slarti b

@rch You may be right, but if so it is a rather misleading title! Given we have just been through a major (though short lived) consultation process surely it should be referred to explicitly in the agenda. Oh well, lets see.

Just looking through the agenda for the DCC meeting this evening. I thought there was going to be initial feedback of the results of the consultation exercise for the Quietway. However, I cannot see any mention of the it. Have I missed something?

Penguin68 Wrote: > How much of this is actually 'new'? Many junctions already have some double yellows on them The pack for this evening's DCC meeting shows 34 junctions in East Dulwich ward with no existing yellow lines. These are marked in red as "Proposed double yellow lines (junction protection doesn?t exist)" So, yes, the figures Cllr Barber is quoting relates to totally new yellow lines. There are also about 70 junctions in ED ward that already have "Existing junction protection(double yellow lines)" but I do not know if these are being reviewed to see if they meet the new criteria. I certainly feel that parking on corners can be inconsiderate and dangerous, but I also feel that junctions should be looked at on a case by case basis using evidence and common sense rather than having this blanket approach. Presumably the big beneficiary would be our friends Conway but I don't think this is a good use of our money. Also, I do not like the way the council is attempting to push through a massive change that could have significant effect on local residents in a pretty underhand manner with no publicity and no proper public consultation.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quietways are a TfL programme undertaken to > implement Boris's vision for cycling. Nothing to > do with Southwark. Not correct. TFL are setting the strategy ( and maybe the routes?) and providing the money. But Southwark is implementing the route within the borough. Hence the involvement of AECOM Conway as designers ( and presumably Conway as contractors!) The exception seems to be the Dulwich Village junction which is being designed by TFL.

@inTexas.. Ok, I understand you point. But maybe Gerrit found that comment somewhere else on web site? I had issues last year trying to get an appointment (I think was a telephone one?) and was told that they would only do this at the time I needed for children and elderly. That is not on web site! @unclegen My colleagues at work have GPs in Stockwell, Clapham Putney and Guildford. Max wait for them is 2 weeks, and often much shorter. So FHR can't blame a general meltdown. I came across reviews by patients on the NHS web site and many of them confirm the problems raised here. http://www.nhs.uk/Services/GP/Overview/DefaultView.aspx?id=43499 It seems astonishing that the NHS isn't investigating. Anyway, I think I will write to Practise Manager and see what she says. As I have said before once you do get to see a doctor (or Practise Nurse) the treatment is normally fine. It is a shame it is so difficult to get to see one!

There is something seriously wrong with this this practise. I have a painful, irritating but not-urgent issue I would like to see Doctor about. No appointments at all available on-line. I looked a week ago and there were a couple of slots available in 4 weeks time which I couldn't make. So, looks like I will have to wait till they release another week of appointments, If I know when. This is even worse than my experience last year where I had to wait 3-4 weeks for an appointment. @gerritsmith I completely agree with your post. At my last visit last year (after 3.5 week wait) I was only person in waiting room. Felt like a ghost practise. not one with 8 doctors. Where are they all? @Intexasetc... Please don't regurgitate what is on their web site. What is the reality... at the moment (and I think for several months) you cannot make an appointment unless you consider it urgent! @AlanMedic (any connection with surgery?) Explaining your inability to make an appointment You said "I don't know what the system is but it must be there for a reason." Maybe the surgery can explain their "system". At present it means you cant actually make a standard non-urgent "F2F" appointment on web site or by telephone. That sounds like gross mis-management to me. You mention "Selfish people missing appointments" I am sure patients missing appointments is a common issue for all surgeries but proper management should mitigate the affect. If I ever get the opportunity to MAKE an appointment on-line I wonder if they will send mobile or email reminders. Do they slightly overbook to allow for no-shows? From my experience and that of Gerrit, NO they don't. I notice the Practice recently held a "Patients Participation Group" Meeting. Did anyone attend? If so, was the issue of getting an appointment raised? Did they say how many of their 8 doctors ( 4 partners and 4 associates per the web site) are actually working? However I notice that, according to their web site, only one PPG meeting was held in 2015 and there are STILL no minutes of that meeting. Are they covering up their failures? I am not that familiar with NHS financing but my understanding is Forest Hill Practice, like most GP's is a private practice funded by NHS, ie us as taxpayers. It seems they are delivering a very poor quality of service. What can we do about this?

Update Wed 2 March. Was fine at 8.30 this morning.

@MikeB A good point re Dulwich Estate and something I had considered. However, the AECOM guys seemed to think that the Estate had expressed their willingness to consider the route. I don't know how far any discussions went but it seems a missed opportunity if it has been dismissed.

I went to the consultation meeting at Kingsdale on Saturday. Not well signed and not many people there but some good discussions. Event was "hosted" by a couple of Conway AECOM traffic engineers. No-one from Southwark council there which I find odd. Key points we discussed: - Conway/AECOM guys confirmed that there has been NO modelling of the effect of the proposed changes to priorities at the Dulwich Junction. They seemed to feel a full traffic review of the junction and surrounding streets would have been better but this was not within their brief. This is likely to affect residents of Dekker and Desenfans in particular. - Changing the priority of Calton\Court Lane will mean large number of motor vehicles turning right into Court Lane across path of Quietways cyclists. Really dangerous. - The dog-leg crossings of Calton and Turney could get crowded (will double buggies be able to pass each other?) but this could be remedied by putting up railings. I pointed out the irony that this would create the same layout as the cattle pens that have been removed from EDG\Townley road junction. - The southern end of the Quietway, going along Gypsy Road\Hill, Dulwich Wood Ave and Farquar is not at all cycle friendly, 3 right turns across traffic and steep hills. Several people pointed out that the overall route through just doesn't make sense; cylists wont use it because it is longer and is through streets such as Turney\Hamilton\Gypsy Roads which are busy and\or have a lot of residential parking. Concensus was a route from Dulwich Village down College Road and the up Fountains Drive or Hunt Slip Road\Alleyn Park was much better. It avoids residential roads so any parking changes will have minimal impact, is much more direct and pleasant to cycle and goes close to several major schools (Kingsdale, Dulwich College, Ducks, Dulwich Prep etc). That route would be MUCH better suited to achieve the objectives of the Quietway. But, ever since the shambolic Sustrans sessions last year we have been told the route itself is not up for consultation. What a shame and waste of public money. It seems the council is trying to push this through with a very short consultation period and tight deadlines for a complex scheme which will significantly effect our neighbourhood. Please read the documents and respond to the consultation if you have time, otherwise you could write to your local councillor, aksing for the consultation period to be extended so all residents affected have time to consider the Quietway scheme fully. The scheme will also be discussed at the next Dulwich Community Council meeting on (I think) 15 March. Edited to add That I found the AECOM Conway guys were open and helpful in explaining the scheme and willing to listen to comments and suggestions. Whether this attitude will be reflected in the consultation conclusion I will wait to see!

Cycled past junction around 9.30 pm. Temporary traffic lights and signs have all gone so fingers crossed it will be OK tomorrow. Still a water filled hole on the pavement with a notice saying work would be finished on 4 March but hopefully no more traffic delays. But.... Looks like a water leak at start of Red Post hill just south of North Dulwich station. Has been there for several days now.

Just a reminder about the Open Day event tomorrow to present plans for Quietway 7 through Southwark. These have been arranged at pretty short notice so people may not be aware of them. I have concerns about the proposed changes to Dulwich Village junction, particularly the changed priority at Court Lane\Calton Avenue. From the consultation web site http://tinyurl.com/gmosp3v it is unclear whether the meeting cover the whole route or just individual sections but I will go along anyway. Open day event - Kingsdale Foundation School Sat 27 Feb 2016 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM

Duvaller Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > minder Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Can't imagine two double deckers trying to pass each other on the hill. > > All the buses are the same width ie 2.54m , 8'6". I regularly follow P4 and (single decker) 42 up Red Post Hill and it is a tight squeeze for them around the traffic islands. Apart from the width does a double decker have the same length and turning circle as current single deckers on the route? If not then changes may well be needed.

Their on-line system is showing NO appointments available for booking at all so yes, are in meltdown. I checked ordinary (ie F2F) appointments on 23 November and , at that time, they had only 17 slots free for the following 4 weeks. It is hardly surprising that a fortnight later then is nothing left till next year. From my experience this has been going on for at least several months and has not been resolved. According to their web site they have 4 partners and 3 Associate doctors (presumably salaried?) Does anyone know if these are all full time? Out of interest, was the delay to making appointments discussed at the Patient Group meeting on 5 November. They haven't posted any minutes yet and the links to the old minutes don't work! I chatted about this with work colleagues. None of them have delays we have been experiencing with Forest Hill Group. Their waits for GP appointment ranged from 2 days ( county town in Surrey) to 10 days ( 3-4 doctor practise in Putney. Which organisation is responsible for monitoring performance of GP Practises? They should be alerted.

Definitely worth calling 101 and reporting this sort of suspicious activity straight away, particuarly given amount of activity in that area recently. I have used 101 a couple of times when I have seen people apparently trying to pinch bikes at Brixton and they were very helpful.

I suspect Helen Hayes may be occupied. Isn't there something in Parliament today which may go on rather late?

@Sidhue. I had read the notice at top of page but, if you look at it in full it says (complete with capitals and lack of punctuation "ROUTINE F2F IS A ROUTINE/GENERAL APPOINTMENT WITH A DOCTOR PLEASE DO NOT BOOK COIL FITTINGS...SMEARS OR MEDICAL/INSURANCE REPORTS"... So, the references to coils and smears initially made me think F2F referred to Female to Female. Certainly don't think it is very clear. If you can explain what "AM DUTY DOCTOR CONTRIBUTION" or a "Catch Up/Break" appointments are as well that would be great! Anyway, leaving aside clarity of the web site the issue seems to be be that there is a delay of 3-4 weeks before patients can be seen for a non-urgent appointment. I don't think that is acceptable.

Dodo1 Wrote:> All gp surgeries are now required to offer on line booking of appointments. I just checked the on line booking for FHR to see whether situation has improved since a few months ago. It seems slightly better but still not good (and if I am wrong about meaning of F2F, much worse!). Appointments available per web site: "General Appointments" - "There are currently no general appointments available." There are other appointment types though it is not always clear who is eligible and there is no explanation. From some googling F2F may mean "face to face". So, assuming these are actually "General" appointments there are currently: - 29 F2F (ie General?) slots available Nov 26\27 - 50-60 F2F slots available 7-15 Jan 2016 - 14 Special slots in Jan 2016 So, a minimum of 3 weeks wait for an F2F appointment. Better than I experienced earlier in the year but, IMHO, not acceptable and something they need to sort out (along with a clearer web site). I guess the absence of December appointments is because they have not opened booking but, if so, that is not clear. Also, their web site claims they have 8 doctors, though only 4 appear on the booking schedules. Where are the others?

From my experience over last 6 months the situation at FRH is completely unacceptable. Booking an appointment online (for any doctor, any time) means waiting 4 weeks. I have spent 40 minutes on hold to get through to reception while they counted down from 11 callers waiting. Even for a telephone consultation I had to wait over 3 weeks, and though this was recommended by the practise nurse, I had to persuade and justify it to the unhelpful receptionist. Once you get to see or speak to a doctor or nurse the service is generally fine. I have been a patient at this practise for 25 years though have reasonable health so use it only occasionally ( average 2-3 times a year?) With a full time job, it has never been easy to get an appointment but this is now ridiculous.

Ahhh... that explains why 185 and 176 were going along East Dulwich Grove this morning. Guessing they were diverting up Denmark Hill then down Sunray Avenue and Red Post Hill.

Apologies, was following on from my earlier post but I should have said the malfunctioning lights at junction of EDG and Townley road. I know you have been active on the Dog Kennel Hill lights :-)

If you have been affected by the experimental road closure you can respond to Lambeth Council using the consultation link below https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LJroadclosures1

Cllr Barber, re the malfunctioning traffic lights. I have just heard from a neighbour that one of the Labour councillors has been escalating this with the council. Apparently they are due to be "fixed" next week. Fingers crossed they get it right ....

Cllr Barber If the TMOs were these http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/public-notices/road-network-townley-road-at-east-dulwich-grove/ they are nothing to do with the problems identified by the safety audit, in fact they relate to changes for the "final" junction design from months ago! So, please can you press the council on their response to the safety problems in the audit, in particular the malfunctioning of the traffic lights. Given the real dangers at this junction we should not have to wait months for them to be addressed. On a secondary issue, why are the TMO's on web site of Southwark News but not Southwark Council?

Cllr Barber You said I'm expecting this audit report to be presented at the next Dulwich Community Council meeting with what remediation has taken place and will take place. Thanks for the reply. It is disappointing we have to wait till the next DCC when the dangers have been highlighted in an audit report. I can just about understand that if, as seems likely, they will have to carry out work to sort out the poor design. What I can't understand is why the malfunctioning traffic lights can't be sorted since it is not a design fault, just that they are not working properly. Anything you can do to escalate this within the council will be appreciated.

Was the "bee\honeycomb" mural near the Plough part of this projetc? If so why did they get rid of it, was really nice.