James Barber

Hi rahrahrah, The site owners want to lease a shop twice the size do the current one. I'm also told that M&S are an interested party in some way.

Hi Otta, I couldn't agree more. Even though it was a lot of money the offences were caught over two years ago. I'm still hopeful whoever committed the crime will be prosecuted successfully. It is reported to have been found with the change of systems brought in by the federation with a new CEO and new team. So the current team found it. The improvement in systems and procedures is such that Haberdashers' are now viewed as role models by EFA and DfE. Civil proceedings have found for the federation and they're in the process of recovering as much money as possible. I'm hopeful some of that recovered money can be used for our new secondary school build.

Hi spider69, I will face to face tmorrow evening and have in writing objected to deliveries via Chesterfield Grove, delivery times (worse than current Iceland), flats accessed via the service yard, several practicalities around using land they don't own, losing car parking spaces and the predicted 40 car parking spaces needed, to a transport survey based on 15% arriving by the non existant underground. The site looks ripe for redeveloping but I don't think this application is a good enoguh scheme for East Dulwich or any other part of Southwark. I wasn't trying to sit on the fence, my written objection is included in the officer report, but I am keen to encourage both people for and against this scheme to ensure it gets a fair hearing.

Hi Vik, Not really. The Police told them to not make it public and don't talk about it for fear of scuppering the Police investigations. I can't imagine anyone thinking the Police would take over two years and still no court case. I hope that all the publicity won't get in the way of real prosecutions. With respect to the name I/we requested a shorter name after consulting a couple of months ago with supporters. It was being talked about as Haberdashers' Aske's East Dulwich College or Academy or Hospital School. Hatcham East Dulwich is much easier. Hence moving towards the name. Which makes me realise I've not correct this thread title and will do that now. Useful prod. Thank you. I just wish we could get the Harris people to be this flexible. Harris Girls East Dulwich Academy, etc. is too much.

Hi LD929, Yes you can still email in supporting or objecting to the scheme - please email [email protected] but please copy me so I don't miss anything when I speak at the planning committee tomorrow night. Front gardens of Chesterfield Grove arn't deep enough to take cars. Which means residents can't ameliorate any additional parking stress in this way.

Hi Mustard, Without the Iceland car park I suspect the Chesterfield Grove car wash will struggle and make more impact on parking stress of Chesterfield Grove. Great chance of people using the car wash getting parking tickets.

Hi daveybigpotatoes, The Coop/somerfield applicatino is a really good analogy. It used to have a customer car park. Then it was given planning permission (before I or my colleagues were elected) to extend over that car park. The residents of Ashbourne Grove experienced such an increase in parking stress that many then proceeded to pave over their front gardens. The key difference is that Chesterfield Grove don't have that option - it also reduces parking efficiency and exacerbates water run-off. Hi bonaome, I was under the impression as many that the developer and M&S had singed a deal. I only became aware they hadn't SDaturday afternoon, further clarified on sunday afternoon that M&S have helped finance things so far but have not signed a lease. They've kept an option they may or may not take up. Hope that explains the context a little.

Hi cl, I'm not a member of Planning Sub-Committee B which will decide this application on Tuesday evening. But as per my objection to this application, request with my ward colleague Cllr Rosie Shimell to call this decision into a planning committee if officers were minded to recommended approval which they are, and attend as a ward councillor at the committee to speak about this planning application. Hi first mate, I'm as surprised as you that officers are saying this. Huge volte face with no discernible changes in the proposals. It smacks of a political change of heart by the Labour led council. If approved this application will generate at least and additional 40 car spaces of parking pressure on Chesterfield Grove and surrounding streets. Hi lisloulou84, NCR Market often dips in the summer months as people go on holidays. Stall holders are allow to not be present for a certain number of Fris and Sats but they do seem to all go at the same time. I'll ask the markets team the exact situation.

Hi chellbirdse15, You were correct but modern tunnelling methods allow such tunnelling through SE London. In fact the last extension of the Bakerloo line was started and then sadly stopped early 1950;s due to economic situation - not due to soil conditions. I'm delighted to have nudged the Labour administration agreeing to campaign for two branches of the line - Camberwell * OKR.

I'd personally enjoy the option of buying M&S food. But it isn't about me its about the impact on our area and the application is still flawed in many areas. It still expects 15% of customers to arrive by tube! Flats will put all their waste beside 1 Chesterfield Grove - separate land not owned by the developer. The officers report clearly states that Southwark would expect a shop of this size to come with 28 parking spaces. That the flats following general Southwark planning guidance would require 5-6 parking spaces. But Southwark has extra car parking rules for Dulwich requiring 1.5-2 parking spaces per home. The flats are being pitched as not needing play provision because they will typically be rented to two professional couples. So that's two households per property. Either way this means council officers EXPECT at least an extra 40 spaces of parking pressure mostly on Chesterfield and surrounding streets. Perhaps people from outside this immediate area can now see why people within close proximity to this site think this an over development to the site. M&S. I don't believe they've signed any contract with the developer and hadn't during the last planning application cycle. The developer could just as easily, for the right price, lease the property to any other business. Supporters of an M&S at any price will feel pretty daft if a Poundland or 99-p shop sign the lease. M&S is the aspirational stalking horse to win local and officer favour. We must judge the scheme on the merits of any potential shop occupying it - despite my predilection for M&S choccy biscuits and socks.

I'm not sure inflicting this on the thread will help but here goes: The agenda and most papers can be seen here for last nights council assembly. The Lib Dem amendment is in supplemnetal papers no.2 which isnt on the web yet - [moderngov.southwark.gov.uk] The motion with my comments added in []: MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR CHARLIE SMITH (Seconded by Councillor Helen Hayes) East Dulwich Secondary School Council assembly: 1. Notes that there is clear evidence of the need for a secondary school in the Dulwich area in order to meet local demand and that the Dulwich hospital site has been identified as the only suitable site in the local area. [not according to council officer reports - the next one to cabinet next weeks talks about a surplus and that officers have asked 3 local secondary schools to expand by 180-240 pupils per year - so how can the Labour council support a new secondary school while asking other schools to expand to provide the supply of the new secondary school. Or is it expecting the free school applications to fail? We clearly don't need 12-16 forms of entry locally] 2. Notes that two providers have put forward proposals for a new secondary school on this site and that both are backed by strong local parental campaigns and have the full backing of the council and local MPs. [We're not clear both campaigns have strong local parental support. The Charter campaign hasnt yet been transparent on how many parents have signed up to its campaign.] 3. Notes that the need for primary school places in this part of the borough is being met through a number of new local free school proposals and the expansion of existing primary schools, including Ivydale School, which is the preferred choice of local parents. [The Harris Nunhead is the second primary school resulting from our campaign attracting over 250 local families support. Without lots of local parental support the EFA would never have agreed to fund it or the Harris ED free primary school - at no point have parents been asked their preferred method, the system however barmy doesnt work like that. Equally we think expanding ANY primary school to have 840 pupils isnt a great idea. Imagine being a young child faced with a school bigger than many secondary schools. The professional advice we've had from several sources is 60 primary pupils per year is ideal. 90 before the Pupil Premium was introduced to give more financial flexibility was acceptable.] 4. Supports the view of local parents that what is needed on the Dulwich hospital site is a new secondary school, not another primary school. [ironically the use of the Dulwich Hospital for a Harris Primary school was the original suggestion. NHS Property were so crap that we couldnt make it happen in time and sadly the East Dulwch Police station was vacated and after a lot of fighting we secured that. To help make a Harris primary school happen on the Dulwich Hospital site the CE of Southwark Council and the Labour council issued a letter allowing the Dulwich Hospital to seperate out a planning application for a new Harris primary school if necessary rather than wait for the whole site planning app. So the council have previously given a green light fo a primary school on this site. Tessa Jowell's original letter to Michael Gove in fact suggests a secondary school and/or a primary school on the site. Peter John was orignally convinced the site could host new medical facilities, a new secondary built upwards and other uses such as housing. So lots of hypocrisy] 5. Believes that it is completely unacceptable for the coalition government to be progressing plans for a primary free school on the Dulwich hospital site without consulting local parents or the local authority. [the coalition government isn't progressing a primary school. What Michael Gove has said is that once the NHS property people have concluded their work the only currently approved free school without a home may be negotiated to go there - but we know the timing is such that one or both secondary schools will be approved before those negotiations are formally started]. 6. Believes that blocking a new and much needed secondary school in this area would completely go against the coalition government?s own policy of responding to local need and demand, as well as the free school aspiration of parent led schools with a diversity of providers. [no blocking. but also two other better sites for the Harirs Nunhead exist and Southwark Council are the arbiter of whether they happen or not through use of planning powers]. 7. Calls on cabinet to press the Education Secretary to be open and transparent about his plans for the Dulwich hospital site and to listen to the views of the local community and their elected representatives who have been campaigning for a secondary school on this site. [but he has been open and transparent. They will listen through free school applications and Southwark as the planning authority will consult with the local community]. 8. Calls on councillors from all parties to stand firmly with local people who want a secondary school in East Dulwich, rather than supporting another primary school, which would limit rather than increase parental choice, in an area where the council has worked hard with popular local schools to expand places and meet demand. [How would adding another primary school in the area limit choice? in extremis both schools could be housed on the hospital site BUT the ideal location for the primary school is in the gift of Southwark Council]. Hence why we didnt vote for the unamended motion. It was pure scare mongering and scapegoating Southwark Council not getting on with helping find a suitable site for the Harris Nunhead. I predict they'll drag feet to stretch this out egging on the community. Politics at its most cynical. Now can we please concentrate on making a secondary school happen. Southwark Council need to amend is Dulwich Hospital SPD to ensure this happens on 2/3rds of the site.

Yes, LondonMix I disagree with that. The one thing we know is Southwark forecasts keep being wrong and under estimating demand. Equally the EFA have all these figures yet approved the Belham free school post approving the Harris Nunhead. So the EFA clearly agree we need the Harris Nunhead to meet demand. The worst that will happen is that we will need less bulging of schools - bulging is never an ideal solution.

Hi LondonMix, The Dulwich Hospital site NHS options appraisal will conclude around March/April next year by my estimates. Woefully slow but after 21+ yeasrs and counting something might happen this time. The secondary free school applications from both Charter and Habs will be submitted this October and decide Jan/feb. At that point the EFA will know which schools are approved locally and the land available. I would be amazed if the EFA proposed at that point when it had approved free schools to find locations for if it placed a 420 pupil primary school over am 1150 pupil secondary school. The same reports you're quoting also suggest we have surplus of secondary school places and that the council have asked and the schools have expressed an interest in expanding - namely Charter School, Harris Girls and Boys academies. Clearly the Harris expansion would be blocked by a new primary school being added to the site. Nearly half of the 248 families who signed up to support new Harris Primary school came from the eastern edges and beyond of SE22 - the Peckham Rye/Nunhead area. This wasnt what I expected but Harris have respodned with the EFA to this. You;ve stated that with Ivydale supersizing and Harris Nunhead a surplus of 1/2 -> 1.5 FE but without Harris Nunhead a shortfall of 1/2 -> 1.5FE.

Hi LondonMix, The short answer... Initating and leading the secondary school campaign in East Dulwich I/we are still 100% in favour and jumping through numerous hoops to keep pushing for it on all space not used for new health facilities. Some sad hypocrisy was going on last night with the Labour motion. I took parents from the new ED free secondary school campaign steering group to meet Labour Cllr Peter John and Cllr Dora Dixon-Fyle to try and convince them of the need for a new secondary school. He agreed as we had over 500 families supporting our new school and officers agreed to write a report supporting the need. But the takeway I took was that he thought our new secondary school could be more vertical ensuring space for other non medical and school uses. Based on his comments I've been beavearing away with a pro bono architect working out how to prove we'll need all the remaining space after new medical facilities for our new secondary school. So I was perplexed and delighted Labour now suggest they support 2/3rds of the hospital site for our new secondary school. To be fair Cllr Peter John had no recollection of his comments but I have a very vivid recollection and it resulted in a number of discussions with the parents steering group and others as to how we would counter this. The Labour motion was about trying to create controvacy that isn't there and we proposed an amendment to try fixing it. As the opposition we lost the votes. I/we voted for the amendment and against the unamended substantive motion. We need all the proposed free primary schools and expansions, one of which is the Harris Nunhead. The ideal site for that is on the Harris Girls East Dulwich Academy - preferred by Harris and the EFA. It is for Southwark to decide whether to allow that or not. An alternate site would be 520 Lordship Lane but as the Dulwich Estate control that it would also need Southwark to help make this happen. The EFA got its fingers burnt with how the Dulwich Estate acted against the Judith Kerr Bilingual free school and wont countenance trying to work with Dulwich Estate without the council helping. The motion pretended that it was the government that holds the cards in this situation. It is Southwark Council as the planning authority whose actions will either see the Harris Nunhead school on the Dulwich Hospital site or at another better site. The motion was to distract from that and try and make political capital out of parental worry for secondary school places. PS. The same officer report Labour councillors were quoting state we have enough primary schools places locally also says we have no shortage of secondary schools places until 2018. Also states the council have asked Charter Schools and both the local Harris Boys and Girls academies to expand by 180-240 places per year group. PPS. Reference to Ivydale. We think Ivydale is going from strength to strength and wish it well. But doubling it to 840 pupils creating a supersized school we believe is not in the interests of pupils or ensuring this schools success over the very long term. A new free primary school would be a better solution - perhaps provided by Ivydale as a seperate school or another provider a la new Belham free school. It would also see all the money to make it happen coming from central government and not need Southwark to spend the ?5M. I've had casework about Bellenden New School a Southwark controlled school leaking like a sieve - so the saving could be really well spent fixing such maintenance issues.

if you find the service is failing you please escalate to me - [email protected] - so we can get it investigated. Not just to help you but so others don't suffer the same frustrations.

Just to confirm that the final governance hurdle for the Haberdashers' Aske's Federation internal agreement with their governing board to proceed with a free school bid for our Hatcham East Dulwich has been confirmed. I never doubted this would be agreed but it is still a helpful milestone towards our new East Duwlich secondary school happening. Well done to everyone for supporting our campaign and making it happen.

I'm not sure his letter clearly written by his officials is worrying. He says primary school crisis is more pressing than secondary school places in Southwark - this is as per Southwark Council reports. Exactly the same reports used by officers representing Labour led Southwark Council to refute for some considerable time the need for a new East Dulwich secondary school. It was only when we have over 500 families supporting our campaign that the council changed its mind. So it's taking DfE officials time to catch-up and they will when the secondary free school application/s are submitted after the summer holidays. Until then the only approved free school awaiting a site in the area to be identified is the Harris Nunhead. So factually his letter is spot on. So what alternative site can be found for the Harris Nunhead free primary schools. Harris want to build it permanently on the Harris Girls East Dulwich Academy site. Southwark as the planning authority can indicate it would support this and we then have the soltution. Over to the council leader Peter John to organise this. Gove or his replacement can't make this happen.

They were the result of a Cleaner, Greener, Safer bid several years back. Quite a fuss at the time as coloured patterns originally proposed then changed to classic photos of the area. Great that UK Power Networks allowed them to be attached to their building. If anyone has other old photos of the area let me know so we can consider finding another location to place some. Ore for public viewing.

Hi holloway, The entry treatment on East Dulwich Grove at its junction with Lordship Lane was starting to fall to bits. This was highlighted to me on another thread quite a few months ago. Council officers rightly said they'd fix this alongside the resurfacing of East a Dulwich Grove to avoid additional road closures.

Hi milk76, I'm not aware of any council change but usually such developers talk to council officials and councillors in the political group leading the council - Labour currently - to agree a way forward. I'll make enquiries. Hi lisaloulou84, Would you be willing to run a stall on Fridays? If so I'll find out why a potential stallholder wishing to use both days is being denied the opportunity.

I'm really sorry Southwark Council and it's contractors Conway have screwed up and not signed things correctly with correct dates and times or not stated times. Clearly working on noisy roadworks until midnight and then again at 6.30am isn't acceptable. I'll ask council officials what they think has gone wrong and how they'll ensure it doesn't go wrong again.

Hi BNG, If you email these specific examples I'll follow them up with the relevant officers. But yes, I regularly get these problems.

Latest number of supporters is 647 conservatively counted (counted only once per family and only one child per family.

Good to see the naming has changed to East Dulwich Picturehouse rather than originally proposed Dulwich Picturehouse.

I'm particulalrly please a creche is being provided for the public consultation 7pm 10 July at Goose Green School that Haberdashers' are leading.