BrandNewGuy

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was told (on Sunday) that Southwark Council has > allocated ?65k. I suspect the ?10K is to put them over the qualifying amount for the crowdfunding project and the remainder will be allocated subsequently.

The initial crowdfunding campaign has been successful ? the Council has pledged ?10K too, which pushes them over their target: https://www.spacehive.com/peckhamcoalline Good luck to them.

The council cabinet's preferred option version of the New Southwark Plan (to replace the existing Southeark Plan) is at its formal consultation stage from today until Friday 12 February 2016. All relevant NSP documents are here: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4346/new_southwark_plan_preferred_option There's a lot there, but it's worth ploughing through. Admin, although this isn't specifically about East Dulwich, I've put the link in General ED issues as the NSP will have important implications for future local planning and policy.

Hmmm, and the source of the Starbuck's scare? Probably not reliable. Calm down, dears.

I'm not in favour af all these trees being destroyed either, but I have serious qualms with the methods of this pressure group in twisting the truth and shouting from the rooftops. In my experience (and I have some in this area), far more can be gained in these situations by patient hard work and by gaining the trust and ear of those who make the decisions.

Some kids in East Dulwich used to call Ashbourne Grove 'the river' because it ran between two banks: http://bit.ly/1Rq9PQF

I pitched an idea to the Beeb ? a Caribeean cooking challenge. They never got back to me. Oh well, I'll just have to go elsewhere with "The Great British Jerk Off"...

All good points, Penguin68, but I'd be perhaps more optimistic about this: >>I figure that living in a depressing or non-depressing neighbourhood does actually have medical effects. > >Unfortunately what is no doubt of benefit to NHS costs is of no value to council budgets. Our systems are not >(yet?) that joined-up. There is more and more hard evidence for the health and well-being benefits of 'greenery' and space in the urban environment and I know that Cllr Hargrove of Southwark's Park and Open Sapces is keen to explore local environmental ideas that promote health and well-being. Perhaps before long 'promoting health and well-being' will be a box that needs ticking in other areas of the council's activities too.

Indeed. And they do have budgets to do these things.

Yes indeed. Here's the link: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200074/planning_and_building_control/3848/21st_century_notices_pilot_project

Those are very naughty stats, Blah Blah. 1 cyclist on one bike = one journey. 70 people on one bus = one journey. 300 people on one train = one journey.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My rough guess is, there > must be 500 or so who use it each way on the > average day.. two or three a minute from > 7:30am-9:30am, & 5:30-7:30pm, and a smattering the > rest of the day. That's about what you see on > Green Dale. > > Say they manage to double those numbers, and get > an extra 500 people cycling to work. That's quite > a lot - indeed, increase numbers much beyond than > that & Green Dale would start to feel a bit iffy > on foot. The Green Dale path is already a mess in terms of pedestrians and bikes. The council rightly widened the footpath from JAGS as far as the small path to Sainsburys and then it's a complete hodge-podge without a properly marked footpath but with humps across the whole of the path. Then the narrow footpath starts again at the top beyond Mother Goose, before swinging around a tight corner with cyclists whizzing round in the opposite direction. Maybe they could spend some of the pro-cycling budget on sorting it out properly.

But you don't need convincing about bike use. Millions do and if they see Chris Boardman, they'll think it's not for them. Show Jo Brand cycling and I'll back your campaign ;-)

bawdy-nan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BrandNewGuy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > So why did he go with Chris Boardman? One of my > > beefs with the images promoting cycling is that > > too many cyclists are clad in racing gear. > Imagine > > promoting everyday car driving and using Lewis > > Hamilton as your spokesperson? No-one needs a > > racing bike, loads of expensive lycra, > > top-of-the-range goggles etc etc. Just jump on > a > > damn bike. When people do that, the cycling > > lobby's battle will be as good as won. > > I think Chris Boardman and British Cycling invited > him. CB has been doing a lot of work promoting > "ordinary" cycling and that's what he was keen to > emphasise to the minister. But don't you think having a racing cyclist presents the wrong image?

bawdy-nan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And, about the Copenhagen / Dutch comparison, > Robert Goodwill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary > of State for Transport has just come back from a > fact finding trip (with Chris Boardman) to see for > himself and his attitude has been transformed: > > Following the tour, Mr Goodwill said: ?It was > rather a shock to see just how many people were > cycling. When I say people, I mean just that - > ordinary people in ordinary clothes; people of all > ages, people with young children, and a lot of > women. So why did he go with Chris Boardman? One of my beefs with the images promoting cycling is that too many cyclists are clad in racing gear. Imagine promoting everyday car driving and using Lewis Hamilton as your spokesperson? No-one needs a racing bike, loads of expensive lycra, top-of-the-range goggles etc etc. Just jump on a damn bike. When people do that, the cycling lobby's battle will be as good as won.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would check with the refuse collection team that > it was them .. > > Burglars chalk mark houses 'Da Pinchi Code.' to > target the rich and vulnerable.. > http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/revealed-sec > ret-chalk-marks-thieves-4668387 > > I don't want to alarm people but maybe a new way > of marking homes.. > > Hopefully it was the refuse collectors.. but why > selective marking.. Better to be aware. > > DulwichFox Almost certainly an urban myth... http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/housebreakerscode.asp

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi BNG, > In East Dulwich ward we've ensured we have much > better car club coverage with more cars and vans > than other parts of the borough. We used some of > our Cleaner, Greener, Safer money to achieve this. > And despite having more car per head of population > we have slightly higher utilisation per car. > > Two weeks ago I asked if we could get lots more > and how we could help make it happen. Research > suggests that each shared car over time takes up > to 25 private cars of off the road. So great for > easier parking pressures. > But the exclusive contract with Zipcar has > slightly less than a year to run so the > procurement exercise to select the operator after > the current contract is about to kick off and we > now have to wait for that to run. If a new > operator were selected they may have different > views on where they want cars for example. > Frustrating. > So yes I'd love suggestions but in about a years > time. Thanks, James. We'll revisit it then, but it seems to me that greatly increased car club provision and usage will cut the Gordian knot of increased parking pressure, hopefully without us having to go down the CPZ route.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The catchment is likely to be much larger than > half a mile. The current Charter School's > catchment is typically 1 mile and this school will > be significantly larger. Either way, most pupils > should be able to commute via public transport but > suggesting the catchment will be half a mile is a > but alarmist / unrealistic. It was a rough guess, to be honest, so don't worry yourself. Anyway, a mile is twenty minutes walk. Piece of cake for most 11-18 year olds.

James, a while ago I think you posted something about Southwark Council asking people to suggest possible spots for car club spaces (in this case, Zipcar). Do you know if that's still the case? And if the Council intends to expand the scheme? Perhaps better would be promoting the 'e-car' system for car club use, in conjunction with TFL: http://www.carplus.org.uk/bollore-to-put-3000-electric-cars-on-londons-streets/ I would be more than happy to ditch my car when it reaches the end of its 'life' if I felt there was sufficient local provision for car club cars.

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's almost as if by not > replying they believe they can retain total > deniability. Do Conway have a lengthy iron-clad > contract or something which makes it nearly > impossible to fire them? Of course - low above-the-board cost but juicy below-the-board 'benefits'. Same as it ever was. Good luck with FOI request.

'Poor transport links' is perhaps a red herring. Curmudgeon pointed out a (probably far from unusual) school with excellent public transport links and still loads of staff who drive. House prices local to their work are out of reach for millions of Londoners who have to commute and seem to do so willingly. Why do teachers get a blanket exemption? Teachers? main pay range in Inner London starts on ?27,819 and goes up to ?37,862. And upper pay ranges go from ?42,756 to ?46,365. And more for ?leading practitioners?, heads etc. Is there really nowhere reasonably commutable to ED for these salaries? Disappointed to see the 'lug their marking' meme crop up. As I mentioned above, it would be nice if the education business considered entering the 21st century. I'm not being 'anti-teacher', but in a situation as complex as transport and parking in an inner London borough, we should look at all aspects of what is creating stresses and not unthinkingly give some a 'free pass'.

No, it was a lengthy (!) debate and consultation a few years ago about a CPZ for the area of north Melbourne Grove and the roads to the east near the station. The forum search can't find it at the moment, but the main reasons for opposition were: 1. It would reduce the amount of local parking not increase it 2. The knock-on effects on streets not in the zone weren't properly considered 3. Cost ? what guarantee would there be that the council wouldn't put up the permit fee remorselessly? The opposition won the day.

Go to the link I put above and you'll see that the 'chateau' and entrance are to be retained: http://www.chartereastdulwich.org.uk/_site/data/files/users/2/68364016F0E646B3810036D83AC73AC4.pdf

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They said 90-95% of current Charter pupils walking > or public transport. Risk at new school of 5-10% > of pupils being driven/collected which would > September 2016 equate to 6-12 cars am and pm > expanding to ultimately possible 120 vehicles when > school finished. So initially no problem. Bigger > risk I suspect is staff driving to/from school. > Has to be said it appears the nearest private > schools have much higher proportion of pupils > being driven to/from schools. So any work to > reduce the Charter East Dulwich pupils being > driven needs to be applied in the private school > direction as well. Well, the private schools' intake is entirely different from what will be the Charter School's as they take from far and wide. Apart from pupils with disability issues, there's no excuse for any Charter pupil not walking, cycling or hopping on a bus given that no pupil is likely to live more than half a mile away. As you suggest, it's the staff who will be the issue when it comes to car use and particularly parking. Incidentally, pdfs of the full information panels from the consultation are now available here: http://www.chartereastdulwich.org.uk/_site/data/files/users/2/68364016F0E646B3810036D83AC73AC4.pdf