first mate

If our local Councillor is unable or unwilling to comment on the current building work on the old Iceland site ( going ahead at breakneck speed) is there anyone else who is able to say what is going on? Is it known if a fourth floor( cunningly called a 3 rd floor in the plans) is going ahead? Have the developers been allowed to go with the other two floors as offices? From what I can glean on S'wark planning site, this appears to be the case and would indicate that the developers have, yet again, been allowed to do pretty much as they please. It is noteworthy to see the incredible speed at which this work is going ahead, compared with say Nx or Townley. Anyone would think the developers had some deadline they were trying to beat?

James, the whole back of the old Iceland building has now been ripped out. Workers heard at 6.15 am today. What is happening on this site? Were the last plans for the penthouses and a 4th floor passed after you called them in? I have asked you about this recently too and you have not replied.

.

ZT, i think we both know the answer to that. The rather crude attempts to undermine RCH make her even more credible and trustworthy, in stark opposition to the official reps.

James, Because those of us, that is over 300, who do not agree with that decision and feel that decisions are being made without proper consultation, feel it necessary to express our dissatisfaction at a process that is not working for the community. A decision may have been made on 24th but this does not make it the right decision, nor does it mean that the process by which that decision was made is right either. The second deputation was much larger, does this not mean anything?

Rch, You and those who have organised the majority deputation/ petition have a lot of local support. It is simply common sense. More than anything, we need someone who understands the process and who can be trusted to represent the majority- think of yourself as our unofficial councillor elect.

Rch, Worry not, it is pretty clear what is going on. The remark about you "adjusting" was patronising to say the least.

Hi James, My response was not about Robin, more a realisation that whatever agenda you and. Labour have for the roads around here is going to be pushed through one way or another and that a majority petition request that traffic etc be looked at as a whole around ED has been more or less ignored by you and other councillors on the DCC. The feasibility study will, it seems, focus just on MG. I am also disappointed to hear that majority view typified by DCC councillors as "hysterical". That is what I meant by democracy is dead in ED. By the way, you still haven't answered my question about whether you were in favour of increased lengths of double yellows on Chesterfield when consulted on the matter by Southwark Council. As our/ my local rep I think you should tell me what your decision was.

James, Have you remembered your decision about double yellows on Chesterfield yet? I have given you all the information you need to find out, including an email from a council officer stating the date you were consulted. Your decision will also be on record.

I am really now understanding what RCH meant when she suggested democracy was dead in ED. It is now crystal clear that James and his Labour buddies cannot be trusted to listen or to learn. I also agree about use of the word "hysterical" to characterise the majority view...most revealing.

The only sensible thing is to look at the whole area of ED, not just one road. If perception is being used by Cllrs as a decision making tool then we should be clear that perceived levels of speeding on Melbourne are no different from many other streets. Are we going to block every street in ED? In my view perception is hardly grounds to spends large amounts of tax payers money. Facts are what we need, hard facts. Descriptions of the DCC, councillors attending and their MO leave a very bad taste in the mouth.

I tend to think that those who get deeply addicted to the game of politics are often the last people you want steering major decisions, however those types are generally very good at the game- they have a game playing mentality.

Robin, please name and shame that councillor or perhaps someone else can do it. Thank you for trying to represent the wider majority view and please keep at it. Have you ever thought about standing as an independent? You'd get my vote. It is also good to know that councillors read the forum; all the more reason to keep using this as a primary means of communication to get things done for the community.

Yes, M$S fine, no quibble with that but the proposal to add another story plonk a penthouse on top is somewhat different, if as many if us suspect, the aim is to avoid a social housing quota. James Barber had said the last application would be called in and so. I am wondering if this has happened or what the latest is?

There has been a lot of very noisy activity on the old Iceland site today. Does anyone know what happened with the penthouse application? The people living in the flats must have gone, but it should be noted that those floors cannot be used as office space as they have been inhabited for the last few years.

I just wondered if there was any further news on a completion date for this work? ....anyone?

Melbourneresident, I think there is appalling behaviour by drivers everywhere(cyclists too) and I am sure that many of us have been on the receiving end of it. I still feel something imaginative could be done with one policeman and a number of parking wardens. Drivers who drive at high speed through residential streets or who abuse pedestrians should be reported and fined/ points on licence. Word gets around when there are consequences.

James, you asked: Hi first mate, I receive around a 100 councillor emails a day. So I don't recall the email. Could you narrow it down to a time so I can retrieve it more easily please? My reply, posted from another thread but reposted here to avoid taking the other thread off subject: Hi James, look up around 10 April 2014, the date S'wark state you were consulted about double yellows on Chesterfield? Don't think I can be any more precise. i'd imagine an email search on that date with the keywords Chesterfield and double yellows might be fruitful? However you know more about IT and technology than me I am sure, so apologies if I am teaching granny to suck eggs. Please see below the email to you last month which states the date you were consulted about "new lengths of double yellows" on Chesterfield. Note the penultimate paragraph. I cannot think that you would require any more detail in order to respond to the very simple question, did you say "yes" or " no" to new "lengths of restrictions" that js, double yellow lines, when consulted on the matter on 10 April 2014? You seem to have omitted the name of the person that sent you the email below, but I am sure they could find your response when consulted on that date, that is 10 April 2014, were you to ask? Our Reference: 551054 ________________________________________ Dear Councillor Barber Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th August 2015, in which you requested information regarding yellow lines in the East Dulwich ward. I believe you are referring to the recent making and publication of a 'consolidation order'. The traffic order which has been advertised is known as a 'consolidation order' which is exactly this -a consolidation of existing traffic orders to ensure these remain manageable and easy to follow. This London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2015(1) ('the 2015 Order') consolidates the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012(2) ('the 2012 Order') together with the 60 subsequent amendment orders amending the provisions of the 2012 Order. It is deemed best practice (e.g. in guidelines issued by the British Parking Association) for local authorities undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement to regularly consolidate and maintain the traffic orders forming a basis for that enforcement. This follows the Consolidation Order process laid out in Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489). There are no new restrictions being introduced by way of this consolidation order. The yellow lines you have specifically queried at Ashbourne and Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove were originally included in an order made on 8 May 2014 as part of the Lordship Lane area traffic order and sign decluttering review . The name of the Order was the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. 32) Order 2014(3) ('the 2014 Order'). As part of our review process, surveys on street were undertaken by an officer to check that the road markings in existence matched the traffic orders. In the case of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove the traffic order waiting and loading definitions would have been amended to reflect more closely the markings as existed on street. Chesterfield Road had new lengths of restrictions installed at this time. Statutory stakeholders and ward members including yourself were consulted in the process of making the 2014 Order, on 10 April 2014. I trust this addresses your concerns but if you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me. " Edited 3 time(s). Last edit was today, 10:05am by first mate.

Post deleted and reposted on James Braber's thread to avoid taking this thread off subject.

Hi James, look up around 10 April 2014, the date S'wark state you were consulted about double yellows on Chesterfield? Don't think I can be any more precise. i'd imagine an email search on that date with the keywords Chesterfield and double yellows might be fruitful? However you know more about IT and technology than me I am sure, so apologies if I am teaching granny to suck eggs. Please see below the email to you last month which states the date you were consulted about "new lengths of double yellows" on Chesterfield. Note the penultimate paragraph. I cannot think that you would require any more detail in order to respond to the very simple question, did you say "yes" or " no" to new "lengths of restrictions" that js, double yellow lines, when consulted on the matter on 10 April 2014? You seem to have omitted the name of the person that sent you the email below, but I am sure they could find your response when consulted on that date, that is 10 April 2014, were you to ask? Our Reference: 551054 ________________________________________ Dear Councillor Barber Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th August 2015, in which you requested information regarding yellow lines in the East Dulwich ward. I believe you are referring to the recent making and publication of a 'consolidation order'. The traffic order which has been advertised is known as a 'consolidation order' which is exactly this -a consolidation of existing traffic orders to ensure these remain manageable and easy to follow. This London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2015(1) ('the 2015 Order') consolidates the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012(2) ('the 2012 Order') together with the 60 subsequent amendment orders amending the provisions of the 2012 Order. It is deemed best practice (e.g. in guidelines issued by the British Parking Association) for local authorities undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement to regularly consolidate and maintain the traffic orders forming a basis for that enforcement. This follows the Consolidation Order process laid out in Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489). There are no new restrictions being introduced by way of this consolidation order. The yellow lines you have specifically queried at Ashbourne and Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove were originally included in an order made on 8 May 2014 as part of the Lordship Lane area traffic order and sign decluttering review . The name of the Order was the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. 32) Order 2014(3) ('the 2014 Order'). As part of our review process, surveys on street were undertaken by an officer to check that the road markings in existence matched the traffic orders. In the case of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove the traffic order waiting and loading definitions would have been amended to reflect more closely the markings as existed on street. Chesterfield Road had new lengths of restrictions installed at this time. Statutory stakeholders and ward members including yourself were consulted in the process of making the 2014 Order, on 10 April 2014. I trust this addresses your concerns but if you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me. "

But surely S'wark and even the DCC would have known what would and would not be allowed by TFL before any works went ahead?

James Barber will know and perhaps it is he who should explain.

James, re the double yellows on Chesterfield, I am quoting the date you were consulted on this, that is the 10th April 2014. We know you were consulted on that date because that information is given in an email addressed to you from Southwark Council, that you chose to publish on this forum. It matters not if it was a DCC or some other means, all we know for sure is that you were consulted on that date. So, again, and I will keep asking, all I want to know is did you say "yes" to extended doubles on Chesterfield or did you say "no"? I am interested in your assertion about the busy wardens. I often see them around, parked up for lengthy periods in and around Lordhsip, monitoring life from the camera car, and others out on their scooters are never, it seems, too busy to miss dropping in on the carwash on the corner of LL for a "friendly" chat with the guys there. Yes, all that money from parking funds the good labours of the wardens but, a surplus you say? How about putting some of that money, or indeed all of it, to funding a police officer and wardens, dedicated to the speeding issue. A simple solution and one that might help us avoid digging up yet more roads to no avail or, heaven forfend, blocking them off completely.

One police officer could manage and oversee a number of community wardens who might be tasked with monitoring speed and car regs. this might be a better use of wardens who whizz around on scooters and lurk in camera cars for hours on end with the sole aim to catch out cars with a bumper one inch over double yellows. What is the cost of the parking wardens and the camera cars? BTW James, on the issue of double yellows you still have not come back to me about whether you supported increasing double yellow on Chesterfield Grove, April 10th 2014?!!!!!

"This last point we should note as this has been said to the Southwark planners many times. We should not let Southwark's errors and intransigence to be used as a way to bring back the right hand turn ban idea." hopskip, that is a very good point. In the agenda driven game of traffic chess, currently played by the Council and our Councillors, I can see their next move will be to state the road is unsafe in terms of coaches and therefore the only viable and cost effective solution is to ban the right hand turn. They and the Councillor/ s supporting this will find a way to blame TFL or some other body for the cockup. Except it is not a cockup, I still believe they have always had one aim and will achieve it, by whatever means. Could the Council be forced to reverse this work and reinstate the former road design? Perhaps RCH would know? This meddling and tinkering, supported by our local Councillors- the persons who are meant to represent us, has to stop.