ed_pete

Better idea to report directly: https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=276 or simply email [email protected] or ring 020 7525 2000 (24 hours)

KestonKid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Having run out of the Council free bags for food > recycling I have been looking in vain to buy small > compostable bags to fit a kitchen caddy. Can > anyone advise where they are to be found? Posted above: http://www.caddylinersdirect.co.uk/shop/

Bike Hangers were approved as part of the last CGS round but no reason why you can't have more. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s54789/Dulwich%20Bike%20Hangars%20CC%20Report.pdf As regards food waste - it might be worth consider requesting a few hot bins. If used properly these are supposed to break down all types of food waste not just vegetable matter. http://www.hotbincomposting.com/

James - how about using some CGS funding to work with Network Rail to landscape the slopes either side of the platforms at the station ?

Sorry to be a wet blanket but I'm not sure how LED lights meets the CGS criteria. ? Ideas for cleaner: bin storage, schemes to deter fly tipping, designing out grotspots. ? Ideas for greener: tree and flower planting, community gardens, wildlife areas. ? Ideas for safer: lighting, fencing, bicycle storage to prevent theft. Yes lighting meets the safer criteria but adding lighting to street trees where street lights already exist is not really within the spirit of the rules IMO.

emc - really glad that you've got your money back and HSBC are taking the matter very seriously. You might want to check your last post. You might want to be careful about making unsubstantiated allegations on a public forum from a legal point of view IMO.

Andrew1011 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Assuming Harris Primary planning is already > > complete then there should be some Transport > > impact somewhere in the planning documents. > > It isn't complete. Andrew if you search the Southwark planning portal for application number 14/AP/4580, the Harris Primary School, application, you can see the Transport Assessment document produced in December 2014 by a firm called Transport Planning Associates. I'd attach it but the document is too large.

A couple of things. I recall that both James Barber and Helen Hayes were late for the start of the meeting but both were in place before the anti barrier deputation started. I think that the chair should have allowed more time on the agenda for this topic as there were voices that went unheard both within the deputation and the audience. The development of the Charter School East Dulwich and the new Health Centre will both require Transport Assessments as part of the planning process and I don't think these will be carried out by Southwark, more likley a specialist consultancy on behalf of the planning applicant. I suspect that these will consider the traffic impact on the surrounding roads but I doubt that either will stretch as far as Townley for instance. I'm not sure either whether they will provide the kind of data that people are looking for in relation to the perceived MG issues. A guide to what is included is shown here http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/travel-plans-transport-assessments-and-statements-in-decision-taking/transport-assessments-and-statements/ Assuming Harris Primary planning is already complete then there should be some Transport impact somewhere in the planning documents. I think the reason Matt Hill from the council suggested that the study be restricted to MG but consider impacts on the surrounding roads was due to the amount it would cost (ie more than the sanctioned ?10k) but I may have misheard as people were talking across one another and the acoustics in the church aren't too great.

Fair point and I?m aware that it?s Mayoral policy to increase cycling in London generally. Hopefully the alterations to this junction will help in that regard though I doubt the change is likely to take effect overnight.

Wow - I though Tessa had it in the bag.

Going back the original Southwark consultation which stated: "The key aim of the proposals is to significantly improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians at the junction, whilst ensuring that there is no adverse delay to traffic on East Dulwich Grove." If a couple of children have said that they think its an improvement and my own have said the same. That's good then isn't it ? And that's all it is. No one is trying to use this as justification for whole exercise. No one was ever said that less children will be driven because of changes to junction. Jeez.

Telegraph article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/gardens-to-visit/New-York-glamour-comes-to-Peckham/

I don't think selective quotations are that helpful really, for example one of the last nights deputation said in an earlier post: Actually, if barriers were put in at both the Lordship Lane junction and EDG junction of Melbourne, that would create a blissful environment for all of us... I agree with you on the disparaging view of the forum by other councillors though, Charlie Smith especially, who as an elected representative for East Dulwich I thought that most arrogant and ill-informed (sorry John K no mp3 available). Sure there is a real world outside the EDF and huge swathes probably go nowhere near it but I though his comment disappointing.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1563597,page=1 :)

It's like a fine wine Mick - give it time.

One of my issues with the petition is that is doesn?t go into sufficient detail on what the issues are and what the study should address. Having said that I don?t believe that CGS money is an appropriate means of funding traffic studies anyway and I'm even less keen on the outcome being funded from the CGS capital budget. The anti-barrier deputation criticises the original deputation for not making use of Traffic Management Orders and yet seeks to use CGS budget to fund their own studies outcome.

Hi Jenny1 The CGS remit is that "CGS funding projects should make Dulwich a better place to live and projects must make a permanent, physical improvement." I'm not so sure that funding a study in isolation where the outcome is a printed report really meets that criteria however others, including the Councillors, may beg to differ. James (if you are reading this) - are you able to give examples of where the DCC has allocated funds for a feasilibilty study on the past or would this be setting a precident ?

In my view the the recommendations being put to the DCC are flawed: 1a - "The Dulwich Community Council (DCC) reverse its decision to allocate ?10,000 on a feasibility study for a permanent barrier." The amount was estimated at between ?5 & ?10k. The barrier was not the only option to be considered. 1b ? ?DCC commission a traffic management study to include all roads in the Grove Vale/Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road Triangle.? The objective of which would be what exactly ? Southwark already produce a Borough-wide Transport plan which they report on annually. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/200107/transport_policy 3.1.b ?a barrier placement clearly constitutes a significant traffic management measure for which Southwark has an established process, including feasibility studies. Sponsoring Traffic Management Orders (TMO) with CGS funds may be regarded as an attempt to circumnavigate the rigour of the existing TMO process, particularly in light of the Officers Report. Piecemeal traffic schemes such as this will inevitably fall outside, and even work against, the overall traffic strategy for the area. ? So how do you plan to fund your feasibility study if not using CGS funds ?

Jenny - we already have data from April this year and there will already be a follow up on speed monitoring in 2016 - the officers report states "Officers are committed to undertaking further counts in 2016 as part of our post-implementation 20mph review programme." Do we really need to spend money on another one ?

Andrew1011 Wrote: > > Clearly the speed at which modern developments > take place has escaped you. The Charter East Dulwich will start with year 7 from September 2016 which means that they will not be a full capacity (years 7 - 11) until September 2020, five years hence. They have yet to say what the arrangements will be regarding the 6th form. If this is designed to take the year 11 pupils after their GCSE's then full capacity would not be reached until 2022. Hardly impending. Harris Primary opened in September 2014 with children in reception year. Full capacity will not be reached until those children reach year 6 which again will not be until September 2020. Undertaking any study now that attempts to predicate traffic flows and volumes once the schools are at full capacity is a waste of time and money.

Can all the people that want to have a go at Conways and their relationship with Southwark please use this thread in future rather than clog up other threads ? Thanks !

Definitely worth contacting the Police. I think banks have CCTV's so they may be able to identify the person if the time of the transaction was recorded.

There may be an impact on MG due to the new schools, healthcentre and M&S but it's hardly impending. The schools haven't been built and the won't be fully operational at maximum capacity for several (5+) years. As for the health centre well they've not even broken ground yet so I won't hold my breath for the impact of that one either. Melbourneresident I sympathise with you and I feel sad that this thread could not have been used for more sensible debate rather than tabloid-style accusations of nimby-ism, gated communities, self-interested house prices, Barber-bashing and best of all objection to the use of the phrase rat-run.

"Where a problem has been concocted and presented to the DCC in order to justify the effective closure of a well used road" - no evidence has been presented for this and iirc the barrier was a councillors proposal. Sorry to split hairs but the petition calls for a traffic management study, no mention is made of policy. Whats this study going to cost and how would it differ to the one proposed by the other group ? Who will be responsible for its remit ? Is there really a problem here at all ? I suspect that some people will have signed the petition because they don't want a barrier rather than perceiving theres a problem that needs to be solved that will use vital council resources.

So we started out with some concerned residents presenting a deputation to the DCC about speeding traffic on Melbourne Grove after which they (the DCC) authorised ?5-10k from CGS funds for a feasibility study to find a solution. No ToR for the study has been agreed though one has been suggested (by the same group of residents) that includes a barrier as one, but not the only, option. This in spite of the council officer briefing that one would only be recommended in ?special circumstances? whatever they are. The ToR also wants to consider the knock-on impact of any measures on the surrounding roads and express the desire to not ?simply push the problem elsewhere?. The officers briefing paper also said that the only likely source of funding for any road changes is the CGS fund. Now we have another petition to go in front of the DCC that wants a different study, again no ToR has been agreed or in this case proposed, that looks very similar expect they do not want to consider a barrier. There?s nothing in the petition?s wording to suggest that there is or isn?t a problem on Melbourne Grove or any of the surrounding streets. To quote rch from earlier on in this thread, in respect of the original deputation: ?I must say, in this age of austerity, I can think of better things to spend ?10k of public money on!? Hear, hear ? it all seems like a complete waste of time and money.