former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[kiera]

James. I think this may be outside your area, but it's a very important issue. Did you know that a planning application has been made to remove the section 106 protection on.Dulwich Hamlet football ground. 16/AP/4051 and

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1657240,1755294#msg-1755294 posts from 17th Nov. This protection ensures that the land retains its community uses,but the greedy developers want to be enabled to build on the football stadium without constraint. Can you give any information about this type of planning application, as it doesn't seem to be being treated by the council as a normal planning application. It has not been.advertised at all. Is it right that such a significant decision should be allocated to a delegated officer. The website is accepting comments, but does the council have to consider them or is it a private matter between the council and the developer? If so, the process is far from transparent. This application was only discovered by chance.

[mynamehere]

The threat to Dog Kennel Hill is here:

https://belairpark.org.uk

[James Barber]

Hi kiera,

I had hear this and will be objecting to this.

[ed_pete]

James - I know this is outside of your ward but I imagine a lot of cyclists from your ward pass through Bellenden Road. Were you aware of the public meeting tonight to discuss the Bellenden Road / Lyndhurst Way etc road ? Were you aware that one of the two "concepts" includes closing Holly Grove in spite of this being rejected by the council back in May this year ! What's going on ?

[James Barber]

Hi ed_pete,

No I wasn't aware of the meeting - as not in East Dulwich understandably I wouldn't be told by council officers. And I wont be back in the area due to day time work commitments until late this evening.

Are you able to pop along?

[sally buying]

"Hi ed_pete,

No I wasn't aware of the meeting - as not in East Dulwich understandably I wouldn't be told by council officers. And I wont be back in the area due to day time work commitments until late this evening."

I understand that Cllr Barber, but to ease your pain I have emailed my local lane ward Cllr many times on this since the start and have never ever received any acknowledgement or response.

If the local Cllr cannot be bothered there is no reason for you feel bad,

Apart from inserting new crossings at all the junctions nothing more needed to be done.

As the money came from a grant for this scheme it looks like they have to spend it or lose it or at worst have to pay it back if things are not fully implemented.

Agree with all that Rendell Harris said. Normally I dont. Sumed it up fully.

[Zebedee Tring]

Kiera, under Southwark's constitution you can ask at least two Councillors to refer the S106 DHFC application to the Planning Sub-Committee instead of it being dealt with officers under delegated powers. James Barber would no doubt be amenable to this as would the local Ward Councillors (don't know whether JB is one of them).

[kiera]

Thank you so much Zebedee Tring - that's really helpful. It's exactly the sort of thing I wanted to know. It seems councillors are unfamiliar with this type of planning application.

James, would you be willing to refer this application to be considered by the planning committee?

[Zebedee Tring]

Don't mention it, Kiera. But you need to get at least a second Councillor to refer the application to the Sub-Committee. Possibly a Ward Councillor for the DHFC area (?East Dulwich).

[MarkT]

I think that the DHFC area is South Camberwell Ward - Councillors Octavia Lamb, Peter John and Sarah King.

MarkT

[alex_b]

sally buying Wrote:

> I understand that Cllr Barber, but to ease your

> pain I have emailed my local lane ward Cllr many

> times on this since the start and have never ever

> received any acknowledgement or response.

>

> If the local Cllr cannot be bothered there is no

> reason for you feel bad,

I don't think the Lane Ward Councillors actually exist, none of them ever respond to email at least.

[James Barber]

Bi Kiera,

Yes i would but ideally it should be two ward councillors.

[James Barber]

Update on the road lane closure outside Caffe Nero.

"

SGN had a valid emergency permit for the works for the date applied for but the permit details did not up-load to the Southwark web site although it did up-load to the TfL web site. We are currently looking nto why the permit failed to up-load.

"

Hence why these works gave every appearance of being unauthorised.

[James Barber]

Just had confirmation that the Green Dale path spurs lighting x 4 columns has been fixed. Sadly muggung occurred during the period lights not working - well never know if this was a contributing factor. But it did take ages to get fixed.

[Mrspushkin]

Hi James,

Do you happen to know anything about the temporary traffic lights on Bellenden Road - any idea how long they'll be there for? There was a tailback for almost half an hour yesterday evening and no sign of any roadworks being carried out. What with the bridge down at Camberwell Grove it's near impossible to drive from Camberwell to East Dulwich at the moment!

Many thanks!

[James Barber]

Hi Mrspushkin,

Sorry I don't - let me check the Southwark website of street works - http://streetworks.southwark.gov.uk/search.asp?searchtype=road&usrn=22500202

This shows the following works:

Cherry Garden School Bellenden Road SE16 16/05/2016 15/11/2016 LB Southwark (Licensing - Hoarding) View street

r/o 34b Peckham High Street Bellenden Road London SE15 5DP 07/09/2016 01/09/2017 LB Southwark (Licensing - Street Furniture) View street

24 30/09/2016 28/10/2016 LB Southwark (Licensing - Skips) View street

J/W MAXTED ROAD. f\w. 06/10/2016 19/10/2016 London Power Networks plc View Works

S/O 79 to J/O Hollygrove 13/10/2016 20/10/2016 LB Southwark (Conway Aecom) View street

O/S 67-O/S 79 Bellenden Road 26/10/2016 31/10/2016 LB Southwark (Conway Aecom) View street

From Opp 60 Bellenden Road to O/S 61 Bellenden Road 07/11/2016 11/11/2016 LB Southwark (Conway Aecom) View street

256 09/12/2016 22/12/2016 Lanes Group PLC - Waste View Works

O/S 60 to O/S 115 Bellenden Road 26/12/2016 16/01/2017 LB Southwark (Conway Aecom) View street

S/O 38 Holly Grove on Bellenden Road 17/01/2017 12/01/2017 LB Southwark (Conway Aecom) View street

Bridge (Rail over Road) No: 1188A 07/05/2018 26/06/2018 NR-SE PM CIVILS CONSTRUCTION PARTNERSHIP

Any related to what caused you traffic delays?

[intexasatthe moment]

James what do you make of this extract from the officer's report quoted by Sidhue on The East Dulwich Hotel thread ?

"Officer's Report

The site is not located within a controlled parking zone and, as such, the location is not considered to be under parking stress."

It reads ,to my mind ,as though only roads in CPZ zones can be considered by Southwark planning as being under parking stress .

That seems odd ,and wrong ,to me .What's your view ?

[ianr]

It's certainly not the case that only roads in CPZs can be considered as being under parking stress. The introduction to the parking stress survey at http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4183/parking_stress_survey_data explains that a parking stress (ie occupancy rate) figure of more than 85% was conventionally used as a criterion for determining whether a creating a CPZ might be merited. And Southwark's Residential Parking Survey Methodology distinguishes CPZs and unrestricted areas in its examples of calculations of parking stress.

[James Barber]

Hi ITATM,

Broadly that is the councils position - if residents are bothered about parking then CPZ is the answer. We're more fortunate now that the variety of CPZ is greater than the past. But clearly that's quite a hammer for many to crack such a parking nut.

I've had some casework on Upland Road where this was rolled out in defence to do nothing about a private business operating on the road.

[James Barber]

Hi kiera,

In case you've not heard all our objections seems to have born fruit.

The council has decided under officer delegated powers to refuse the request to remove this section 106 condition that the current Dulwich Hamlet grounds can only be used for leisure purposes.

So the fear that the developer could close the ground and build on it would appear to have evaporated. All that pressure from fans that the development be allowed to proceed is now clearly shown to have been misguided. That the people objecting have probably done more to save the club than the fans!

kiera Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> James. I think this may be outside your area, but

> it's a very important issue. Did you know that a

> planning application has been made to remove the

> section 106 protection on.Dulwich Hamlet football

> ground. 16/AP/4051 and

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5

> ,1657240,1755294#msg-1755294 posts from 17th Nov.

> This protection ensures that the land retains its

> community uses,but the greedy developers want to

> be enabled to build on the football stadium

> without constraint. Can you give any information

> about this type of planning application, as it

> doesn't seem to be being treated by the council as

> a normal planning application. It has not

> been.advertised at all. Is it right that such a

> significant decision should be allocated to a

> delegated officer. The website is accepting

> comments, but does the council have to consider

> them or is it a private matter between the council

> and the developer? If so, the process is far from

> transparent. This application was only discovered

> by chance.

[intexasatthe moment]

James - makes no sense to me that S'wark only rank a road as being under parking pressure if it's got a CPZ .Which is the officers statement in the planning report .

Even if that's just a badly worded way of saying that the residents haven't asked for a CPZ therefore there is no parking pressure ( which seems to be what you're suggesting ) that still makes no sense . Asking for a CPZ doesn't equate to there being a parking problem .

[kiera]

James, thank you for reporting the council's refusal to remove the section 106 protection from Dulwich Hamlet Football Ground. This is a good result, but unfortunately, it doesn't follow that the developer is going to be prevented from building on the football ground. The following extract is from the planning officer's decision:-

"22 It is important to note that, notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of the planning application submitted by the Applicant in March 2016 (ref: 16/AP/1232) and referred to above, the application has not yet been determined.? There are a large number of issues raised by that application which have not been resolved. If the application (or any subsequent revised application) were to be approved at some point in the future then it is probable that the local planning authority would consider at that time whether there are any grounds for seeking new planning obligations in which case a deed of variation would be required in respect of the 1990 Agreement.? It is not, therefore, the case that the existing covenants would in themselves prevent the proposed development as claimed by the Applicant..........."

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!M7cXVlP2hd7I0%2bNow5xzKA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

[BrandNewGuy]

Yes, it's not so much a victory as the avoidance of a disaster ? which would have been the removal of protections on the ground before the proposed development was given the green light. Then the developers could have simply chucked the club off the site and applied for planning permission for just its development rather than Green Dale as well, chucking in a bit more 'affordable housing' than planned in order to meet their Section 106 obligations.

[first mate]

If anything this reads like preparing the ground for further applications.

[James Barber]

Hi RobMiller,

I was assured on Friday of the following:

"

Good Afternoon Councillor Barber, I can confirm that the footway has been resurfaced as of today. Therefore the footway will be opened as soon as the contractor moves their fencing, that is expected to happen this evening.

In this next phase of works they will be using some containers and a skip located in the carriageway. It is looking like works will be completed on site towards the middle of February.

"

But the developer didn't release the pavement. They appear to be taking the.....

I've escalated this to council officers what fines will be imposed. Truly repeated mismanagement of a devious developer who doesn't care for the area is beyond frustrating. Sorry.

RobMiller Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi James, just checking in re: the Old Police

> Station. Are the Council officers lined up to

> enforce the expiry of the licence on Tuesday? I'm

> looking forward to the pavement being back in

> public use next week... Long overdue.

>

> Rob

>

> James Barber Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Further update on the old Police station. Their

> > current hoard licence ends 8 November. If not

> > squared away then council officials will decide

> > whether to fine them and reinstate the pavement.

>

> > They've check the register of utility street

> works

> > and no notices submitted - usually two weeks

> > notices - so clearly no excuse of waiting for

> > utilities to connect these new homes.