Abe_froeman

It is also interesting that the Lib Dems are opposed to charging Avis (the owner of Zip car and an overseas company) tax. So they are happy for the residents to pay for double yellow lines, speed bumps, and build outs in roads causing a loos of parking but they don;t want to charge Avis any tax. And by accepting this state of affairs it obviously completely undermines the car club scheme using southwark bays that seems to be out to tender meaning more loss of revenue for the council that will have to be paid for by the taxpayer instead of the corporations using our streets for their business.

The problem I see with it is that they aren't paying for any of the upkeep of the streets while taking full advantage of the council tax payers who are. The public are providing them with free business premises. Why should I pay for Zipcar to run their business for free from outside my house?

I dont understand people like this basically saying the police could have done a better job tham they did. I think they did an amazing job at the weekend in the face of the most abhorrent attacks on our society and it is awful that what follows is not congratulation but instead the implicit criticism that there weren't enough of them and they should have done more. It is shameful.

Might it be worth reporting it as abandoned if its a nusiance and not in a bay?

Understood Rendel! I think given what has happened in the last three months bicyclists are going to have to accelg finding safer alternative routes if they cant cross these bridges safely. It's for the greater good.

If they don't enhance safety for pedestrians at all then a better question is why they bothered in the first place.

Can you see the crystal palace tv mast?

Is that actually the law? The council can just wander in, put down their own paving and claim a right of way? What about fixing their own pavements too? That would also be a good thing.

Does the charity actually own that land or do they rent it from a commercial landlord? Is this something southwark will check before making such a subsidy? And what about all the rest of the damaged pavement that is on public land? Is southwark going to put its own house in order first before coughing up public money to improve private land?

I think its gone beyond pay to park. They want to discourage people from owning their own car altogether.

This map of east dulwich shows the boundary running down crystal palace road and up Upland road. http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11095/east_dulwich_ward_map When it comes to voting all the Se22 addresses east and north of there are in Camberwell and Peckham !

Some of SE22 is in Peckham!

There is a plane just north of ED now flying at 4,250 ft and another behind i heading straight across Peckham Rye at the same height

James as you yourself have argued in the case of Melbourne Grove, speeding is still a massive issue with people driving at very dangerous speeds notwithstanding the 20mph limit. You have even approved funding to buildout a junction which will come with new double yellow lines because the junction is designed to maximize speeding

I don't think Southwark make much effort to hide the fact they are anti private car ownership and would like to make a lot more money out of people who insist on having their own car.

Education should be as irrelevant as ethnicity. For me there is no difference at all between an Oxford medical student and a gangbanger with no qualifications if they choose to stab somebody with bread knife.

If the defendant hadn't been white, blond and pretty I doubt very much that there would have been a story at all because she would be in gaol, where she belongs.

heh!

Interestingly the admin on the west dulwich forum seems ok with it.

Thanks rch, that would also explain why there doesnt appear to be any paperwork avilable for these schemes. ETA: it would so explain why only one Melbourne Grove CGS project approval is referred to in the DCC minutes. The combined cost (?30,000) seems extraordinary given what was said could be done for 34,000 in last years feasibility study.

It's fine James, it seems I've completely misunderstood how CGS works. I thought an individual or organisation had to identify a specific project they wished to see carried out that met the CGS requirements and apply for specific funding from that year's budget to finance the proposal. I had no idea that the community council could pick up ideas from previous years and allocate funding on their own volition from the current year's funding. It's clear now that the community council can just spend the CGS money how they see fit and there doesn't have to be any application by anyone at all. Apologies for the ping pong but none of that was clear from the council web page on how CGS funding is applied for and granted. The road closure idea was actually requested on the back of a very lengthy deputation and a study was subsequently finance by the DCC but was all two years ago, not at the DCC meeting in March.

James thanks for your response. What I would like to know what was applied for and what was approved. It seems you are saying that there was CGS application to put speed humps in on Melbourne Grove, and that there has been no application for a buildout at Chesterfield Grove, but one is going to be put in anyway and CGS money will pay for it, even though there was no CGS application in respect of that work. Is that right? Thanks for your offer to walk the route but you should enjoy your weekend !

Thanks very much RCH. I had rather assumed that the Village and East Dulwich Ward applications were the same thing but were separated out like that only because of the ward boundary running down the middle of the road. but it seems that actually the council has agreed to spend ?30,000 in Melbourne Grove? The information I was hoping to ind was some detail on the nature of teh application for that money. I.e. details of the actual projects that were submitted by MTAG and that have been approved by the council, I think as First Mate says the onyl way ot get that is going to be to issue a FOI request or go to tooley street

James thanks for your replies Unfortunately your link does not include the paperwork for the ?15000 of CGS works on Melbourne Grove that have been approved. Is there anything at all available to the public anywhere? Also, sadly, the link does not reference any work whatsoever at Chesterfield Grove. Is that because it is not CGS? Is any paperwork available to the public for those works? As regards the delivery condition planning was granted on the basis that M and S would deliver through their service yard, http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/2896&system=DC What happened to that?

Hello James Just following up on a couple of queries re Chesterfield / Melbourne Grove; Do you know how papers for the CGS award/project can be accessed by the public? Is the proposed buildout at Chesterfild grove part of the CGS project or Sotuhwark's own initiative? How can Southwark enforce the deliveries planning condition against M and S if the buildout at Chesterfield grove goes ahead? Many thanks