehicles than I had appreciated with a significant proportion speeding along Melbourne Grove and I want to help resident fix that. The idea of closing that section of Melbourne Grove is appealing and I'm keen to see what an officer report says would be the consequences and also other options and consequences. You have me banged to rights for trying to help people. And yes when newspapers call me up I sometimes get quoted by them. I'm not very good at giving them sound bites so I don't get so many calls as I should court.

Hi DF for contacting me. Currently you can only sell this stuff for medical use or catering purposes. But what's to stop someone diverting a catering use to drug taking. Nothing. So society has a choice. So far one person I believe has sadly been reported as dying from taking this stuff. The sellers are almost all taxed businesses - if many are pretending to be selling for catering purposes. Outlawing it would be national legislation. Using by laws to stop selling on our streets eminently practical if Lambeth feels it's a really high priority for them. I would suggest we have many other drugs that cause far more problems. In Southwark the under aged cigarette trading standards operations stopped for lack of resources. If Southwark has resources I would suggest it uses them in this area.

And how much impact it has on local businesses.

Hi first mate, Officer has stated an order was made 8 May 2014. I will hunt though minutes over the next fortnight to try and track down which meeting before then would have made that decision and then provide a link so you can see the relevant documentation - and I'd very much like to check it out. As the officer stated the consolidation order will amalgamate 60 different amendments since 2012.

hi Jenny1, The document you've described is different to the one councillors received. The one we were emailed and handed had photos and ore pages. Hi bob, I've asked twice now. IT is taking a ridiculously long time.

Hi P68, We already have this type of road closure in a number f places locally. Milo Road, Friern Road, Gilkes Crescent instantly come to mind. It isn't that revolutionary. IF it ever comes to pass that section of Melbourne grove would have a lower priority to maintain - and also much less need. So it would receive less public funding.

Hi Peckhamgatecrasher, Adys Road a little outside East Dulwich ward - but if it was closed Crystal Palace Road would be less busy ;o) Hi Andrew1011, Are you speaking as resident of Melbourne Grove? The police said they were amazed at how many vehicles use the southern section of Melbourne Grove each day. Looking at traffic stat for all our local roads it clearly is experiencing much more traffic than 90% of the other residential roads in the area. hi BNG, The submission from the deputation at June DCC showed a majority of residents of Melbourne Grove. So perhaps I over egged when I said most and should have stated majority. This assumes non have since changed their minds. Hi F1, I don't know Clapham. How have they solved this type of problem? Perhaps a visit is in order. hi Robin, I think it does. you think it doesn't. The council officer report should be able to nail this one way or another. But 15% of traffic going over 25mph is many hundreds of vehicles each day speeding. You think this means no speeding problem as average speed 19mph. I think 15% going greater than 25mph is a speeding problem.

Hi P68, That seems unfair when residents just don't want so many cars - I'd imagine mostly from outside the area - rat-running down their street. Hi rch, A quarter of cars are speeding down this road. Residents are concerned that it will get worse when they have a school at end end as they frame it. Not sure the odd island would solve speeding or volume. It would also require a loss of much parking to make feasible. Hi first mate, I will check my records and come back to you. I certainly don't recall agreeing to more double yellow lines. Do you happen to know which DCC meeting you're referring to as I could give a speedier answer.

I've asked what enforcement council officers are or did take. What has been described is anti social. Full stop.

I would always expect fellow councillors to fully express their views but not try and dictate to other wards. That's the way I approach all issues in the DCC area.

Hi XIX, The propsers made a proposal, a study will be undertaken, then a decision based on the study, a consultation based on that, then a final decision. I'm not aware of any imminent activity in the next 6 months for any of us. This thread is proving how passionate some feel about this issue having a particular solution. But realistically nothing outside officers working on a study will take place for 6 months. I've made this point repeatedly but still some feel something must be happening now. It isn't. So not sure why anyone could be frustrated that more information isn't forthcoming when their isn't any. Hi rahrahrah, Precisely - their is no conspiracy. Yes, residents came with a problem. We agreed to fund a feasibility study of what can and can't be done looking at the wider impacts.

Hi Mickingbird, Kerb build outs would cost circa ?10k-?20k per junction. Melbourne Grove has what 10. We don't have that level of cash each year. We can afford either closing or new speed humps or some other limited capital spend from CGS budgets. Hi Robin, You know we don't have that level of budget. Several times you've intervened in this debate knowing your suggestion isn't uneconomic. I'm unclear why you're being disingenuous about this. Or the sense of urgency for something that will be decided in January ish time initially and then June/July finally.

Hi MarkT, The cautionary statement in the SSDM is correct in my mind and research I've read in the past. I also stated eleswhere on this thread that more double yellow lines doesn't seem useful in my mind. But the SSDM is so silly in places it undermines the sensible bits. The SSDM has been used to insist Chinese granite has to be used on our streets - about as un eco as you can find. So overall the SSDM should be either wholly revised or withdrawn until a proper one can be agreed.

The length of time being taken is quite astonishing. Pease accept my apologies that the contractors FMConways are being allowed to do these works so very slowly by Southwark Council. it will be great when finished but.

Most kids especially younger ones will clearly be going to bed way before the reported noise levels. No event should disturb our community to the degree posted. if you are ever disturbed call the Southwark Council noise team. The more that call them the quicker the response and the quicker they take action. What I'm perplexed about is Alleyns School allowing this. They have 24/7 staff no site. So if you were disturbed even now email [email protected] and copy me. If a number of people report the same problem I'm sure the school would issue an apology.

Hi Robin/RCH, AS per your post officers have recommended - it was only a matter of time - looking at placing double yellow lines to make it more easily enforceable when people park across corners making it hard to cross the road for people. I would prefer this done with kerb build-outs to narrow crossings but we can't afford this at this time. Officers will propose what I consider a ridiculous length of lining - circa 10m from the corner in each direction a la North Dulwich Triangle proposals. I will seek to persuade fellow councillors for the minimum possible. As for double yellow lines more generally. yes, this baffles me as well.

Hi first mate, I have to be honest - I don't know or recall. I wouldn't knowingly agree to increase parking restrictions. Could you please email me directly the issue and I'll try and get reversed or stopped.

Hi rch, IF DCC agrees to new double yellow lines. Some to ensure people can cross the road may make sense but not the 10m from each direction in both directions Village ward councillors have agreed for the North Dulwich Triangle area roads. And yes we've reallocated some CGS underspends as indeed you did for the 8 years you were a cllr Robin. NB. The new round of applications for CGS schemes for 16/17 opens 7 September. With respects to expressing opinions. The law rightly changed after 2010 about councillors having and expressing opinions as long as the councillor wasn't fettered or unwilling to hear new evidence and change their minds. When Melbourne Grove residents came to me I thought full speed width humps the answer. They changed my mind over time by relating stats etc. I'm not sure what the answer should be as we really need to understand what the impacts would be. Hi first mate, Is that what you wanted me to respond to? Hi Charles Notice, A recommendation from the Dulwich Community Council will be made a t some point - my guess early in the new year after any feasibility presented around then. That recommendation is likely to be to consult on an option - full humps, closure, something else. After a report with consultation feedback has been produced we'll then make a decision - my guess is around June/July time 2016. A majority of DCC's 9 councillors will be required at each of those two stages. Normally ward councillors are given more weight in such matters and the other 6 councillors will counsel but rarely vote down ward councillors on a ward specific issue. This part of Melbourne Grove is shared by East Dulwich ward and Village ward so 6 councillors directly concerned and 3 others for a non affected ward. Why do you not hear from the other two East Dulwich ward councillors? For Cllr Rosie Shimell and I it's a division of effort and a natural extension of what I started doing before she was elected - I'd be delighted to handover to her but she recently became engaged and has lots of planning to do. Cllr Charlie Smith when he was elected 2014 did start posting but it seemed if fizzle out. It is a big commitment. P68, Yes, the rail man was good. That was what inspired me to get properly started. Hi Markt, The Southwark Street Design Manual has many flaws. Doesn't allow new cycle parking, etc. Hi Abe_foreman, The deputation followed the rules. One speaker. when cllrs had questions and members from the audience other members of the deputation helped answer them. All normal. If you or anyone else would like to organise a deputation against Melbourne Grove being closed or having speed bumps or anything else - get in touch and I'll walk you through making it happen.

But first mate, Village ward councillors have agreed new double yellow lines - and I tried to persuade them to agree much less dramatic lengths - for all the junction corners in the North Dulwich triangle. This was agreed at the June Dulwich Community Council. These will happen whether the CPZ being consulted on proceeds or does not proceed.

Hi firet Mate, I've been assured it is a consolidation with no additions.