Andrew1011

Apparently botched installations like this need to be taken seriously by business owners, installers and local authorities as they can lead to tragedy. That sign doesn't look as though it would take a very high gust of wind or much of a knock to bring it down, and it's only a couple of years since a betting shop sign fell and killed a young man on Camden Road, NW1. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/28/man-dies-hit-falling-sign

Where did this incident happen?

BrandNewGuy wrote: > Well, given the lack of movement on that site and > the probability that Morrisons won't open a store > there, I'm not convinced that the new library will > definitely go ahead. Cllr. Barber has been rather > silent about it of late. The new library was agreed by the original developer under section 106 quite some time before before Morrisons got involved and will likely remain live if and when their involvement ends. Someone will want to open a store there. Silent? As he thinks he was instrumental in the new library development, he's probably got a backup plan to get a carpet retailer owned Academy group to develop it as a primary school for South Bermondsey (only 6 minutes away by train).

pipsky2008 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that building would make a great Library > instead of the new proposed newlibrary being > tucked away behind Morrisons. Except the new library on Railway Rise is costing Southwark virtually nothing, other than a peppercorn rent, furnishings and the usual revenue costs, due to a section 106 agreement. Whereas the Cherry Tree building would have to be purchased or leased in the first place, and at a no doubt prohibitive cost. Moving the current Grove Vale library to the new site will lead to a significant annual saving, of the kind which has enabled Southwark to keep its libraries open - and indeed build/open new ones - when other boroughs have been closing theirs.

Peckham Pulse has a hydrotherapy pool. http://www.fusion-lifestyle.com/centres/Peckham_Pulse_Healthy_Living_Centre/facility/Hydrotherapy_pool

Oh no, I bought a red acer today - it's definitely going in the back.

Ms Blueberry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shame on me for having a genuine interest in my > neighbourhood? And a little bit of maths may > indicate I've lived here for over 5 years. > Hurrah, I'm now entitled to an opinion. Of course you are, as is everyone else allowed theirs though - even if it's on your expressed opinion. In this particular case I suspect it's really more about the manner in which you went about expressing your opinion (See below) rather than the underlying opinion itself which, interpreting it charitably, is that the place could do with tidying up. Mrs Blueberry wrote: "Dear Owner of the shop front infecting the space between William Rose Butchers and His Lordship Launderette on Lordship Lane - this is an eyesore. At least get rid of the trashed awning. Southwark Council! - is there anything to be done? Does anyone know the story behind this prime piece of retail space?"

I quite like it. It's a reminder of what quite a few of the shop fronts at this end of Lordship Lane used to be like. You only have to go a little way up the hill to see one or two similar examples. Anyway, it's really not worth getting excited about, at least nowhere near as excited as Ms Blueberry appears to be. No doubt this 'prime piece of retail space' will eventually hit the commercial property market. After all, it's only gaining in value. And perhaps, who knows, it may even become the long awaited Waitrose, albeit a very little one. I also suspect the kind of 'help' hinted at may not be what the said elderly lady is looking for or needs. Like many very elderly people, she may just wish to see out her days in her home of many years and in familiar surroundings, without being forced to conform and smarten up their property which could possibly be at great expense beyond their current means.

I think it's a 24 hour 7 day a week bus lane I'm afraid but, if not that, it could be 7am to 7pm. I know I never go into it so it's probably the former.

I worked extremely hard over the last 12 months to ensure that Simon Hughes was ousted from Bermondsey and Old Southwark and that the very hard working Neil Coyle replaced him as MP. Simon appeared completely oblivious to the fact that hsi constituents who previously supported him could see through his habit over the last five years of saying one thing and voting for another. Still, please don't feel too sorry for Simon Hughes as his selling of his soul by entering government as a minister will at least result in him having a significantly enhanced pension from 8th May. I also worked hard to get Helen Hayes elected in Dulwich and West Norwood and I know she will be an excellent MP who will work every bit as hard as any of the other parliamentary candidates would have done. Anyone who knowing Helen - she's been a very hard working, effective and well liked councillor for College Ward since 2010 - knows she will work for fairness and for the representation of all living in the constituency.

She probably didn't realise that cyclists can ride down this - otherwise one-way - street towards Lordship Lane. It can be confusing for both pedestrians and vehicle drivers and cyclists riding against the normal flow of traffic probably need to recognise that likely confusion. However, it is wrong to say that traffic (vehicle driver or cyclist) has to stop at give way lines. They don't. They do however have to check it's safe to pull out and give way to any traffic coming from the right. If those lines at the end of the cycle lane were solid then then cyclists would be required to stop. Also, the raised cushions with red bricks are not pedestrian crossings, they are effectively road humps which can be walked on.

Very glad it's working as it's supposed to (I haven't had to use it - yet). It's a very good initiative and I've tried to persuade my GP surgery to make the service better known, particularly amongst those people who are not regular users of the surgery and therefore don't see posters about it there.

And Tessa Jowell wasn't the MP for that area, it is in Harriet Harman's constituency.

"Andrew1011 - I wish you were right, but Southwark have clearly stated in their letter to me" Yes you're right, it's so long since I had and appealed a ticket I forgot how much the non-discounted penalty charge is now. It does come down to how much you rate your chances of winning the appeal. Don't forget around 65 per cent of appeals are upheld and many aren't even contested by councils, sometimes just because they have a backlog they want to clear.

"I have appealed unsuccessfully and now feel bullied into having to pay the ?65 (also seems excessive) rather than face the prospect of an independent adjudicator possibly ruling against me and that fee doubling." The fee doesn't double if you appeal to the independent adjudicator if you lose. At the end of the appeal process you're given a specified period during which you can still pay at the initial penalty charge rate. Not knowing this puts many people off appealing against PCNs.

I've now had a response to my enquiry into claims made on this thread, which I have told I can reproduce and post here (obviously this is only for those who actually wish to read it and to know): 'There has been much misreporting of both the process and the content of the consultation on the Townley Road junction, and it might be helpful to clarify. The Village ward Labour Action Team comprising Cllr Anne Kirby, Tessa Jowell MP and Helen Hayes as prospective parliamentary candidate have been gathering local views on this issue since the Council launched its consultation process, as they do with any significant local issues in the ward, through knocking on doors, writing to residents and meeting with individuals who got in touch. They have gathered the views of hundreds of local residents over the past few weeks (in contrast, I understand that Helen received just one email prompted by James's call to action). Safer Routes to School organised an independently facilitated public meeting on Saturday which was open to anyone, because of the strength of feeling on the issue. Andy Simmons was approached by the group in his role as Chair of Dulwich Community Council and asked to chair the meeting. Those who attended the meeting felt that it was a positive contribution to the local debate on the issue. It is simply untrue to state that the Lib Dems were unaware of the meeting as several were in the audience including one of James' colleagues who lost their Dulwich council seat last year. The feedback on the no right hand turn, both via the surveys and at the meeting, was overwhelmingly in favour of the principle of safety improvements at the junction but against the ban on right hand turns. The Labour Action team therefore took this feedback to the Council, and in direct response to it, the proposed ban on right hand turns has been dropped.'

Purplejellybee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would rather this read "....without COMPROMISING > SAFETY of cyclists or pedestrians elsewhere in > Dulwich" I'd hope that could be taken as read but I suggest you email the Southwark officer concerned, who seems to be Chris Mascord email: [email protected]. You could also copy in the Dulwich area councillors, regardless of which party they belong to. I certainly want a scheme that is safe for everybody and all road users, and without negative impacts elsewhere, whether they be pedestrians, cyclists, drivers or bus passengers.

Jennys Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This thread is supposed to be about people's views > on the planned changes to the junction of East > Dulwich Grove and Townley Road. Please let us all > discuss that issue instead of using this to let > off steam at all and sundry about anything and > everything. Politics aside, I have found James > Barber to have been very willing to listen and > insightful as to how to approach this > consultation. Most people have also posted keeping > to the topic in question, giving useful ideas and > opinions for and against the proposal. Let's > continue to have free speech, but let's keep to > the subject and not use it as an excuse to slag > off James Barber. If Cllr Barber uses this forum and a thread to politicise an issue in a partisan manner, which in the case of the proposed no RHT ban he clearly has done, and as he nearly always does on all subjects, then I reserve the right to respond. As I said to others objecting to my right to express my views on his general electioneering claims and the 'Southwark Labour' process followed in respect of the junction proposal, just don't read my postings and I won't read yours. That includes you too Zebedee Tring. Nobody should be censored for posting their genuinely held views about local issues here or from challenging the claims of local politicians in respect of those same local issues. Censorship should only happen if posts are offensive or abusive, and I certainly haven't been. And, had Cllr Barber not posted his ridiculous claims this morning, I probably wouldn't have posted again, except directly relating to the process for consultation and, now, decision-making. However, he did and I am entitled to respond.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Andrew1011, > I'm sorry if councillors from a political party > you support haven't been great in this isntance. Ok, I can't resist responding to this arrant nonsense. Clearly you didn't want to leave it at your equally ridiculous private message to me. I've made it abundantly clear that I wouldn't expect a councillor from the majority party to state their position on a proposal/issue before listening to all of the views. That's clearly what happened in this case and just because someone is silent for a period on an issue it doesn't mean that they support or don't support an issue. You have the luxury of not being in the majority either in the Dulwich area or in Southwark, so don't have to consider how you approach an executive proposal which is subject to public consultation. > It is encumbent upon the administration to really > check proposals over before they decide to push > for them. This farce will have costs a great deal > in officers time and resident good will. This > takes great interest in detail. It is incumbent upon any administration to listen and your 'lot', in my experience running a third sector group in Southwark certainly didn't do that any better than you claim Labour does now. > Labour councillors rely more upon council officials to do this detail > than my lot did. You could argue that's good, > keeping an eye on the bigger picture, potentially > getting more done not bothering with the details. > But it's the details that can have such a negative > impact on communities that can take many years to > recover e.g. allowing Sainsbury's on Metropolitan > open land on Dog Kennel Hill - this came close to > killing Lordship Lane and its taken 20 years to > recover. It's rather sad if you have to rely on something that occurred 22 years ago as an example to bolster your argument, don't you think? I was against the Sainsbury's development on DKH at the time from the perspective of Metropolitan open land. However, Lordship Lane was a disaster 20+ years ago so, with the benefit of hindsight, I now realise that if Sainsbury's hadn't come to East Dulwich Lordship Lane would be a shadow of it's current state, probably with many of the present retail units now residential. I'm not sure where you've been for the last 12/15 years if you really think it's taken Lordship Lane 20 years to recover. > You also have to wonder. > If councillor in an adminsitration don't check > officer schemes rthoroughly then why have > councillors? I have to say I wondered why have councillors at the time of the Lakanal fire tragedy (where was your OCD-esque detail checking then James?) when your 'lot' were in power. Just an example. > In this example any councillor who knows the area > could quickly see that the most popular turning > manuevre of this junction being stopped would have > a huge knock on effect in the wider area. You know that's very simplistic given where the money from the scheme is coming from and the wider cycling scheme it's connected to. However, thanks for your contribution to the apparent abandoning of the no RHT proposal but I will continue to challenge any impression you give that everything is all down to you. Btw James, thanks for the email in which you claim that total responsibility for a secondary school in the hospital site is entirely down to you, Rosie and Jonathan Mitchell, it made amusing reading. How's the primary school bid going by the way? As you apparently know this area so well, and given your experience on this issue, have you been swayed yet by public opposition to it? Or, has the TRd/EDG junction scheme issue taken some of the heat off you on that subject for the moment? Andrew1011

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Andrew 1011 - > First, thanks for lobbying against the RHT Ban. > > My understanding of councils is that the ruling > party (or their cabinet members ?) comes up with > ideas and policy, is advised by the officers and > then presents plans for consultation at which > point opposition councillors and public can have > their say. > > In this case either the officers or someone in > ruling party should have pointed out,before it go > to the stage it had, that the scheme was NOT > recommended by professionals advisors and had NOT > been properly modelled . Once the docs had been > put on web site it took me about 15 mins of > reading to work this out and I am not an expert. > While I agree with you generally, I don't believe majority party Dulwich councillors would have been involved in the original proposal. The process is cumbersome and and needs to be carefully thought about with the view to improvements but I suspect the suggestion you make, if universally applied, could mean that nothing ever happened or got done. Anyway, we seem to have a reasonable outcome after > a huge amount of effort from local volunteers. > Hope lessons have been learnt for the > Quietway\Southwark Spine consultation (or is that > a "Stakeholder engagement" exercise?) ;-) > I hope so too. :-) And thanks for your measured and civilised response! ;-D

Tessmo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Andrew 1011, calm down dear. You're a bit late to > the party here. Zebedee has been measured, > sensible, rational and impartial throughout. Which > is what we like. We like keeping things calm and > civilised on the EDF. Dear Tessmo, I am perfectly calm but thanks for your concern and attempt at a patronising response. If you read the whole thread you will see that I was one of the early posters, so not late at all. As for what you like, who actually cares about that? I certainly don't. I've been reading and posting to the EDF for years, on this profile and another before that. It's also actually not my inmpression that "'We' like keeping things calm and civilised..." (and I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that I'm not being that), I've often witnessed people who choose to state their own views and not to engage in EDF 'group-think' hounded for expressinging their views on here. I also suggest that if you don't like my views you don't read my postings and I won't read or respond to yours. Fair enough?

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Andrew 1011, why are you having a go at James > Barber? Because I can and am entitled to in our democracy. James likes to claim usually sole responsibility for any number of things, indeed you'll probably see him claiming responsibility shortly for the decision to allow a secondary school to be built on he Dulwich Hospital site, if that is the way the NHS/CCG decision goes on the 22nd January. He has been more involved in this issue on > the EDF than any other Councillor. If you're going > to have a go at anyone, have a go at the > Councillors, Council officers etc who were > responsible for the crazy no right turn idea > getting off the ground. Concentrate your fire in > the right direction. Of course you're entitled to that view, especially if your only knoweldge of local issues (and my actions) is gained from EDF. Mine isn't. > > For what it's worth, I am NOT a Lib Dem supporter, > but I try to keep an open mind. I'm not suggesting you are and I don't actually care. However, whatever your political leanings, I do suggest, as well as keeing an open mind, you stop apparently preventing others from their domocratic right to have a view and to express it. Just a reminder, this forum is not a James Barber/Lib Dem fiefdom.

> Trying not to be party political, but I think > local councillors of the ruling group on the > council have a greater responsibility to ensure > schemes like this are stopped at an earlier stage > and proper process is followed. I expect future > Southwark proposals affecting this area (eg > Quietways) will now be examined in much more > detail so please get it right next time ( and the > next...) That's probably a position opposition councillors such as Mr Barber have the luxury of doing before a public consultation has been undertaken and completed. If the majority party local councillors had chosen to just vote against a council proposal backed and recommended by the council officers and advisor 'experts' then they clearly need to have appropriate reasons and justification for doing so. I am adamant that the no RHT proposal was wrong and lobbied on that basis, as have many other Dulwich and East Dulwich residents. I'm grateful that councillors with no apparent fixed views on the matter have apparently been convinced not to support a RHT ban. I also understand why they may want to listen to the views of all parties before publically stating their intention.

I've never seen this happen for just a police car. I'd have at least expected to see a Bentley or a Jaguar in the entourage if it was royalty or senior politicians, etc.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Andrew1011, > I suggested to resdeints they email Labour > councillors being clear how they felt. A number > copied me in. > Labour within days change their minds. > You're right it may be a fluke and totally > unrelated. > > labour cllrs dodging the issue on Saturday may > quite naturally woekn up this morning and changed > their minds. > > Whatever cause this vbolte face it is good news. Hi James, Let's examine what you say above, shall we? I obviously never suggested it was a fluke and unrelated so cease with the hyperbole. However, there was a meeting on Saturday where the views and strength of feeling on the issue was obvious. All councillors should have been there to listen to their constituents (as well as feedback from any other sources) and that, in my opinion, appears to be what has happened. Also, for a volte face to occur surely the Dulwich area councillors you refer to would have had to have stated a position in the issue. I wasn't aware that, apart from you on here, any other councillors had done so, as you appear to suggest. It now looks as though the majority party politicians in the Dulwich Community Council area may have been influenced on this issue by public opinion, but it would be wrong to suggest that their ideas were the opposite prior to that - as you appear to be misleadingly suggesting.