intexasatthe moment

Sorry to state the Bl**ding obvious but something very wrong in way planning applications considered ,if only that councillors abstain on such an important issue . But maybe I just don't understand .

Of course ,so sorry . Lots of conditions at least ? Amendments to design ? Understand if no one has heart to reply .

How did the meeting go ?

Wulfhund - everything's on a spectrum . And although there is currently a "storm" ( aka people trying to influence policy by accessing consultation )on here about a few planning issues, the effect on their outcome remains to be seen . And of course consultations are only spin ,they're not ballots where you vote for what you want .

Wulfhund I would be /am concerned that it would be in Sustrans ( and that of LA's and TFL ) interest to design a consultation that reaches very few people and that it delivers a predestined result rather than reflecting people's views .

Wulfhund - good to have the info I suppose but the fact that "That's how they're doing the whole programme " does nothing to alay concerns re bias and independence . And stating that " with what actually gets delivered being determined more by the consultation process than any overriding goals/standards." won't make it so .

I hope those opposing this dreadful planning application concentrate on planning considerations and not so much on the non relevant traffic disruption /danger to children . It's been said many times by more eloquent posters than me " Qwe June 23, 03:41PM Construction noise, traffic, disruption, danger, etc, are not relevant to the planning decision; these type of issues are not material considerations from a planning point of view - objections of this sort should be ignored by the planners. These objections may, however, raise the background noise level and may increase the chance that someone looks for another reason to reject. "Any development in a conservation area must conserve or enhance the conservation area - this development does neither, in my opinion. The original layout would enhance the conservation area, and it is possible that the committee, who make the decision, may agree. This is a positive message: development in keeping would be supported by local residents and there would be no reduction in the number of new units. There may be an angle under the Southwark Core Strategy 13 Environment. The basement is a totally unnecessary development and sets an undesirable precedent for other local developments. This would impact the ability of Southwark to meet their commitment to ensure that new build 'minimise' energy used in the development. The basement is a vanity addition to project, designed to increase profits for the developers, and results in additional, avoidable, cost to the environment - which would appear contrary to the adopted Southwark Core Strategy." "Re: Dulwich Estate - fit to run conservation? Posted by Penguin68 June 23, 09:07AM For those concerned about the enormous and unnecessary basement proposed on the SG Smith development site, and it's implications on child safety Just to make it clear, the basement per se has no implications on child safety - although fears (unsupported by actual facts) about its construction process and resulting vehicle traffic have been raised. All building work has safety implications, of course. Indeed, all life has dangers; one of the jobs of parenthood is to teach children about these dangers so they can act safely. We all have to compromise on our lives at times in order to avoid dangers - compromising around building works has the advantage that these are time limited, and construction dangers are thus relatively short term." "fazer71 June 23, 02:16PM The best way to deal with this huge OVERDEVELOPMENT is to use what was originally on this site (ie prior to the bomb damage the horrid SG Smith prefab Garage) as a yardstick to the overall size of any future development. [www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk] This is the line of attack we must use against this monstrosity of a proposal. A refusal from Southwark Conservation given the hundreds of objections is what we should expect.! There is no way the proposed development meets the requirement of this site, it is blatantly over sized above ground, the scale of any development should represent what was originally built on that site around the turn of the century." and so on

ianr thanks ,I'm aware of JB's attachment and also Sidhue's help - see my post yesterday "Ah ,could be in the the doc attached to JB's post ( July 06, 01:20PM ) . Despite Sidhue's best efforts ,I've not managed to open this ."

Doesn't seem to have worked . Oh well ,I'll just carry on being stupid and remaining ignorant . After all if I can't work out how to open the file I probably won't understand the content .

Sorry ianr for forgetting that . I've downloaded something ( Zamzar ) which I hope will enable me to open the files . Thanks for reminder .

Thanks James . Is there any data I could access that shows traffic levels in Southwark streets ? And would the TfL framework and Southwark's overview also be available ( to the likes of me ) somewhere ? sorry ,just noticed James's remark about exiting this discussion for the time being .Anyone else know if data is available ? Ah ,could be in the the doc attached to JB's post ( July 06, 01:20PM ) . Despite Sidhue's best efforts ,I've not managed to open this . Anyone read it ? Does it show traffic use of individual roads ?

" James ,you say " I believe I have answered questions posed " but I .and others ,seem to have missed this . Could you give a link/s to help us ? I've put them in bullet points below for clarity . 1 What exactly is the issue you're trying to solve ? 2 what is it that makes Melbourne grove a special case compared to many other road in ED ?" 3 Where is the ED traffic overview,? 4 how will all these different things impact the area as a whole? 5 Who is/has looked at that...anyone? "

James - these points from rahrahrah and first mate remain unanswered .Can you help us with them ? "What exactly is the issue you're trying to solve and what is it that makes Melbourne grove a special case compared to many other road in ED ?" "Seriously you cannot do studies on individual junctions/roads and use these as evidence to prop up funding requests. Where is the ED traffic overview, how will all these different things impact the area as a whole? Who is/has looked at that...anyone? "

Is it just me or is anyone else confused how it's possible for James to check the signatures on the shredded petition but not the subject matter ?

robin - do you need any help ,watering ,etc to look after tree ?

anyone ?

You could be right Tessmo . If it is a deliberately intentioned plot to make us feel we're loosing our minds it's definitely working on me !

Yes ,thanks Woodwarde . Waiting restrictions in Calton . Mmm .Distinctly remember Southwark chap at DCC answering a question about effect on Calton by saying that road was not included in the study . But what do I know .

Thanks both . I wonder what people do with such stuff ? Sure I'm not the only one to have a garden consisting of a thin layer of soil over old greenhouse bases ( + smashed glass ) and strange black stuff which I presume is some form of old degraded tarmac .

Thanks Sidhue for trying . It's probably easy to find the way of opening it but I have no experience .

To save me phoning does anyone know if I can get rid of some very stony soil at the Old Kent Rd dump ? It's broken up bits of brick ,small stones ,sort of large gravel that I'm digging out of my garden .Probably the base for a hardstanding . But there's a fair bit of soil mixed in with it .

I've come across a spreadsheet of traffic count data - please see attached for those interested. Hi Andrew1101, At the Dulwich Community Council we were asked to close Melbourne Grove on a trial basis immediately. WE couldn't agree that but officers had indicated in advaince the costs range ?2,500-?10,000 for a study of the problem. So we decided to take that option. As the road is shared between East Dulwich and Village wards the cost is equally shared between those two wards devolved budget. I should point out that it appears 55% of residents already have signed up on that section of Melbourne Grove to support the deputation. -------------------- Regards [email protected] 07900 227366 Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward Skype cllrjamesbarber [www.jamesbarber.org.uk] [twitter.com] Attachments: Traffic_Flow_Data.xlsx (178.4KB) I can't open the attached doc - anyone tell me what it says ?

mockingbird Yesterday, 11:38PM Southwark News like any other paper wants to report the full picture. Don't be put off - contact the journalist if you have a different view and some facts to relay. Point them to this thread. Get to the root of the signatories and the bigger perspective of the limited benefits to few and the need to be community minded? They will be interested.............. good point mockingbird

Has it been confirmed that Harris are banned from booking pitches ? I thought there was opposing views from posters on this ?

" current speeding " = " The total average speed measured in the two week exercise was 19mph Northbound and 18mph Southbound, which is under the 20mph Southwark limit. 85% of the traffic wasn't going any faster than 25mph, which is technically not high enough to issue a ticket. 15% of traffic was going at 26mph or higher " bet many of us would love to have vehicles doing such low speeds where we live . Southwark rightly doesn't consider these speeds warrant any priority when it comes to upgrading . But a bid can be made for money from the greener ,safer etc fund . Can we ask again whether funding in the ?5-?10,000 region is available to anyone wanting to bid for funding from this source ? How is it decided who can have feasibilty funding ?