former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[BrandNewGuy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Is this sufficiently clear and answering your

> question?

Yes indeed - many thanks.

[James Barber]

Latest and please do read the attached for the full explanation.

The M&S appeal has been refused.

[malcolmchurch]

The council some years ago improved Melford passage, off Overhill road, by paving the pasageway over. Unfortunately the steps at the top of the passage have not been improved and would greatly benefit from a handrail on those steps.

[James Barber]

Hi malcolmchurch,

I can just imagine how tricky this is - espeically when icy.

A great way to make this happen is via Cleaner, Greener, Safer capital funding.

I would really suggest you apply with this idea.

https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=998

Please do email me when you've done OR if you're not minded to apply.

[malcolmchurch]

Thanks James..... will do.

[James Barber]

Fab Malcolm. Well done.

If anyone else has an idea for how to improve East Dulwich I'd encourage them to apply for a CGS capital grant - the council deliver the project - and I'd be delighted to offer any advice I can and provide advice about likely costs and whether as local councillors we would lend our support.

[James Barber]

Last night at the Dulwich Community Council East Dulwich councillors Joanthan Mitchel, Rosie Shimell and I allocated our devlolved highway maintenance budget tto resurfacing Goodrich Raod between Barry Road and upland Road and the eastern end of Pellatt Road.

The works should take place 3-6 months time.

I wish we had more funds to fix more of our local roads and pavements.

[James Barber]

At Dulwich Community Council on Wednesday night a number of change to the coach parking bays on Townley Road were agreed. Also the removal of one of the School Keep Clear areas was agreed.

Mount Adon Park - some double yellow lining was agreed on tight bends to ensure future fire engine access and rubbish collections go better.

Henslowe Road - some double yellow lines at its junction with Underhill Road to improve sight lines and consequent safety.

Dulwich Park - agree to allow enforcement of disbled parking beers. Cancelled the proposed 4 hours parking limit. Asked for more detail on what dangerous parking means and the proposed road markings.

I voted against waiting to enforce dangerous parking.

Sainsburys 357-365 Lordship Lane. We didn't agree with a loading bay as proposed by Sainsburys. Very worrying principle at stake. When the orignal service yard for this site was built over to double the number of flats from 5 to 10 servicing the shop unit sohuld have bene included by the landowner. Asking for public highway to be turned over to make good this deficiency of design by the landowner would set a terrible precedence for future developers. It would also see a nunber of parking spaces disappear.

[mynamehere]

Absolutely agree with your description of the Sainsbury's 357-365 precedence for future developers to see the Council as a push over for what suits them

[olly]

Hi James

Driving across Barry Road from Underhill Road has become much easier since the tapered markings were put down. However I?ve noticed that quite often there are cars (often the same culprits) parked on the markings, making it very difficult to see if there is any oncoming traffic when driving across. Is this a parking offence and if so, could we see it enforced?

[rjsmall]

I completely agree with Olly. I frequently find that when crossing Barry Road whilst driving on Underhill Road (towards Lordship Lane) the visibility up Barry Road (towards the Dulwich Library intersection) is often blocked by parked vehicles. If the parked vehicle happens to be tall vehicle such as a van or truck then visibility of oncoming traffic is completely obscured. I have assumed these vehicles are parked legally but always wondered why the spaces are provided when they block the view from the intersection.

rjsmall

[James Barber]

Hi olly,

Don't believe it's a parking offence.

The number of reported crashes at this site have reduced dramatically:

Year Number of reported crashes

2009 5 (1 serious)

2010 5

2011 zero

2012 zero

So I'm rather chuffed the changes we pushed for have made such a difference. We know crashes can go unreported but assuming the unreported rate is a ratio to those reported it would still show a dramatic reduction.

And it took a change in national regs/govt to get the STOP signs isntalled!

[Burbage]

olly Wrote:

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

> Is this a parking offence and if so, could we

> see it enforced?

It's not an offence. Although the Highway Code advises that vehicles shouldn't be parked within 30 feet of a junction or, indeed, opposite one, it only becomes an offence if the road is marked appropriately, and they hardly ever are.

You might think, with car use declining locally, that the elected ornaments of the borough might be minded to empolicy the Highway Code's advice. But when even our more enlightened representatives have difficulty understanding that pedestrians need sight-lines too, it's unlikely to happen. That's not to say there aren't guidelines. There is, for example, DS114 (pdf). But that's not much good being, as well as opaque, liberally spattered with weaselish. Thus the existence of "features that give confidence that street users would proceed with sufficient caution...", is enough to make almost any brushwork optional, given that one feature that causes street users to proceed with caution is not being able to see. The only thing that's clear is that Tufty died in vain.

* Readers who bother will notice that another permitted excuse for reducing visibility is where lower stopping distances can be assumed. Like they are in 20mph zones, for example. As ever, be careful what you wish for.

[olly]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> >

> And it took a change in national regs/govt to get

> the STOP signs isntalled!

Thanks for the response James. To be honest, I don't think the STOP signs on Underhill Road were ever required. The problem has always been the speed of the traffic along Barry Road and its lack of visibility from Underhill Road. I still hold my breath every time I drive across.

Burbage - surely Tufty can't be dead!

[James Barber]

Hi olly,

At the site meeting organised way back. The Police advice was sight lines AND people not stopping to properly look. COuncil officials suggested that raised entry treatments would help people stop or at least slow down to look. That STOP signs would also encourage this. The entry treatments was relatively straight with some budget juggling by the lead officer who's sadly left Southwark. She was really helpful. The STOP sign at the time needed Secretary of State approval. Tis was refused the first time by his officials. We had to escalate and some rules were changed. How crazy was that.

Either way we appear to have dramatically fewer crashes.

So we move onto the next junctions. Lordship Lane being 20mph and soon East Dulwich Grove being 20mph help.

1. Lordship Lane from Crystal Palace Road to Upland Road

2. Lordship Lane junction with Heber Road and Townley Road

3. East Dulwich Road with Worlingham

[Nigello]

James -

Re Sainsbury's: very little monitoring of parking between 1600 and 1900 from the usually cash-hungry wardens. Is there some kind of deal done between Sainsbury's (big employer) and the council (wants more jobs and investment)? Otherwise, why is there never a presence there when the buses and rest of the traffic snake back to Townley Road of an evening because two or three people have popped into Sainsbury's for whatever they need? Please, James, look into it and put my cynical mind at rest.

[James Barber]

Hi Nigello,

I will ask and find out.

I suspect it will be around historic patterns of where they can issue the most tickets.

But will find out.

[James Barber]

Some positive new on the spate of burglaries. This week two burglars were caught red handed on a local SE22 road. It is thought they were responsible for a significant proportion of the recent East Duliwhc burglaries.

[mynamehere]

Big Thank you to the police and everyone who watches out: "Neighbourhood Watch"

Re: Mugging Tyrrell Road new

Posted by gm99 Today, 02:09PM

The most effective 'police' are often members of the public, given that the formal police largely rely on public information to guide their activities. In the cases described above, it would, for example, almost certainly make a difference if everyone spotting suspicious activity reported it straight away (dial 101 if it's not an emergency).

If you see someone acting suspiciously and can observe them without putting yourself at risk, specific details of clothing and shoes can be very useful to the police (and make sure that only the right people get stopped and asked to account for themselves). E.g. a case I know of, having done some work alongside the police in another part of London, where a rapist was initially identified as a suspect on the basis of his baseball cap, which was distinctive and had been reported earlier by a PCSO in an intelligence report.

You may also find that calling the local Safer Neighbourhoods police team directly can be helpful, as they tend to be have the best local knowledge and be most responsive to local concerns - and you can generally talk to someone with a name and face rather than a more distant call centre. [content.met.police.uk]

[gm99]

Should have said dial 101, which is the police non-emergency number (not 112 - sorry for the confusion).

[BrandNewGuy]

James, just thought I'd flag up my comment on the thread about pavements. Any help would be gratefully received.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1193992,page=2

>

[bellend pete]

James - i'd like to raise a issue here that's effecting many ed residents in differing ways, re theft. 6 months ago my bike

was stolen from outside the front of my house, i reported it to the police & obtained a crime reference number. 2

days ago I saw my bike in exactly the same condition in every detail as i explained to the police! Later through enquiry I

was told that my bike had been sold. I rang the stolen bike department & explained the whole thing & to my dismay I was

told that because the bike has been sold on again, the police cannot do anything and because there was no registration mark

i can't prove it was ever mine anyway!

This bike is unique in every way (i more or less made it!), i made the crime report & this bike will match that report in

every way. I don't understand how they can doubt me now & yet if it hadn't been sold they would have gone to the mans house to recover it!

I'm not accusing anyone of theft but Malcolm Callus has somehow acquired MY bike then sold it on, this persons identity is

easilly available over the internet.

http://www.bikeshd.co.uk/items?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search=pearson&price_gte=&price_lte=&created_at_gte=&created_at_lte=

(green pearson 02/10/2013)

http://www.gumtree.com/p/for-sale/22-pearson-hybrid-27-gear-bike-for-sale/1034074282

& yet the police won't do anything, not even put it to Mr Callus that he's been selling stolen property. Please could you advise me of any avenues I may be able to take to obtain it's recovery?

[James Barber]

have asked for 4-16 Melbourne Grove wobbly paving to be relaid again at Conways expense. Stunned that only fully renewed 3-4 years ago.

[BrandNewGuy]

Many thanks, James.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

Hi James,

Given the sudden influx of burglary & mugging threads over the last couple of weeks, can you tell us if there are plans for extra (or any?) police patrols for the area?

thx

ED