alex_b

richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Was was the Cabinet Member for Children's and > school Services and also local Cllr not aware of > this last minute auction, if they were why did it > take a thread on this forum to bring it to > residents and parents attention. I don't know. I've written to all three ward councillors (including said Cabinet member) but as is typical they haven't responded. > Perhaps instead of "the expectation was" something > should have been documented in legal form to all > so they were aware of how things stood re the > school and caretakers house. I completely agree, unfortunately we are where we are. It certainly doesn't excuse the council starting to sell it without any consultation or communication with the school or community. > As it stands it is a empty leasehold property the > council can sell for cash or bring back into use > for a homeless or needy person on the housing > waiting list. I'd have more sympathy for this view if a) they hadn't left it empty and decaying for 18-months while ignoring a proposal from the school to bring it back to use and b) it wasn't inside the walls of a Primary School, on top of a small playground.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, the council needs to do better in cleaning > streets, providing shelter, etc. etc. yet it can't > sell off stuff to do that? I agree it would be > preferable for the property to be used in school, > but right now, that's a luxury. In the hierarchy > of those with needs, people without shelter or in > unsuitable accommodation trump the offspring of > already well-housed parents who want their kids to > be able to do some in-school finger painting or > recorder practice. The school (with support from the parents) submitted a proposal to the council over a year ago. The expectation was to raise external funding to convert the building to educational and community use (not just finger painting and recorder practice). Unfortunately the Council never responded to that proposal. By arranging disposal in secret during a pandemic, it has given the school no opportunity to raise the funds necessary. rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When the Belham was rebuilt as a school why did the Cllrs not > factor in repairing and upgrading this building when the original > works were first mooted and a budget worked on. At the time the old caretaker was still living in the house and had security of tenure. The expectation was that when it became vacant the school would be able to make use of it. The building became vacant last year and the school imediately made a proposal to the council which was ignored. Twelve months later the council arranges a last minute auction to prevent the school responding.

Councillor Lury (rebecca.lury@southwark.gov.uk) is the cabinet member responsible. She?s probably worth contacting too.

I?d encourage those of us who live in neighbouring wards to write to their councillors too. If Southwark get away with this they?ll do it to other schools too.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Out of interest what purposes does the building > serve? > > If it remains empty unused and costs to remain > sound why should it not be sold? The school put forward a business case for educational and community use (particularly for small group music and art space which the current school building doesn?t have). The school had routes to funding this but couldn?t start until the council had agreed to lease the building to the school. Instead the council ignored the business case, left the building empty for over a year and then decided to auction it off in a secret decision during a pandemic. I agree if there was no use for the building selling it would make sense, but this is a building that was built as part of the school, is incorporated into the playground and has a viable business case for being returned to being part of the school.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > because they > use satnav that routes them down side streets just > like a lot of other private traffic. I think this is a massive part of why side street traffic has risen so much in recent years and therefore why it?s entirely reasonable for Southwark to take some action.

James, the council is selling off The Belham Primary School's Caretaker's House by auction next week without consulting the school or putting in place a safeguarding plan. Although the school is in Rye Lane ward, many pupils come from Goose Green ward. Can you investigate and urgently intervene please?

Southwark have arranged to auction off the Caretaker's House in the corner of The Belham Primary School's playground next Wednesday. They've arranged this in secret, without consulting the school and without responding to the business case the school put forward last year to use the house for educational and community purposes. There is also apparently no safeguarding plan in place for a building that sits inside the school grounds (50% of the windows are over the playground and the school's bike store is under the building). Nor any consideration for the disruption to the small playground that the inevitable building works will bring. Please write to your local councillors to put a stop to this. If they'll do this to The Belham they'll sell off other school outbuildings and outdoor space too.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely it's quicker to the south circular to go > via consort rd / e dulwich rd / Peckham rye / > Barry rd / lordship lane than any possible route > via Bellenden > > And even if it isn't, Consort Rd is a residential > road with a park on it. Bellenden is a commercial > road with numerous car yards, industrial estates, > railway siding and other commercial outlets that > is more appropriate for commercial traffic. Well they coaches and HGVs are definitely coming/going somewhere and weirdly seem to be in higher volume South rather than North. It certainly a regular run for ubers and taxis too. Where do you think it?s coming from/going to.

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > What you do not seem to have addressed is that > these alterations have been put in with no > consultation or plans to comment on. They were > just started. I think those pavement extensions were proposed as part of the quietway plans which was consulted on ages ago. In my opinion the consultation was flawed and ignored 99% of the feedback the community gave, but there was a consultation. > As regards your mention of the Belham meeting, the > one the Jasmine Ali attended, minutes of the > meeting were asked from her but nothing was ever > produced nor did any other attendee produce such > minutes. What was discussed and agreed on? Again a > few people deciding what the rest of we residents > want and Southwark listen to those few who shout > loudest. Cllr Ali was only there for a few minutes at the begining, she didn't say much and left before any of the discussion got going. I never saw minutes either, although it wasn't a formal meeting. I recall there were requests for more information and there was supposed to be some follow up by email for those of us that signed up. I haven't seen anything though. What I would observe is there was a broad range of residents there and seemed a) to want something done and b) had no faith that the council would listen to them. It's sad that the Rye Lane councillors don't seem able to get much done in terms of the traffic. > I am all for safety change but I would like to be > consulted on how it is effected. There must have been half a dozen consultations in the last 5-years about Bellenden Rd and the surrounding areas. The problem is the council don't listen to the feedback. The quietway is a prime example, all that's happened is we've lost a load of parking spaces and the roads are just as unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians as they ever were. > As regards gridlock outside the shops this comes > mainly from people not being sensible, you stop > not me.Ok we will just sit here and shout. Me Me > Me. I think that's partially true, but it's also weight of traffic and the fact that that section of road cannot take two-way traffic (especially not HGVs) as it is currently set up. With the Maxted Rd junction so close too, it's almost inevitatble that traffic will lock up. > Traffic is worse now because of Southwark's ill > thought out road plans. People who have lived and > give their long term history of the area are in > the main ignored in favour of views from new > residents. One of my neighbours has a box of files going back 30 years complaining about this particular rat run and her ideas are pretty closely aligned with mine I think. Without systemic diversion of through traffic away from Bellenden/Lyndhurst and the surrounding residential streets, you'll just push problems to other roads (like happended with Ogglander and Ondine). What would you suggest is the right approach? > If one consults properly and listen to the > majority view you would be surprised at what can > be achieved. I wont hold my breath for the council consulting properly or even addressing the issue seriously.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "It seems that this route is heavily used as a rat > run from Peckham High St down to the South > Circular to avoid going all the way round to > Consort Rd." > > Did someone really write this? In what way is it incorrect? The number of coaches, HGVs, tipper trucks ubers and taxis driving down Maxted Road are not coming from local streets, they're cutting through the area. In fact a month ago I chatted to an HGV driver who got stuck on the corner of Maxted and Nutbrook as he waited for the police to guide him out, he said his company's route planning software recommended this route of residential streets as a southbound route.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe that it also shouldn't be 'habitable' > (in the sense that someone could move in and live > there). Essentially no bathroom and no kitchen.

You can apply for a certificate of lawful development ahead of time if you want to be super super sure. If you?re thinking of selling in the near future it might be worthwhile as your buyers solicitors will probably ask for that or for you to buy insurance to cover the risk of it not being lawful.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The one way system was put into place into 1989 > and has worked without any problems even when > Camberwell Grove was shut down on the bridge. Why > the change now? What nonsense. The traffic problems around Bellenden and Lyndhurst have been being raised for decades. Just prior to lockdown there was a meeting at the Belham where two long term residents resumed an argument with each other about solutions to traffic problems that they?d been having since the 90s! Bellenden frequently gridlocks outside the shops due to volume of traffic, at least a couple of times a month an HGV or coach gets stuck on a bollard and the it?s only a matter of time before a child is hit by a car outside one of the schools due to poor crossings, terrible sight lines and inattentive drivers of large vehicles. It seems that this route is heavily used as a rat run from Peckham High St down to the South Circular to avoid going all the way round to Consort Rd. A proper LTN is well overdue for Bellenden and the surrounding roads.

I think they?re interesting but not COVID related so should be in the main section. Perhaps the poster could edit out the email disclaimers and perhaps just post more specifically SE22 (and bordering) related items.

There?s a thread in the Business section recommending Critter Solutions. We?ve used them a couple of times and they?re really good. The bait they use is excellent and has sorted out the issue within a few days.

The junction between Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common has caused tailbacks for years, it?s due to the right turn phasing and often vehicles trying to force their way over to the right too late. Perhaps the LTNs are making it worse (I don?t know) but it?s always been on edge of locking up. No idea how you could redesign it to make it better though.

Also report them to the police as they?ve committed a criminal offence. There an online form you can use.

Effra Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Sorry Blah Blah, but your take on this does not > meet your usual standards of objectivity. > > The UK opted out of the European Medicines Agency > (EMA) to rid itself of the lethargic bureaucracy > that pervades the entire EU. The EMA controls the > development, evaluation, approval of new > drug/vaccines in the EU. So no approval, no > rollout. Agreed it does not control when an > individual country commences its roll out of an > approved drug, but that is beside the point. > > This gave the UK the freedom to analyse the data > and react quickly without numerous group meetings. > The EMA plan to have two more meetings in December > to discuss this. It will be 2021 before they can > progress towards mass vaccinations. Except that a) there is an exemption for public health emergencies and b) until the 31st December we?re still bound by EU law. So what legal change has Brexit brought that allows us to deploy the vaccine today in 2020 that we couldn?t have done in 2015? TopCat?s strained interpretation that we probably would have waited for the rest of the EU doesn?t mean we couldn?t have done it without Brexit, just like we could have had blue passports if we?d wanted but chose not to.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not a binary pro/anti car issue nor is it > hypocritical to own a vehicle but be in favour of > less traffic. > > 'Less traffic on my street - hang yours' - yes I > do think that's hypocritical. If the traffic on my residential street was going to/from my residential street (or those nearby) then that might be hypocritical. But on many of these roads that are being closed they are drivers rat running across the area when they should be on the designated A-roads. The statistics show a massive rise in traffic on residential roads while traffic on other roads and total passenger miles has fallen or remained static. This is in large part to app and sat nav enabled rat running and it?s not hypocritical to want this to be stopped. If the marginal gains these drivers make from using residential roads as shortcuts makes them think twice about their journeys then so much the better. I do think that rather than looking at individual streets the council should be looking at bigger area wide interventions to avoid shifting the problem to neighbouring residential roads (as i believe happened with the Oglander/Ondine restrictions). But that isn?t an excuse for doing nothing which seems to be the real aim of the anti-closure group on this thread.

Rockets, it sounds like you?re accusing a number of academics and their professional society of research misconduct. Do you have any evidence to demonstrate this or to counter the measurements and assumptions they?ve set out in their report?

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is always widespread support for things like > this but what has happened to the Coal line and > Peckham lido? > > Again a wonderful idea amongst the what a super > idea crowd. > > Anyone know what has happened? Latest Coal Line update on their website: http://www.peckhamcoalline.org/blog/summer-autumn-2020-update The last post on Peckham Lido's facebook was 7th October and said: "This morning we met with our design team, architects Studio Octopi and Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design. We?re excited to report that they?ve made excellent progress. We can?t wait to update you further. To assist them with their work, we?re looking for your memories of Peckham Rye Lido up to its closure in 1987. When did you swim there and for how long? What are your memories of the pool and surrounding facilities? What did it feel like to swim amongst the trees of the park? Do you remember what it cost? Did you always pay or slip in over the fence!? We?d like to include some of these memories in the next stage report, alongside any more photos or memorabilia you can find. You can send them to us on social media or by email peckhamlido@gmail.com Many thanks for your help and patience as we work towards rebuilding Peckham Lido!" Both sound like they're still going concerns despite the lockdown, I guess these things take longer than expected though.

It seems unlikely that a low noise on Ulverscroft Road and Muschamp Rd could be the same source given the distance. Perhaps two similar causes like buzzy substations?

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it's not the 1960's any more, car owenership and > usage are at all time highs I can?t find any data to support that. What I can find (e.g. https://www.centreforlondon.org/reader/parking-kerbside-mangement/chapter-1/#travel-habits-are-changing-but-modal-shift-is-slow) suggests flat or slightly declining car ownership and usage in London over the last 15 years. As someone else posted up thread there has been a dramatic rise in the use of residential roads in London coinciding with the rise of navigation apps but these seem to be journeys displaced from major roads. Do you have anything to suggest that car ownership or usage are at an all time high?

trinidad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what > road/s alex? Nutbrook, Adys, Maxted