first mate

P68, I agree, it is this moderate, considered approach that is both required and realistic. Far too much seems to be about chasing and fulfilling idealistic manifesto pledges, come what may

Yes and it is worth looking at the detail of this particular site instead of just spouting generalisations( not you P68). The developers have 0 interest in providing homes for the community, if they had they would now be building 8 flats on two floors instead of pushing now for two floors of offices with two penthouses on top, having earlier argued very hard with planners that there was no call for office space.

Umerton, The police were consulted. They objected to it and thought it was a stupid idea, in that it would create confusion,probably leading to more reckless driving. How right they are. I also think the police indicated they would not enforce. s'wark Labour launched this with the bonkers idea that it would be self-enforcing. I try hard to stick to the limit but find it very hard to do when cars accelerate and suddenly pull out to overtake or when they tailgate and falsh their lights in an attempt to force you to go faster. Cyclists also regularly whizz past down th hill and weavw in and out. I too am increasingly resentful at being made to endure this.

James, Many thanks for getting to the bottom of this. I do think it shines a little light on the way some things are getting done. Okay so this was a very small change but I remain a little disturbed when even small things do not got via "the normal decision making process".

Beulah, Let's not get into an us and them. There are a lot of aggressive drivers (and buses) and whatever the cause clearly cyclists are not immune from the "it's all about me and my need to get from a-b just as fast as I can" mindset. Thus far, it seems to me that efforts to supposedly fix the problem are backfiring massively by heaping on pressure all round. As RCH and others have suggested, we need an overview of traffic in the area, proper consultation and useful solutions. Current "solutions" seem more driven by somewhat idealistic political agendas rather than what is practical and works for most road users and pedestrians.

On the stretch of road after Sydenham Hill, towards Crystal Palace, speed camera was going off last night. Yesterday evening traffic through Dulwich Village was really bad, lots of private buses and lots of cyclists weaving in and out. It is especially diffcult when cyclists do this at speed and from both sides. If you are moving forward with cars close in front it is very difficult to monitor blind spots either side. Quite aside from aggressive car drivers, I am seeing much more reckless and aggressive cycling.

Agreed.

In my experience some of the very worst offenders are buses. They do not seem to adhere to 20 or even 30mph.

Yes, residents are outraged at what is being forced onto them by some bright eyed bushy tailed planner in cahoots with an anti car, pro cycling organisation. The Council is also making as much money as they can by fining people who are getting caught out by the chaos.

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Greendale route is already a quietway and can > be used without problem by children, older folks > and women at the moment and this has always been > the case. > > What gets up my nose is the idea to make Champion > Hill one way. Why? it does not represent any > danger regarding road users and never has. I moved > there is 1958 with my family and cannot recall any > traffic problems or accidents over the years to > now. > > Traffic has not grown in such volume that things > needs to be done. All that is happening is this is > today!s idea which is taken up by certain sections > of the community like a holy quest. > > I am all for change for the better but not for no > good reason and a one way system is not required > to alter a safe stretch of road to achieve a glow > of sainthood. > > The last time Southwark did anything was to put in > traffic islands down to Denmark Hill which only > made the road narrower. They were not ever > needed. > > So please do not keep flogging a dead horse over > the Greendale quietway and how nice it is, it has > always existed, always been nice, always been used > by all and has been blocked off to cars for many > many years. In fact many children learnt to cycle > on this bit dirt road which it was in my day and > was open to all traffic. > > Champion Hill is used by all manner of pedestrian > and wheeled transport without any problems and > does not have a great volume of traffic that would > cause a problem to anybody. > > As I mentioned before if people cannot use the > short stretch of road that is Champion Hill they > should not be on the road. Spider, well said. Too many of the changes currently being shoved through have the whiff of fanaticism and social engineering about them, forcing people to adopt behaviour that it is deemed by a select few to be for the greater good. It is dangerous and it is wrong.

Mark T, thanks just hope the Committee do not just roll over. There is in the last application a very detailed objection and it looks as though part of the plans objected to actually creep over onto land that does not even belong to the developer. Access is also a major problem too and there is a smashed bollard at the entrance of the site showing how hard it is for large vehicles to move in and out, but one of the planning officers did not feel that this could necessarily be linked to vehicle damage, a conclusion that I find extraordinary.

The owners may not be aware of their dog's distress. First step is to identify house and let owners know. If, as may be the case, they have no idea their dog is behaving like this they may be grateful to ve told and, it is hoped, get some help for the dog.

James Barber said the additional floor application (taking it up to four stories) was to be called in. He has not declared on the forum if this has happened yet and if it has qhat the result was; if it has not when is it to be called in. He said it was to be called in quite some time ago but silence since. It would be good to know if a fourth floor with penthouses is to be a added to the existing floors and whether the application for the other floors to be offices will stand? Note an earlier application was passed for 8 flats in the area that on the current application is marked out for offices (thereby giving housing in the form of two penthouses only). So 8 flats on three floors has been passed over by the developer in favour of two penthouses on four floors, with floors 2 and 3 for offices.

Yes that stretch of road is increasingly comandeered by developers/ builders on both sides. At times the road is totally blocked by various builder lorries parked up both sides on the road, since the sites face each other. It is dangerous for pedestrians and especially for the elderly, disabled and mums pushing buggies. I also feel very sorry for the shops along that parade whose trade must be affected. The larger site is large and has already been allowed to temporarily take over the whole footpath. Why then is it allowed to park endless large vehicles and equipment outside the temporary barrier blocking the road? Why has permission been given for two different builds, right opposite each other, to go ahead simultaneously, especially when both are treating the public highway as an extension of their respective building sites?

That SUSTRANS questionnaire/feedback form is one of the most disgraceful examples of skewing I think I have ever seen. It might as well have said if anything in your world is not 100% perfect please sign here.

James, It is stated in the email from the Council official to you about Consolidation Orders, that double yellows were "extended" on Chesterfield Grove, and that you were consulted on this on 10th April 2014. The email also states that other roads like Ashbourne had double yellows put in the same place they have always been, that is not extended. We need to find out the rationale for extending on Chesterfifield, where the idea came from and who ok'd it? Perhaps you never repsonded and unwittingly let it go through?

James, I don't have any paperwork at all. I just wnat to know whether you agreed to extending double yellows on Chesterfield or not....perhaps you never answered. The person who replied to your recent email on consolidation Orders, and who stated in that email the date you were consulted, will know the answer whatever it was, perhaps you could simply ask them? I want to know because I am not clear why double yellows were suddenly extended on Chesterrfield, there must have been a good reason for this or was it just done because someone somewhere thought it would be a good idea?

Fazer71, You need to be across the detail of this particular application. It is overdevelopment in terms of current planning policy. I do not feel that developers should be supported in flouting policy, there have to be checks and balances. You argue for more housing so why not support the earlier application for 8 residences above the retail outlet, which was passed and could be built right now, offering homes to 8 families very soon? The developer has instead chosen to drop that to greedily pursue a probably lenghty process of getting another floor again for two penthouses with two floors under for offices. It will then reapply once the penthouses are built to try to get the offices converted back to flats, they would figure it is worth a punt and if they fail they have not lost. So, if you are justifying the build on the basis that we need more housing it does not add up at all. It is also spectacularly disingenuous of the developer to try to shove through the new application for offices and two penthouses when it argued hard for the last applications for 8 falts on the office floors on the basis that there was no demand for offices in the area. There is also the real issue of health and safety with this particular site. i cannot be bothered to go into it all again, but if you research the detail and history you will see that there are real and valid concerns. The Developer is trying to squeeze too much into the site. Finally, I find it disconcerting that retail outlets like M&S are apparently hand in glove with these sorts of shenanigans. It seems that behind every over developed site you find the footprint of a suoermarket giant.

Rch, Thanks for the feedback and thanks for representing our interests, yet again. In terms of what you say I'd note that were James Barber minded, this is where he could really make a difference. Those local Councillors who are Labour will probably not have the guts to set themselves against the Tooley St agenda for S'wark, but James and his colleague could be more independent and speak out for what you term the Dulwich parameters. It takes a big person to really listen and change accordingly, I still hope James can do this. I like your idea for the Dulwich Society and look forward to hearing more.

James, I agree, building penthouses while neatly avoiding any social housing is an abuse of the system. Developers should not be allowed to get away with this. It would also be overdevelopment of the site and there are associated health and safety risks with that. These have been repeatedly flagged up by knowledgable residents but the Developer seems much more worried about any risk to maximum profit to be squeezed out of this small oarcel of prime land. Planning is toothless and always seems to " have its hands tied" in ine way or another. James, There may not have been planning permission for the two flats that existed on the upper floor of the old build, when it was still Iceland, but those flats were inhabited and fully functioning for many years. Does this not create some kind of precedent in terms of the existing application which lists those floors as for office use?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi ZT, > You've poo poo'd wulfhound. > So what do you think the answer it sot rising > obesity and the associated ill health epidemic, > global warming and need to reduce CO2 emissions by > 90%? > > Hi first mate, > We've heard that 43% of residents have access to a > car. So 57% don't. James, hard to say what those figures mean. Is this for S'wark or ED alone? What are the demographics for each group and how large was the sample? Those who are fit and healthy may choose not to have access to a car, ED has a lot of young, healthy affluent people. Clearly people can already cycle or they would not do so, despite all the issues. Cycling is not the only way children can get to school- walking works and is a healthy alternative too. I support improving cycling for those who can but it has to be balanced against the needs of those who cannot or are unable to. The balance should not be sharply tipped one way, which seems to be what is being proposed by some. Slow, careful change is not as sexy or headlining grabbing as radical agendas, but probably more sensible, in the long term. Re obesity, yes exercise is important, but just as important is diet. Ready meals (even the M&S type) processed foods too high in sugar and salt are at least as much to blame. I just hate when complex issues are made black and white for political gain. Anyhow, walking is great exercise, something humans are designed to do, requiring zero mechanics and probably safer too. Children that walked to school would get great exercise.

AbDabs, yes I share your cynicism. I still cannot understand how plans for offices with penthouses atop could be even be countenanced since the 'office space' has until demolition been used a residences. They would surely have to apply for change of use? In addition, much was made in earlier applications that there was no call for office space and great demand for more flats/ housing so to then apply to build mainly office space looks utterly perverse.

Hmmm so lesson obviously not learnt.

Wonderful if you are fit, healthy and able to cycle in all weathers; for those people life would be much better, but for everyone else? What if you cannot cycle or if for it simply is not practical to do this on a regular basis? Is it reasonable or equable to suggest your life is made a misery for two years in order to fulfil an experimental vision that may or may not work for only one sector of the population?

James, forgive me if I am being utterly thick but if no planning permission has been given how come there is a yellow note stuck on a post outside Iceland and more to the point, are you aware that building work on that site is going great guns as I write? Perhaps it is only demolition and perhaps no permissions are required for this? Could you please clarify? Additionally, still no answer from you about Chesterfield double yellows. I've lost count of how often I have asked you about this now, on a variety of threads too.