James Barber

It seems we've lost focus on the proposals being for outlandish 8 stories high - way out keeping for the area. 3x higher than the norm for East Dulwich.

Yes, any such scheme would involve a developer contribution to mitigating the impacts of the development on the local area and Southwark more generally. This would usually be via Section 106 monies. Some developments also have Community Infrastructure Levy against them. Yes, the replacement Grove Vale Library was funded almost entirely via S106 monies. Something I start campaigning for in 2005 and then delivered via my then East Dulwich councillor role 2006-18. The 2008 crash caused no end of problems and delays. So S106 can make a material difference for an area. My thoughts a much reduced scheme, 8 stories is bonkers, could help East Dulwich station towards modern standards - minimum platform width of 3.3m, sufficiently long to handle eight carriage trains. Main thing is to get a sensible scheme proposed. The current proposal is far from sensible due to size, height, materials, look, etc.

Perhaps this comes from a proposal by former Dulwich Society chair of Transport sub-committee Alastair Hanton to rename Sydenham Hill station South Dulwich. The argument being the station name doesn't reflect where it is. The train operating company told him it would cost £100,000 and that they had no plans to make this name change.

Until last April I worked for two mobile operators for eight years. The applications made by operators that I've seen recently in Southwark, including Dulwich, breached the guidelines they agreed with the government in a number of ways - "Code of Practice for Wireless Network Development in England". For example the scheme proposed in the centre of Dulwich Village breached this code in several obvious ways - not consulting the nearby school, proposed in the area of a listed monument. It would also have required the junction to be partially closed whenever maintenance was required. It was also just very poorly designed engineering. Being placed amongst trees the cell site would give impaired coverage. Every 3-5 years they would seek to have the trees severely cut back. So an expensive site to operate to boot. Plenty of places they could seek new masts that comply with the rules the mobile operators agreed with the government AND economic to maintain. The operators have avenues to liaise with the council about council property to his cell sites. Such sites tend to be tall giving excellent coverage. But they are more fiddly to organise.

They do mention "affordable housing". But this is usually far from affordable. They plan to place a block of "affordable housing" at the very end of the site in the SW corner.

EDITE 18 October - planning application now submitted 24/AP2314 - public can make comments here - https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=SHWOSNKBJXR00 Scheme now 360 students room, 53 residential homes. EDITED 2/12 exhibition gave more details - proposed car free, 376 student rooms, 52 affordable home (shared ownership, housing association rent), 700m2 light industrial. Stated Melbourne Grove 50% vacant units - my count is 2-4 out of 19 unused. OIRIGNAL POST There is a propose redevelopment of the Jewson's Builders Yard, Railway Rise - behind Grove Vale Library and East Dulwich Station. Looks like hundred of new homes, student accommodation. Unclear if car free or not. Two access - one Melbourne Grove (north end), and Railway Rise. Buildings look to be 5 - 7 stories high. Scheme will likely overlook The Charter School East dulwich, residents on Abbotswood and Featherstone Mews. Increased footfall and vehicles especially on Melbourne Grove (north). Development website here - https://thesidings.whatyouthink.co.uk - very skimpy on details. Public exhibitions - Thursday 4-7pm 30 November and Saturday 11am to 2pm 2 December United Reformed Church (corner of East Dulwich Grove and Melbourne Grove. Do go along, take a look, and give your views.

Southwark Council no longer remove graffiti from private properties. Street cleaning is less thorough and frequent. All factors that are known to increase anti social behaviour which usually leads to more crime. If you can keep your street cleaner and if you suffer graffiti please do remove it. Also worth trying to report issues via FixMyStreet to Southwark Council which recently the council linked into. If you find issues don't get resolved complain via https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/complaints-comments-and-compliments/making-a-complaint

I wonder what mitigations are planned for alternative routes such as Gowlett and Amott Roads - full sinusoidal speed cushions, etc?

I think it telling TfL was consulting on reducing n.12 bus route service. After a short period this was turned into closing no.12 bus route. Extending no.148 along the no.12 bus route to Dulwich Library but at the reduced timetable originally proposed. Having such long route from Dulwich Library to Shepherd's Bush rarely goes well - they then cut the route up to make it more reliable. Eitherway, if you've red this thread or posted ot it please please please respond to the public consultation to actually have your voice heard - https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/busreview

London Mayor Khan is now consulting on scrapping the no. 12 and fifteen other London bus routes - 4, 11, 14, 16, 24, 31, 45, 72, 74, 78, 242, 349, 521, C3 and D7 https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/london-bus-routes-axed-tfl-cuts/ London Mayor Khan stood on a platform in 2016 of freezing TfL fares for four years knowing the government planned to with draw much of its TfL subsidy. He then screwed up Crossrail which even now ?4bn over budget and 4 years late is only opening in parts and not all connected - that's another year away. Having destroyed his budget COVID happened. COVID could have been ridden budget wise but not after the fares freeze and Crossrail financial disaster.

Hi P68, Many presidents are good and some bad. But you can vote them in and vote them out. Royals we get no choice. 2022 the queen receives ?86m from the state. All her formal expenses are paid on top. All the security is paid on top. But I genuinely hope lots of streets take advantage of the four day weekend to hold street parties. Regards James.

if you ever have a missed rubbish, recycling, or brown bin/food waste then spot 6pm report it here -https://www.southwark.gov.uk/bins-and-recycling/general-household-waste/report-a-missed-collection

If you ever have a missed collection - after 6pm report it via - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/bins-and-recycling/general-household-waste/report-a-missed-collection

Hope lots of street parties to celebrate a four day weekend 2-5 June take place. They're easy to organise and Southwark make the legal requirements clear here - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/events-culture-and-heritage/events/planning-an-event/street-parties but you have to have applied 6 weeks before hand so on or before 21 April. So do get cracking. I've just finished "...And What Do You Do ? - wWhat the Royal Family Don't Want You to Know" by Norman Baker. Every royal is tax avoiding, dodgy expense claiming in ways that you or I would at best be sacked for gross misconduct but more likely charged for criminal offences. Hard to celebrate such scrounging from ALL the royals. But celebrating a long weekend with neighbours and friends I do get.

Can someone please place a copy here so we can all see? I'd hope that anything purporting to suggest a direction voters should vote has an imprint of who the body suggesting this is, their address and who printed the leaflet. If it doesn't and it's delivered within 6 weeks of the election, after 25 March then I believe it breaks election law. If Labour were to lose they could go to the courts and demand a re run due to this. For transparency I wont be running in this election.