pork chop

This is exciting - brand new 37 buses...!! - following the Boris bus style, but no 2nd set of stairs (can't see another post about this, but I may be late spotting this...) The video below is cracker...

There is a very good argument to increase the number of 37 buses from the current 10m frequency, or 15m in the later evenings - on a day with a poor service it feels like a lot longer between buses, and there are no travel options for this route. Connecting ED to Herne Hill trains and Brixton tube is key... the 37 route should be every 7-8 mins like other key buse routes (3/68/185 etc).

There are signs near each entrance stating 5mph max for bicycles. This is very slow - only 1.5 x walking pace. Do any cyclists adhere to this...? Almost none - some belt round at 25mph doing their training sessions. Will the council be enforcing this rule as well..?

Happened to me in June - just near Rosendale school after cycling from Dulwich Village, with a van driver slinging open his door, despite the blind spots across all the rear of his van and his mirrors pointed in. He was very apologetic but seemed to blame the mirrors, which was rather missing the point given that his stupidity had nearly killed someone.

Mr Sparker - congrats, you have solved the riddle of the Lego House on the Hill...!!

In an ED location that will remain unnamed a house made of Lego has been just been built. I am talking about 1970s Lego - the no nonsense 4 x 2 red blocks. Most people will know the house. It is on a corner, quite prominent, and near a school. The site was an empty for years. Maybe it?s to make us nostalgic, because Noddy in Toyland is the other comparison. It is quite depressing to see how poor the architecture turned out. Not because it is the very worst building ever, but because a few shortcuts by the developer (to save ???) have resulted in a shoddy building, when with a little more effort it could have been ok. It will depress people for years and years. If buildings were scored out of 10, with the worst 1960s tower blocks scoring 1 and the Gherkin scoring 9, it would probably scrape a 3. Not right at the bottom, but somewhere near it. To list the problems: - Proportions all wrong on the front with tiny windows - Zero detailing - Windows flat to front facade giving no relief - Cheap fittings esp. windows - Too much of the same red Lego brick - A prominent location so it can?t be missed - It will last 200 years - Noddy lives there Why don?t council planners try harder when agreeing to designs??? All they seem to care about is roughly matching the brick to nearby houses and a pseudo-traditional style. The quality of the design / build seems irrelevant to them.

Questions around the connections for the Bakerloo Line extension have been raised with TFL by Caroline Pidgeon, Liberal Democrat Assembly Member 
Chair of the Transport Committee. The responses from TFL / the Mayor are already public and can be shared: Bakerloo Line extension (1) Question No: 2017/1668 Caroline Pidgeon Why do TfL's plans for the Bakerloo line extension not include three stations on the Old Kent Road to improve transport links and match the stations per km of the rest of the line? Written response from the Mayor TfL took into account the emerging proposals in the London Borough of Southwark?s Old Kent Road Area Action Plan before launching its consultation on the proposal for two stations along the Old Kent Road. The distance between stations varies significantly on different parts of the Underground network. TfL has focused considerations on the planned changes in the Old Kent Road Opportunity Area to determine the number and location of stations that would support future growth. TfL considers that two stations would be sufficient alongside improvements to local bus services, walking and cycle networks to support the travel demand impacts of the planned new development. The consultation TfL is running provides the opportunity for the public and stakeholders to give their views and I know that TfL would welcome as much feedback as possible to help shape the scheme to best serve local communities. Bakerloo Line extension (2) Question No: 2017/1669 Caroline Pidgeon Have you looked into introducing an interchange between the Overground and Bakerloo lines on Old Kent Road as part of the Bakerloo Line extension plans? Written response from the Mayor Yes. TfL has look at the option of providing a station at Old Kent Road on the Overground line between the proposed New Bermondsey station and Queens Road Peckham station. The option was considered to support the emerging proposals in the London Borough of Southwark?s Old Kent Road Area Action Plan. TfL concluded that a London Overground station is not currently required to ensure the Old Kent Road Area Action Plan proposals are sustainable and that a station here could also reduce the reliability of operating timetabled services on this part of the Overground network. The proposals for the new Underground stations are focused on the best way of serving the existing and future planned communities in the Old Kent Road to make growth in the area sustainable. The consultation TfL is running provides the opportunity for the public and stakeholders to give their views and I know that TfL would welcome as much feedback as possible to help shape the scheme to best serve local communities.

There are a few simple reasons why Queens Road Peckham is the Overland station to plug for - Whether one agrees with it or not, a basic equation has been applied by TFL which is to pay for the Bakerloo extension through increases in land value and ??? made from developments along the route. 2 years ago a previous consultation was held, which asked for opinions about a Camberwell / Peckham route as opposed to OKR. However, it seems their mind was made up as it was already decided that OKR had much greater potential for property development. (Ken Livingstone?s 2003 proclamation that he wanted to impose a ?windfall tax? on profits made by property owners along the Jubilee line extension seemed to fire the gun on this approach). OKR would not have been my preferred route, but the argument was that it couldn?t be financed otherwise. When one looks at the proposed stations, it is true that OKR1 is close to OKR2. Moving OKR2 a fairly small distance to the South East would allow the connection with the Overland at Queens Road Peckham, whilst still being very close to the property development areas on the OKR that are being looked at. Somewhere near Aldi would easily allow a link to the south to QRP station, but would also be just 200-300m or so from the Toys R Us location that they are already considering. ie. completely viable when applying TFL?s own rationale, whilst giving the all important connection with the Peckham leg of the Overland. Peckham Rye station is just too far away from their preferred development areas to be acceptable, in terms of the funding model that TFL are applying.

?Unsure why people are so keen on an interchange with QRP.? For the reason that south of Surrey Quays the LO splits into two completely distinct lines, serving different areas. If you lived near Goose Green and wanted to get to Oxford Circus, you would have to go as far as Brockely or Forest Hill to get the LO and connect to the Bakerloo via New Cross Gate. This is a journey in the wrong direction, and into Zone 3 in the case of FH. Interchanges on the same line is basically what you get when the one name covers several routes. The Northern Line splits across the middle, and connects to the Jubilee twice at London Bridge and Waterloo, or the Central Line twice at Bank and Tottenham Court Rd. Same with the other tube lines.

The decision to go down OKR has been made. The previous TFL consultation process two years ago resulted in this decision. The location of OKR stations is not decided. As this new consultation shows, feedback is required on proposed locations, and Queens Rd Peckham should definitely be an LO connection.

These transport threads seem far too important for ED / Peckham etc, for them to sit unread in the Lounge section, so I'm starting a link here... (I missed them for a month and the EDF site description has transport / planning in this section). http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1786614 http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1785079,1785079#msg-1785079 Here is the link to feedback to TFL: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/?cid=bakerloo-extension Closing date : 20 April. There is just no logic in the new Bakerloo line running the full length of the Old Kent Rd without a link with the London Overland at Queens Rd Peckham. It will help get people out of their cars, and help resolve South London's transport issues.

I couldn?t see the link to feedback on this thread: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/?cid=bakerloo-extension Closing date : 20 April. Re. a link for the Overland at Queens Rd Peckham - The decision has been made to plough straight down the Old Kent Rd, and fund it through contributions from developers. Frustrating as it is, there doesn?t seem much point bemoaning the lack of a Camberwell / Peckham route, when the decision has been made following the last consultation. However, as Jeremy points out, a small tweak in the current proposed station 2 on the OKR (near Toys R Us) would allow for a link with Queens Rd Peckham, and the London Overland would get a good connection into town. This would be much quicker for the West End than travelling to Canada Water for the Jubilee, so can?t see the argument there. It opens up a completely new route across London, possibly for 24hrs. Looking on a map we are talking about a few hundred meters. Queens Rd Peckham is basically the same area of OKR - development central we are told. They could put a super station just south of Aldi, and run a connection from there. OKR would not have been my preference, but understand the logic as the funding will not be found otherwise (so the argument goes), but I can?t understand for a moment why they would fail to link the routes that are crossing the line. It would make a very fair concession to South London areas which have been left out of the current plan. It wouldn?t cost much more as they are digging a completely new underground line at this point.

Ditto. I've had two haircuts in there. For the first the general atmosphere wasn't too bad, but the second had different staff and was pretty horrible, and very much as Jim describes. Best avoided.

The Baptist Church on Lordship Lane appears to have a ground level building on the northern side, which is a modern addition with a wheelchair ramp in place. The entrance leads off Lordship Lane. You can't tell from looking at it whether it is part of the church or a separate property. Has this been looked at...? (as opposed to the main church which is only accessible via lots of steps)

There is a separate building on the Lordship Lane side of the Heber grounds, but it is only accessible from the playground. I would be surprised if this option hadn?t been looked at as a venue and the lack of separate access preventing its use...

My argument is about two things: 1). School closures should be avoided 2). Other venues must be possible The Castle Pub has a large room on the left hand side (with a stage). I have just looked at the small single step from the street. At most it is 15cm at one end and prob 10cm at the other. So with the maximum incline for a disabled ramp of 1:20 it would run at most 3 meters, and there is plenty of space for this in the area outside (although for a portable ramp over small height 1:12 may be permissible). The height difference inside the door is at most 1cm. So, a small amount of carpentry to equip the venue on the polling day and 450 children do not have their teaching week disrupted. If the other bar were to stay open, it would be the happiest polling station in the country... http://www.wheelchair-ramps.co.uk/special/maximum-slope-for-wheelchair-ramps/

James - please can you explain why each polling station has to be within a short distance of every house in that ward and hence so few venues are considered..? Perhaps you could let us know the relevant legislation. Many of the people voting will lead busy lives commuting around London and beyond, with many hours a week travelling long distances. When it comes to voting why can?t they travel a few hundred meters further to keep a local school open..? I don?t buy the argument that teaching days are made up. It does not seem sensible to disrupt education at key times, to then add on a bit in the summer when the education process may not be focused in the same way.

Another London voting day... Another Heber School Closure. I find it unacceptable, esp. in a week following a Bank Holiday Monday, that Heber again has to close for the vote to be organised. 2-3 tables will be put out with the voting booth nearby, and that will be that for furniture. Venues nearby that as far as I'm aware could be used instead include: - Christ Church, Barry Rd - Dulwich Library - Dulwich Constitutional Club, East Dulwich Grove Just looked through the list of Polling Stations used in Southwark and none of these are listed. Closing Schools has to be the last resort, esp. with the strict line taken by schools towards children being taken out of class for early holidays. With so little infrustructure needed to oragnise a vote, why can't one venue used for one ward - say St Clements Church Hall on Barry Rd - also be used for an adjacent ward. At worst it would mean a 5 min walk. Here there is also an adjacent community hall that could be used, but why not two polling booths side by side..?

From my understanding the Bold Home had two key players - Bold Tendencies, who are the gallery-lead group already involved on the top floors of the car park, and Shoredtch-based Second Home, who seem to develop funky modern workspaces for new companies. The Standard article gives a good overview. http://secondhome.io I imagine between the two of them they would have come with something pretty exciting, and would have been open to developing the project in response to feedback from the council. But I don't know for sure, and the council have gone for something very different with hardly any artist studio presence. I can only assume the Southwark vision was so different that there was no point in conversations taking place.

There are two ways of looking at this - from the local Peckham community perspective, but also with a view to London-wide planning. No politicians seem to be talking about developing a London-wide plan to revive artist communities and to save studios. All decisions are devolved down to councils, who apply their own agendas area by area and historically have done little to help artists. And at higher levels the main political impetus is on residential development, which puts more studios at risk. What I saw in the Bold Home project was the chance to create something extraordinary and quite unique, and with sensible negotiation with Southwark could easily have ticked all the boxes that the council may have had - perhaps limiting studio spaces to 500, and requiring 30% to be for more commercial / mixed-use. Such is the planning process. It came from the existing community because Bold Tendancies are already there - in the car park on the top floors. Artist studio companies tend to be flexible on the broad model they develop. Instead, from looking at the Pop Community proposal we get a mere 50 studio spaces, which for such a huge building is a token contribution that will make almost no difference to the urgent need for workspace that is London-wide. What is on the table is not very inspiring - it partly indicates lots more retail, as if Rye Lane or South London is short of that. And it isn?t just grumpy artists complaining. The article below reads: "London Green Party spokesperson Sian Berry described the decision as ?desperately disappointing? and Eileen Conn from Peckham Vision said ?the local community were not involved in identifying the priorities for uses or the criteria for assessing bids.? http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/artists-give-peckham-car-park-plans-the-brush-off/ Southwark say: "As a council we have promised to create hundreds of new affordable work spaces for the creative industries?? (Cllr Mark Williams, cabinet member for regeneration and new homes). Perhaps Mark or one of his colleagues could come on this trail to tell us the studio projects they have developed elsewhere. I would be delighted to hear about them.

I?m afraid this is starting to go round in circles - I provide a clear argument why artist studios are inclusive and extremely wide-ranging, and often community based, and you have portrayed them as closed and somehow anti-community (and presumably elitist). This is simply not true. More commercial companies can also operate in them if the layout / access is developed accordingly, and there are good examples of mixed-use studio complexs, but usually on temporary leases and subject to being developed into designer flats when the land price goes up after a few years. Of course the planning process is a discussion, and once the principle concept is agreed any requirements for specific community-based or mixed-use / commercial elements would always be possible, and probably not opposed. I doubt if the majority of local Peckham residents frequent the night clubs of the Bussey Building, but this does not make this fantastic place anti-community. It actually provides something that does not exist anywhere else within the area, and regardless of how many locals may go is of value to all of South London.

I broadly agree with what you have said, but for anyone who knows how artist's studios operate in London (the key examples being ASC, ACME, Space, Acava) they provide workspace for multiple creative disciplines, including independent film makers, animators, graphic designers, jewellery designers, ceramicists, and a wide range of specialist craft activities, as well as activities that are seen as more conventionally Fine Art-based. You name it and studios help these creative activities flourish. Community-based artists rent spaces just as much as any other type of artist, although such definitions are often problematic. Often there is public gallery with regular curated exhibitions and a related education programme, bookable project spaces and sometimes a public cafe. Regular open studios are mandatory for all artist?s studios, as part of maintaining their charitable status. So a description that sees a studio as an exclusive community and not inclusive (as Southwark council appear to) is failing to understand the extraordinary way that artist studios often 'give back' to a local area, and often in the most unexpected locations. This is why in cities such as Bristol, Derby or Southampton councils have actively encouraged artist groups to occupy disused premises, as a bottom-up ?community? model for urban regeneration. But not in Southwark it seems?

"I think London should provide artists space to keep the city culturally vibrant. I'm not sure Pekcham has a responsibility to provide such an oversized share of that space though with a unique public asset." Please say exactly where there are are similar initiatives taking place..?? I can't think of any. This really saddens me. In London there is huge pressure on studio workspace as well as residential accommodation. While efforts are being made to address the chronic housing shortage, the loss of artist?s studios is not being tackled. Large parts of London no longer have the creative communities that helped make them desirable, and artists have nowhere affordable to work. A related Evening Standard article is below. http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/design/space-odyssey-rohan-silva-is-leading-search-for-affordable-artists-studios-in-london-a3107766.html

Is there any news on the Thameslink redevelopment actually helping stations like Herne Hill or Denmark Hill, with more destinations, more services, or even new trains..? The pdf below doesn't seem to indicate anything new for these stations. http://assets.goaheadbus.com/media/cms_page_media/1273/Proposed%202018%20Thameslink%20service%20pattern.pdf

"as I understand it , evidenced demand is the first priority..." That is entirely where the problem lies. Charter do not have a stated policy of positioning the nodal point towards areas of greatest need. At the Heber meeting we heard loud and clear that the choice to put it in the East was to place it at the end of the new school away from the existing Charter (and nothing else). It has become a north-south debate because of the move to a north east position. If an off-centre nodal point is applied then what is required is to move it to exactly where Charter's policy requires it to be - the part of the school nearest the East, which is neither north nor south. ie. somewhere in the middle but on the Eastern side. If a different policy is applied of looking at areas of need then a new debate would start with all manor of stats, heat maps, surveys and everything else thrown around, and there are indications from the survey response shown at the meeting that it would then move to the South East.