James Barber

Hi nigello, Street trees aren't covered by parks. Email [email protected] If you don't get a sensible response please feel free to escalate to me or my ward colleagues. Hi niksterboots, You should ask Rebecca what the plans are for the playground. Every year we have Cleaner, Greener, Safer devolved capital budgets - you could apply for funds to upgradeo r replace one or two items.

sadly the new northern E&C junction probably isn't worth it. TfL don't do any cost benefit analysis of the hold-ups during construction versus the results. I read a paper that did this for California and the payback was typically 20 years - no sane person would undertake works on that basis. The works will result in a large peninsular sticking out - solely due to the Faraday electric substation sculpture. I very much doubt this new area will be a vibrant new square for E&C as per the business case. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

Apologies for not explaining how to lead a deputation. You need to contact the committee clerk to organise one. Typically as a minimum one week in advance so it can be include in the committed papers. State what your deputation is about and ideally send some materials supporting your case in advance. Emailing about the subject in advance to all committee members/councillors can help persuade about your case/argument. A deputation with just one person wouldn't look so convincing. Ideally others present as well. Good to have a specific request of the committee which can then decide whether to act on that request or not. hope this helps. did you have a specific committee in mind?

55% of the residents along the lower section of Melbourne Grove have signed a petition saying they are experiencing problems. Getting that level of response is impressive. Hi DominickHide, Many vehicles can straddle speed cushions and effectively ignore them. Hence why we've converted nearly all of them into full road width sinusoidal humps. Hi ITATM, Obtaining 55% of residents signing a petition is a very high hurdle. They asked for an immediate temporary closure which we clearly couldn't support. We're funding a study of up to ?10,000 but hope comes in at the lowest end of the range quoted to us of ?2,500. Hi Jenny1, Oh, I've emailed you my response. Southwark carries out crash reduction work based on the number of crashes - well sort of. It doesn't spend any money reducing crashes on TfL roads which is where the highest proportion happen. Hence why works have taken place upgrading East Dulwich Grove. Tends to be area or route works. it will be many decades if ever before central southwark funds reach the likes of many of our ED crash hotspots. Exception is where strategic plan involved such as increasing numbers cycling or walking. Hence why we've used so much devolved Cleaner, Greener, Safer money over the years to install speed humps around East Dulwich that would never have happened otherwise. And many more residents would like them on their roads. Even with the study costs IF the closure proceeds it will be much cheaper than full road humps replacing the current speed cushions.

Hi MarkT, For non principal roads we've been assured policy changed so double yellow lines are no longer required. They also wont install white H bars. But we have several principal roads in the area such as Barry Road, Lordship Lane, Forest Hill Road, East Dulwich Road, East Dulwich Grove, Grove Vale, Half Moon Lane where officers still require double yellow lines. We're about to have our first example of a new crossover on Barry Road to test this out on.

Hi ITATM, Good to hear fellow councillors were also up in arms about this. Not sure they've rejected any dropped kerbs with double yellow lines though. The problem appears to have come from Southwark's adoption of the Southwark Street Design Manual. Within the various sections officers have produced these restrictions - still no replacement H bar. irony is remove H -bar was produced to reduce street clutter by putting double yellow lines instead. I believe the SSDM is a cabinet councillor decision. All such decision are advertised to all councillors. So you could say 62 of us missed the implications of this manual. I have asked the cabinet member to amend the manual - both for this and it's banning of cycle parking allowed everywhere else in London. I will try again and we need a proper review of this manual - could you help me do this during August and anyone else interested?

Hi ITATM, I don't believe I ever claim credit for anything I don't have a direct involvement with making happen. Yes, I am doing this more as some other political party literature has started to claim credit for projects me and my Lib Dem colleagues have achieved. In this particular example. At the Dulwich Community Council I persuaded at two previous meetings that we NOT approve half a dozen requests for new dropped kerbs because each included the requirement for 2.5m of double yellowness past the edge of the proposed dropped kerb and across the actual dropped kerb. I persuaded my fellow councillors that worst case we should recommend approval ONLY if council officials limited the double yellow lines to 0.5m. Otherwise we would pequirethose officials to appear before the committee ideally with their director to explain why 2 x 2.5m was so crucial and indeed double yellow lines. The third attempt to push these through council officials changed the policy. Without double yellow lines these decisions don't come to community council and the item was withdrawn after the papers had been issued to councillors. Usually these decisions had been rubber stamped by councillors. So I'm chuffed - and the debate on the forum helped - that we made a stand and that led it. And thanks to my fellow councillors of both other local parties for their crucial help in sorting this out. The job isn't done as the policy still applies to principal roads such as Barry Road. I'm just sorry we had to hold up several families new dropped kerbs to get the policy changed. You did ask ITATM.

hi rch, It took several years and attempts to get the bus stop removed from Melbourne Grove. I wasn't aware you'd also been trying to get this resolved in the East Dulwich war section of Melbourne Grove. Hi Andrew1011, you can have a full raised junction that doesn't cover the whole junction. This whole junction is a crash hot spot and we'll see over the next few years if it is now much after. Hopefully far fewer crashes, lots of money also saved on top f the avoided human suffering.

If anyone is interested in a meeting to discuss th local aircraft noise - 8 people have contacted me so far. Probably not worth organising a public meeting is September locally with so few expressing an interest.

Apologies ITATM - being lazy and found first item in search about double yellow lines. We had confirmation at the Dulwich Community Council on Wednesday that for non principal roads the requirement for metres of double yellow lines with new dropped kerbs has been dropped - excuse the pun. I'm really chuffed that leading the dissent about this has caused a shift of policy. I still think even for principal roads a more nuanced approach is required - but we've achieved 80% of what is needed on this policy. Result. Apologies to the half dozen households whose dropped kerbs were delayed while we got this resolved. intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James - back to my concern over double yellow > lines 2 metres either side of dropped kerbs ,can > you help mw with the following > > How did this policy come into being with no one > seemingly aware of it ? My reading is that there > should be consultation which at a very early stage > involves Community Councils . Did this happen ? > > Given that DCC have already tried to have > applications with this rule modified approved and > failed ,what are the chances of it being reviewed > ? And the time scale ? And how can we influence > this process ? > > Thanks

Hi joannaoratt, As it was more than 24 hours ago I would report it as stolen via the Police none emergency number 101. Your description may well be of someone known to the Police.

Apologies for losing the original context. I was asked if the steam Fair is allowed to put it's posters around Southwark on Southwark Council railings, properties etc. The officials answer in a letter of all things arrived today and the answer is no. Where council officials see these they're meant to remove them.

/Hi Robin, I;ve contacted officers after visiting the tree today. I can;t imagine how this tree will survive so exposed with the current weather and the coming weeks forecast heatwave. Thanks for highlighting this to me. Sorry about my original unhelpful response.

Hi DF, I guess what you've described is the traffic noise drowning out any other noise. A little further back some feel aircraft noise is much more noticeable. It is for me so I signed up for HACAN who campaign for what I believe would be a better balance.

The we was my ward councillors and I several years when we undertook to make these changes happen. At various points former Cllrs Richard Thomas, Jonathan Mitchell and current fellow councillor Rosie Shimell. Hi wulfhound, I agree. But we don't get a proportion of the total value of the street to improve it. We usually but not always get a relatively small amount of devolved capital budget (?88,000 this FY) to spend on projects covering the whole ward of 5,250 homes. Hi Andrew1011, I attempted to have UK stone used but was over ruled by the Labour administration of Southwark Council. I am an opposition councillor so I don't get what I consider common sense as often as I'd like. Hi Jenny1, I would agree a larger proportion of traffic goes East dulwich Grove from/to the west and up the northern length of Melbourne Grove. But a noticeable portion goes north south along both sections - is it all local traffic to Melbourne residents - it feels larger volume that that - but I've not noticed many cars coming in and out of the Melbourne/Lordship Lane junction. It could be people then using Ashbourne/Chesterfield to reach their streets across Lordship Lane or could be residents. That after all is what the study is meant to be about. Working out the traffic flows before and after the proposal so we can then decide what we think should be consulted on. IF it shows the closure shouldn't proceed it might result in no consultation and the current bumps being upgraded.

No really. Latest research shows business flying is going down - long term trend. People email, video and audio conference call. The increase in air travel is largely a small number of high wealth individuals who are flying much more. So no, the research does not support your thinking Dulwich Fox...this time.

IF a closure occurred on the southern Melbourne Grove section is would reduce the through traffic along the northern section. The study should be able to estimate by how much. If the northern Melbourne Grove section was closed - it would damage the shops - and traffic would divert along Derwent and Elsie. So a lot more complicated. Fortunately some years ago we organised that the no.37 no longer use that northern section, had full road humps installed and car able to fully park on the road rather than blocking the pavement as they used to. I'd love other measures - rising bollards, full tables etc. But the only money available for any of these measures is devolved CGS budgets and it won't run to those types of measures.

Read about Liverpool City Council getting dispensation from DfT to install two thermal cameras at cycle lights. Part of the new Towny Road junction is giving cyclists a head start of several seconds. Adding thermal cameras would mean this only occurs when cyclists are present. I've asked if this can be added into the scheme - it would give a little more capacity back to the overall junction.

How so?

I thought it was a planning condition or in the Section 106 agreement. But checked and couldn't find it so have asked an officer who I think will know why/if the restriction is in place. Harris are clear they're restricted.

On the information I have I support in principle the closure BUT I've yet to see the predicted impacts by traffic engineers. I'm not a traffic engineer so my gut feeling of support could easily be wrong. Equally if the feasibility said it thinks it would work but residents are mostly against it then I wouldn't support it. I suspect I might give a little more weight to people directly affected by the downside of such volumes of traffic which we've established 15% speeding greater than 26mph on 20mph road. What I'm most keen to have explained is impact on northern section of Melbourne Grove which has much higher traffic levels. Lordship Lane and whether it could absorb extra traffic. Ashbourne and Chesterfield Groves - will traffic go up or down. We organised speed bumps on those roads due to speeding complaints from residents so interested how that might change with this proposal. I've checked voter records and I think they've as clear majority in support and we met 20 adults and 3 kids from Melbourne Grove on Wednesday evening - which for a deputation is a great turn out at such an early stage of a campaign.

Hi Robin, Why don't you email Matt Hill direct?

My view. great to get quick response. Officers working to the strict letter of the rules. But it all looks weasly. The officers and cabinet councillors lead I'm sure didn't intend this but that's how it appears. I'm still haunted by the traffic death of a pre teen child trying to negotiate traffic works at junction of East Dulwich Grove with Peckham Rye. From that we had temporary traffic lights with pedestrian phases. Some of the pre main works have involved closing whole pavements - Green Dale eastern side - with no alternatives other than signs saying cross over the road at an unsafe point. We want parents to let kids walk to school. The flip side is councils must ensure walking and cycling routes remain unambiguous for pre teens to negotiate. These pre main works are failing us in that. And I have raised this matter.

Hi d.b Clearly many people have different views on whether the street FEELS dangerous to them or they perceive something or not. Certainly when I've spoken to traffic officers they explain that people perceive higher speeds than vehicles actually travelling at. But the traffic count shows excessive volume and speeding. Yes, the reported crash rate shows nothing except crashes at the junctions of Melbourne Grove with East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. We could expect these to reduce as far fewer people use them IF the study confirms most of the traffic is rat-running/non resident. www.crashmap.co.uk doesn't have 2014 data yet - it normally comes mid august. But council officers and their consultant would get to see the most recent data for their study.

Would people be interested in a public meeting about aircraft noise in Spetember? Please email if yes so we can see numbers. I'd anticipate asking HACAN, CAA, Heathrow and City airport along to discuss and explain.