former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[RobMiller]

Thanks James. It's been getting worse for months, so it does sound like the Council team need to give a little bit more focus.

Hope you managed to get through the junction on your bike safely. I've stopped walking our children to school that way because it's just too scary now with cars whipping round the obstructions.

Rob

[first mate]

Not road closure, that would be so unfair on the shops that try to make a living. Perhaps it is the case that the developers need to manage their works in a slightly different way so that materials etc.. can be stored on site. Work seems to have been arranged to speed the building process and this has meant storing materials and equipment off site. It just so happens that off site is the public highway.

Again, are the developers paying a fee and do they have a licence for daily road obstruction, and are the shop owners being compensated? If not it seems there is one rule for developers and another for everyone else.

[RobMiller]

I think that's a fair point re: the shops' trade first mate. It's all a bit 'rock and a hard place' now that it's been allowed to get to this stage. I'd thought that closing it to traffic but not pedestrians might be safer and wouldn't hit the shops, but agree that they've already been impacted by months of this.

There must be some practical approach that would work or at least make it a bit better (I didn't understand why the Old Police Station site weren't made to use the front garden of the property for storage, but I might be missing something).

[first mate]

RobMiller, I doubt you are missing anything and I agree with your points. I'm afraid it seems to me that developers and building contracters snap their fingers and Southwark and our Councillors all fall into line. What is more, the builders on the site under discussion are a rude bunch, which makes a complete mockery of the back-patting proclaimations covering the hoardings stating how caring and 'touchy feely' they are. All empty rhetoric naturally; they could not give a toss. It Is all about the developer's bottom line and our local reps and govt give them free rein.

[tiddles]

Hi James

Trees!!!! what on earth is this not replacing trees thing? Have you seen Rob Millar's post? this was a small tree it is not as if any pedestrians/buggies/wheelchair uses were being hindered in any way.

How long before they manage to weasel their way into removing as many trees as they can.

[XIX]

Hi James, Ive asked you a couple of questions on the M&S thread (don't want to repeat here) - very grateful for a response when you can,

Many thanks

[James Barber]

Hi XIX,

I don't read all the threads all the time. I'll take a look there sometime today/tomorrow.

Hi tiddles,

Southwark Council how avoids putting trees on narrow pavements. Trees grow and eventually the pavement can be blocked for most people using it - especially pushchairs, wheelchairs. But this rule will with time decimate the number of trees we have. It also coincided with drastic budget cuts - so it appears budget rather than street scene led.

We clearly need to come up with something better.

[Penguin68]

A number of small trees have been planted locally and subsequently vandalised - however there are small growing trees/ shrubs which could be planted and kept at a manageable size - we do not have to have London Planes on every street. Rowans are generally good here - their trunks don't get too large, they are good looking and don't, I think, have peculiarly aggressive roots - silver birch again are shallow rooted (which does give a water issue) but aren't too intrusive. We should be pressuring for planting the right trees, not going with none (on very flimsy guidelines). Perhaps combine traffic calming with greening the environment by building out the pavements and planting on the build-out (though that would reduce parking)...

[James Barber]

Hi P68,

I agree. But maintaining trees costs money and the council has reduced the frequency of interventions it's will to make. So it needs locations it can let trees grow with longer gaps between pruning. And with bigger extremes in rainfall trees that can survive without needing to be watered. Although more trees is one way of mitigating away the risk of flooding.

I think you're spot non when suggesting building out the kerbs where that's the only way to host a tree on our streets. If done well it doesn't even need to restrict parking. It costs a lot more and the gulley drains often un just under the kerb highway interface to further complicate things.

Do you think you could review the Southwark Street Design Manual and share your thoughts. I really need volunteers to critique it.

[slarti b]

Cllr Barber

Can you help with a dangerous junction. A road safety audit has identified several problem areas affecting cyclists and pedestrians but these are not being properly or promptly addressed by council officers. Other people on this forum have observed near misses and I have seen several myself.

I refer of course to the Townley Road\EDG junction.

I did a post on the main Townley road thread ( see page http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1426742,1589169,page=44#msg-1589169, just below your comments on the Phase 3 audit) but I understand if you didn't see it.

I suggest you read the audit report concentrating on following problems in decreasing priority

3.6 Right turn filter from EDG into Townley not working properly. This is very dangerous and needs sorting ASAP before an accident occurs.

3.2 left turning vehicles from Townley into EDG overunning the ASL on EDG. The Southwark designers don't seem to accept this easily foreseeable problem and their response is unconvincing. Again, this needs looking at as matter of urgency.

3.3 Cyclists turning right into Townley from EDG are exposed. I certainly don't feel comfortable doing it

3.5 Potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists at Calton\Townley junction.

The cycle path crossing the footway has only just opened so a bit early to say if the audit's warnings are justified. But, cyclists are certainly going along it very fast. It is half term for foundation schools this week so there are not many pedestrians crossing the cycle path yet. Will need to review this w\c 2 Nov when Alleysn and Jags are back

I hope that you, as a Councillor, will be able to get the Southwark officers to address these problems rather than ignoring them.

[ed_pete]

@slarti b - bear in mind that this junction is actually in Village Ward and therefore perhaps you should be directing your request at those councillors (at least as well)

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[RobMiller]

Hi James, have you been able to get any action re: the Upland Road / Crystal Palace Road junction? The attached photo is from earlier today and illustrates how silly this is getting. With construction vans often blocking the other pavement too this is fast becoming impassable.

I really think it's time that this was taken seriously.

Rob

[James Barber]

Hi RobMiller,

I have raised the matter with council officers and escalated it to them in the last week and when originally created. A decent construction management plan could have avoided all this danger and closing the pavement for so very long by building works on the former Police station. Contrast the other side of the road where the developer is clearly going to great efforts to avoid inconveniencing people.

Hi slarti b,

I'm expecting this audit report to be presented at the next Dulwich Community Council meeting with what remediation has taken place and will take place. Ultimately though the decisions for this junction are with the cabinet councillor not ward or more general Dulwich councillors.

[first mate]

Hi James,

What news on the M&S substation application; the missed committe hearing and the missing letters to residents?

What news too on the extremely dangerous Crystal Palace/Upland junction? You say you have reported this to Council Officers, what did they say and what actions will they take. Will shopholders be compensated and will the developer be fined for persistently obstructing the pavement and blocking lines of sight at a junction? Will the developer fund repair of the pavements after work is finished. When will the pavement and roads be erturned to normal? There must surely be a schedule of works?

[DulwichFox]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Hi James,

>

> What news on the M&S substation application; the

> missed committe hearing and the missing letters to

> residents?

>

> What news too on the extremely dangerous Crystal

> Palace/Upland junction? You say you have reported

> this to Council Officers, what did they say and

> what actions will they take. Will shopholders be

> compensated and will the developer be fined for

> persistently obstructing the pavement and blocking

> lines of sight at a junction?

Will the developer fund repair of the pavements after work is finished.

When will the pavement and roads be

> erturned to normal? There must surely be a

> schedule of works?

It would seem to me very likely that the contractor responsible for the damaged to the pavements will be Awarded

the contract to repair them.

Can't lose can they.

DulwichFox

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

I have started the ball rolling for a call-in for the sub station application - it isn't a safe proposals, blocks the pedestrians crossing, and no noise mitigation has been proposed. Can you imagine living close to the thrumming sub station 24/7.

Upland Road/Crystal Palace Road - I would expect the developer to fully reinstate the pavement at their expense.

[first mate]

James, Thanks for update on M&S site re sub station and glad you agree this is really not on. Await news.

In regard to Crystal Palace/ Upland, have you managed to visit it yet? Seriously, I think you would be shocked and really feel this needs some serious intervention by the Council or it sends a clear message that developers can do as they please. Imagine if the Harris/ police station build starts to block Lordship Lane in the same way.

[pipsky2008]

Hi James

Please tell me to whom I should report a possible fraudulent use of a disabled parking badge.

I have asked a parking attendant who said they did not have the authority to inspect the badge and so could not verify if the user was the authorised holder.

[slarti b]

Cllr Barber You said

I'm expecting this audit report to be presented at the next Dulwich Community Council meeting with what remediation has taken place and will take place.

Thanks for the reply. It is disappointing we have to wait till the next DCC when the dangers have been highlighted in an audit report. I can just about understand that if, as seems likely, they will have to carry out work to sort out the poor design.

What I can't understand is why the malfunctioning traffic lights can't be sorted since it is not a design fault, just that they are not working properly. Anything you can do to escalate this within the council will be appreciated.

[ruffers]

Might be easier just to ring the council in the morning? 020 7525 5000.

pipsky2008 Wrote:

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

> Hi James

>

> Please tell me to whom I should report a possible

> fraudulent use of a disabled parking badge.

>

> I have asked a parking attendant who said they did

> not have the authority to inspect the badge and so

> could not verify if the user was the authorised

> holder.

[James Barber]

Hi slarti b,

Further traffic order has been issued by Southwark around the Townley Road/East Dulwich Grove junction. I'm unclear what this is about and have contacted council officers - but hopefully it starts addressing the safety audit reports concerns.

Hi ruffers, pipsky2008,

Calling the council switchboard should work - 020 7525 5000. If you wish to email me I can get it investigated and hopefully if confirmed look at how we can tighten the process so others can't do the same.

[@Woodwarde]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi slarti b,

> Further traffic order has been issued by Southwark

> around the Townley Road/East Dulwich Grove

> junction. I'm unclear what this is about and have

> contacted council officers - but hopefully it

> starts addressing the safety audit reports

> concerns.

James

Nothing showing at:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2558/traffic_orders

Where should we be looking for this?

[James Barber]

Hi @Woodwarde,

it was in the classified section of Southwark News yesterday. Didn't say what the Traffic Management Order was for.

[slarti b]

Cllr Barber

If the TMOs were these http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/public-notices/road-network-townley-road-at-east-dulwich-grove/

they are nothing to do with the problems identified by the safety audit, in fact they relate to changes for the "final" junction design from months ago!

So, please can you press the council on their response to the safety problems in the audit, in particular the

malfunctioning of the traffic lights. Given the real dangers at this junction we should not have to wait months for them to be addressed.

On a secondary issue, why are the TMO's on web site of Southwark News but not Southwark Council?

[edhistory]

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2420747

If it ain't in the Gazette it ain't legal.

I don't think there is any legal requirement for any local publication.

Useful for getting things under the radar.

John Kennedy