former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[BrandNewGuy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> ... a traffic count

> that showed significantly more vehicles than I had

> appreciated...

Significantly greater than your previous perception does not make it significant.

[James Barber]

Hi Phil,

The former Police station (junction of Lordship Lane/Whateley Road) will become the permanent home of the Harris East Dulwich Primary School temporarily located on Homestall Road. Plan is to have it ready for September 2016.

Hi BNG,

Agreed - which is why a feasibility study of options will be taking place. Residents asked for an immediate experimental closure we said no we need to assess all options and impacts.

Hi Robin,

I think 15% of over 2,000 vehicles a day driving at 25mph or more is a significant proportion when the speed limit is 20mph. You don't. At the time of the deputation the majority of your neighbours agreed with me. They may not now.

[Charles Notice]

So 85% driving safely does not count. The minority once again takes front stage. sounds like the modern thinking.

Again using figures to back your opinion.

[Phil.]

A school right in the busiest part of Lorship Lane? Interesting.

Appreciate the prompt reply James!

[BeadyBoo]

Please can you escalate the danger of the temporary crossing on Lordship Lane outside the closed Iceland. Another near miss by another forum poster earlier this evening.

[Abe_froeman]

A school on the busiest part of Lordship Lane that will no doubt get even busier if the segregation barrier is installed.

James, you seem to have some detail now of the scope or extent of the feasibility study. Woukd you mind sharing where the public may access these details if at all please?

Many thanks in advance

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> The idea of closing that section of Melbourne

> Grove is appealing and I'm keen to see what an

> officer report says would be the consequences and

> also other options and consequences.

What was it you were quoted as saying in the press? Wasn't it 'if I lived on Melbourne Grove I'd want it to be closed off'? Or words to that effect.

> You have me banged to rights for trying to help

> people.

Nice try, but we know you were seeking to pre-empt the feasibility study and, in doing so, get your picture on the front page of a local newspaper, on the misleading basis of only trying to 'help people'.

[mockingbird]

A Cllr who is not using facts and information objectively in the various threads about a barrier on MG should be asked to abstain from the decisions for this matter in ED Ward. Possible?

[rch]

Furthermore, the interpretation of the speed stats in the police report isn't a matter of "opinion", it's a matter of ACPO speed enforcement policy guidance...

[James Barber]

Hi BeadyBoo,

I escalated the issue of the temporary crossing on Friday. Was assured it was working correctly.

Escalated the issue again after a harrowing description of nearly happened there - which should have been possible.

Thank you for also highlighting this issue.

Hi Andrew1011,

yes I think that was the quote - removed from the wider quotes context about if it was feasible. But never let a quote taken out of context get in the way of the point you wish to make.

Hi mockingbird,

We have different opinions on what the data tells us. I think over 300 vehicles speeding greater than 25mph a day down a residential road isn't acceptable. How we solve that is up for debate. This doesn't mean I'm not fully open to more authoritative interpretations of the data, lobbying by residents or consultation results.

Hi Abe_foreman,

It is and isn't an ideal site. If we could have found a better site we would but it is also close to the primary admissions black holes which is good.

Longer-term I could see the bus stop and nearby pelican crossing swapping places as others such as robin have suggested - again if the officer advice is that would make things safer. We have a small study about options to improve Whateley Road/Lordship Lane junction safety.

[rjsmall]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> Hi mockingbird,

> We have different opinions on what the data tells

> us. I think over 300 vehicles speeding greater

> than 25mph a day down a residential road isn't

> acceptable.

Barry Road is a residential road and I'd suggest that far more speeding takes place on that road than Melbourne Grove.

[Abe_froeman]

Thank you for replying James. Is there any way to access the details of the stuides you mention (including Melbourne Grove)? Is a freedom of information request the best route?

[rch]

Hi rjsmall, I basically agree with you, although Barry is a bus route as well and therefore subject to different parameters.

But I'm in touch with residents on Barry Road with a view towards setting up a Community Roadwatch traffic monitoring program with local police... plus, I'm happy to drop off some of the paper petitions with the Barrys if you guys want to join in our campaign. Although Barry Road probably won't be affected by a Melbourne Barrier, the petition calls for highways to look at the bigger picture across the area, so we should probably start getting Barry on the map.

As far as the Whateley/Lordship junction, we have funding in place to have officers look at proposed solutions, as James says... I've just been waiting until after the holidays and the school building schedule to progress before I chased officers up on this project (which is now ironically falling into the "joined-up thinking" category).

[TheArtfulDogger]

Hi James

Are you aware of this http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/12305/consolidation_of_free_parking_places_order_-_public_notice_dated_20_august_2015 with changes to parking coming into effect this Friday?

[first mate]

James,

I too would like a clear answer to this.

In short, did you know about these changes, were you consulted, if so when, and what was your answer? Please give details and specifics.

I have taken the liberty of posting Artful's post from another thread, please read below:

"Here is an interesting development.

The introduction of 30 minute parking restrictions near shopping parades starting this Friday (21st) in the areas that they were to be consulted on concerning the introduction of 1 hour free parking

[www.southwark.gov.uk]

Is this a move to say that they can increase parking in these areas from 30 minutes to one hour as part of the consultation that hasn't happened yet.

It will be in place for many roads including Barry Road parade, Lordship Lane, Northcross Road to name a few.

Have our local councillors had sight of this and agreed to the changes in parking in East Dulwich?

Were local businesses and residents consulted on the changes?

Or is it just Southwark council pushing forward with their agenda for a borough wide CPZ by pushing shoppers to park in the side roads thus making it harder for residents to park near their own properties?

Not sure how this relates to the concept of Southwark supporting local shopping parades!!!"

[Pugwash]

Hi James. As you may have been aware, Southwark Council were repainting many of their properties in Barry Road over the past few weeks. Scaffolding was placed back and front of these buildings and the workforce must have done a few hours per week on each property. My neighbour's property was one which was repainted - lucky if he had a worker there for 2 days or more in a row. However the works have now been completed, but scaffolding remains. neighbour has rung up Housing to ask when scaffolding will be removed as now posing a security risk as thieves can access windows on first floor. On the ground floor lives a very elderly tenant who is finding it difficult to get out in the garden, or to access refuse bins. Housing could not give any indication when scaffolding would be removed.

Having as a home owner having to pay for scaffolding in the past - I know it comes to over ?100 plus a week to hire, does the Housing Department have money to waste? there are at least 14 properties in Barry Road affected.

[landsberger]

Phil. Wrote:

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

> A school right in the busiest part of Lorship

> Lane? Interesting.

>

> Appreciate the prompt reply James!

It does rather fly in the face of reason and is not actually needed, if Southwark's figures are anything to go by. I wait with bated breath the choice words that will fly when the first Chelsea tractor double parks on Lordship Lane and blocks traffic and, no doubt, our valiant Liberal representative will then be claiming that it's "all the council's fault". Unless, of course, his party is in power then it will be "it's all the previous administration's fault".

[nxjen]

"no doubt, our valiant Liberal representative will then be claiming that it's "all the council's fault"."

No, he'll claim it's Southwark Labour's fault!

[James Barber]

Hi Pugwash,

Getting Southwark to remove scaffolding is a regular item of casework in the last 3 years. If you email the exact address today I'll chase or I'll take a look in person over the weekend and then chase.

Hi landsberger,

Pupil number for primary school. I met with council officers about pupil numbers as their reports stated we have an over supply of 60 reception places and each year. I then contacted all local Dulwich Primary schools and discovered we have an over supply of 20 places. !6 at Dulwich Woods Primary schools and the rest sprinkled around. So the officers report was significantly wrong.

We need Harris ED Primary school and without it would currently have a shortage per year group of 40 places in local schools.

One can't help the feeling the school number forecasts are politically driven.

Hi artfuldgodger, first mate,

The parking consolidation order?

I've been assured in writing that this consolidation order involves no changes to any parking but rather amalgamates a large number of smaller order. That such amalgamations is considered good practice in the parking enforcement profession.

If its about the introduction of 1 hour parking locally. Labour stood on a platform in 2014 of introducing this. We even had a Labour councillor elected as one of the three East Dulwich councillors on that platform.

I have always told officers I'm against changing free parking around Lordship to 1 hour parking restrictions. This has been discussed at the Dulwich Community Council. But the several parking places they talked about I don't think will make a material difference and I'm not aware DCC agreed to any. The prime problem we currently have is shop owners parking all day on Lordship Lane and existing parking plates stating parking restriction being repeatedly removed making parking restriction enforcement impossible.

One small victory was getting parking enforcement to adopt the approach Cathedrals ward Lin Dem councillors highlighted to officers to remove the car parking outside the shop at the northern end of Lordship Lane. I'm rather chuffed we've made that happen after all those years of trying.

[TheArtfulDogger]

Maybe rather then asking for confirmation from the parking team that no changes have occurred, it would be more useful asking what the current restrictions on the named roads are to see if they are the same pre and post the order coming into effect? It's a long order so changes could be in there unless it is checked carefully.

In the one hour parking thread Sidhu has mention a change to existing parking restrictions (sorry can't verify it myself)

I am sur there are others

[first mate]

James, but in terms of those changes that have been made, to double yellow lines on Chesterfield and imminent changes to free parking, can we please have the specifics on how and when you were consulted, whether at a DCC or other process, and, in each case, whether you supported the changes or objected to them?

I have already given you the date on which S wark Council has stated in writing that you were consulted on the double yellows- 10th April 2014. All we need is what you said?

[landsberger]

Of course, Harris Primary East Dulwich have NEVER lied about how many kids they have at the school....

I was talking with a governor at Harris Girls ED Secondary, who claimed the school had more than 180 1st preferences...the actual number starting in September - according to one of their office staff ? Less than 100...

[Pugwash]

James I woke up this morning to sounds of banging and crashing and discovered that my neighbour's scaffolding was being taken down. They scaffolding lorry was stuck outside my house for well over an hour but could not see any signs of workmen. Perhaps having done next door they wandered over to Badgers Bakery for a drink!

[fazer71]

Pugwash Wrote:

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

> James I woke up this morning to sounds of banging

> and crashing and discovered that my neighbour's

> scaffolding was being taken down. They scaffolding

> lorry was stuck outside my house for well over an

> hour but could not see any signs of workmen.

> Perhaps having done next door they wandered over

> to Badgers Bakery for a drink!

.

What exactly has that got to do with James?

Or anyone else who follows this thread?

Should we all be posting the minutiae of our daily difficulties?

Constant aircraft noise isn't an issue but a one off scaffolding removal noise is a disaster.

Lol

[James Barber]

Hi landsberger,

If Harris ED Girls had less than 100 new starter they'd go bust eventually. They certainly wouldn't have had the confidence to change admissions to a lottery based system. And They've just had a leap in GCSE results. So I take your comment with a pinch of salt without some actual evidence.

Or is their more context to your comments?

Hi first mate,

I would have been consulted via the DCC meetings and papers.