VikkiM

Somebody from Friends of Goose Green was at Community Council meeting last night to talk about all the work done. The stuff going on looks and sounds great and I was certainly convinced that this was a great use of 'cleaner, greener, safer' money (as well as the other funding sources too). Sounded like the work on the current phase should be finished pretty soon. Victoria Peckham Rye Labour

Just a brief update from Community Council last night. The existing Community Council has recommended that the new (post election) Community Council invite the Executive Member for Environment to an early meeting. Will post details on here when it's arranged. Would be a good chance to raise traffic concerns for those interested. Also there was a general consensus at the meeting that traffic and transport issues that had been passed on the the traffic 'sub-group' had received attention and progress had been made. The Community Council recommended that the sub-group be started up again after the election. Nunhead and Peckham Rye Community Council is the only Community Council to have sub-groups which are made up of councillors, residents and officers and which are able to work on issues on more detail in a way Community Council meetings don't always allow. I'd encourage interested people to get involved. I think PeckhamRose's presence would lead to some lively debate! Victoria. Peckham Rye Labour

There is a Nunhead and Peckham Rye Community Counil tonight from 7.00pm at St Mary Magdalene Primary School, 48 Brayards Road, London, SE15 3RA. It might be a little dominated by the Cleaner Greener Safer bids but it would be worth coming along. The Traffic sub-group is reporting back to the meeting and I know that Renata Hamvas (also Peckham Rye Labour candidate) raised concerns about Forest Hill Road at the meeting so there may be some development - one issue of concern with Ryedale that I've also heard is traffic as it enters Forest Hill Road. It may be that the traffic sub-group can take up this issue or alternatively you could raise it during public question time. You will get a response at the next meeting though, from experience, this rarely solves the actual problem... I've also asked the councillors that they invite the Executive Member for Environment (which covers traffic management) and/or a senior traffic officer to a future meeting. That won't be until after the elections but it does seem that there is a variety of traffic/speeding/rat-run concerns in our area that we'd all like to have the chance to press. In addition, soon after the elections, I think the Community Councils will be asked to draw up a bit more of a vision for what they want for our area and to set some priorities. The idea being, hopefully, that they become a bit more than a just a forum to discuss stuff and start having a bit more direction from month to month. If traffic calming is a big priority for our area this would be a good chance to get it on the agenda. I was interested by the links posted by Burbage but on the other hand if there is a problem with speeding in a 20mph zone, and if residents want traffic calming measures and don't think they are a waste of money, then there is a strong case for them to remain or be installed. However, as PeckhamRose mentioned lots of people aren't fans of speed bumps and the noise and vibrations they can cause. I'll ask the Peckham Rye Councillors to raise this with the council as well. However, just to get this straight in my head, I thought that there were speed bumps on Ryedale - at least at the top end - but the general consensus is that they don't work? I know that there is plenty of evidence that small speed 'cushions' offer comparatively minor reductions in traffic speeds, whereas full width humps are now considered much more effective. As a result, lots of 'cushions' are being replaced with full width humps elsewhere. I think that those who shout the loudest often get the resources so I'd reiterate some on the comments above about attending meetings and keeping nagging police/council/councillors etc. Victoria. Peckham Rye Labour

Hi Darrell Sounds like a great idea. If you're after funding from the council it might be worth putting a bid for Community Fund money. The maximum you can get is ?1000 but as Goose Green sits where three community council meet (Dulwich, Camberwell and Nunhead & Peckham Rye) you could always try your luck with all three: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/YourCouncil/communitycouncils/Communityfund.html Might also be worth contacting the Friends of Peckham Rye. I presume they'll be doing their annual fete on the Rye, probably on the 4th Sept. You might want to avoid a clash or I think that the Brixton Urban Art event being on the same day as the Brockwell Park Country Show works really well - you make a whole day of it. Finally might also be worth contacting the Nunhead Arts Weeks folk via howardj.francis@virgin.net (assuming it's the same contact as last year) they put on a great week of activities last year. Whilst I don't think they would want you to steal any of their funding sources :) they may be able to offer some advice about how they have secured money. The impression Colin Tonks gave at a recent community council was that it's quite a task to pull things together but some how they manage to do it. Victoria. Peckham Rye Labour

The playground is in The Lane ward and from memory has had a couple of lots of 'Cleaner, Greener and Safer' money from Nunhead and Peckham Rye Community Council. I think it was Friends of Goose Green that made the bids for the money. I don't know if there is a 'Friend' on the forum who might be able to tell us a bit more? Interesting question on whether play equipment can be reused or recycling in some way... will try to do a bit of investigation.. Goose Green fence consultation is here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/7KTB9Y8 Victoria. Peckham Rye Labour

I don't know if the water leak on Dunstans Road (with lots of water collecting at junction of Dunstans/Forest Hill Road/Colyton Road) is connected to the resurfacing but Thames Water are coming out to investigate this tomorrow (I think they have received several reports from residents). So early warning of more potential works (joy!) but also to say it would be a shame if a road just resurfaced was dug-up and the good work undone. I'm happy to chase the council (to chase Thames Water) if anyone lets me know if repair work has left a brand new road looking patchy. Victoria. Peckham Rye Labour

Gavin has beaten me to this? But just in response to Loz there is always a balance to deciding which benefits should be means-tested, to ensure benefits are targeted at those most in need, and universal benefits which, in this case, would help ensure that 1,800 children who don't claim the free school meals they are entitled to, start doing so. The policy would also ensure that those just above the threshold of entitlement, but probably still on very modest incomes, receive a really worthwhile benefit. I also think the majority of families in East Dulwich would welcome the weekly savings. It?s also worth pointing out that the likes of Posh and Becks are unlikely to be using Southwark's state primaries. Just like many other universal benefits, many of the richest in our society will simply not make a call on this entitlement. Finally on wasting money - it's worth taking a look at the full amendment proposed by Labour and Gavin?s post above. The free school meals policy would be funded by reducing the ever-increasing amount of money the council spends on consultants. Labour are also a proposing some cuts to councillors? special allowances and the communications budget is reduced (probably not popular with the Southwark Lite readers out there, if there are any?) All this means we are also able to propose a council tax cut - something many people will welcome. However, if spending millions on consultants, Southwark lite, and ?600k to 'run' a library that hasn't opened yet coupled with no cut in council tax 'buy' your vote Loz I'm at a bit of a loss! Whilst I realise that the full details of proposals like these are far from interesting they are worth looking at for those with the time to avoid sweeping generalisations that this is just wasteful spending. Victoria Peckham Rye Labour

Hi James I not sure if your post above is in response to Southwark Labour?s pledge to introduce free school meals in our primary schools? If so, just to point out that our proposal is for for primary schools so your quick sums above will not be accurate. I?d also be keen to know whether you think this is a good idea in principle? From the above post it sounds like you don?t. This is a real shame as the principles behind the policy are surely ones worthy of wide support. The policy will help poorer families by removing the stigma and social barriers which continue to be attached to recipients of free school meals. There are 1,800 Southwark pupils who are already entitled to free school meals but do not take advantage of that entitlement. I think that?s a pretty shocking and sad statistic. The policy will also save every family ?7.00 per week, per primary school child. A saving people on modest and middles incomes will appreciate in tough economic times. Finally, a recent study by Leeds University showed that only 1% of packed lunches taken to school contain the nutritional content that a child needs. With high levels of childhood obesity here in Southwark there is a really strong case for free school meals as a policy that cuts across all boundaries of class and income. My understanding is that Labour has fully costed this policy in conjunction with Southwark council officers. This means that, should we win back control of the council in May, we could deliver on this commitment without any suggestion that there would be less money for teachers, books etc. or any need to increase council tax. I can also confirm that the funding needed is substantially below the ?5million figure that you presumably calculated on the back on an envelope. I?m not sure if Labour has tabled the amendment to the council budget yet but as soon as we do I?m very happy to share the full details on the forum. However I?ll happily reveal that some of the money to fund this and other Labour proposals will be a cut to the special responsibility allowances that councillors receive :-) And because we have tabled this policy as an amendment to this coming year?s budget (which will be agreed tomorrow) we don?t even need a Labour council to deliver it ? the Lib Dems simply need to support our amendment tomorrow evening. Victoria. Peckham Rye Labour

I've just had a very similar response back via the Labour cllrs as well. Would be good if those in the immediate vicinity could confirm the works are completed tonight as promised. Also, from a pedestrian safety point of view, there should be signing to help pedestrians and to warn cars in the absence of the temporary lights being able to 'phase' for pedestrians. If you don't think the signing is sufficient (on these or other works) it would be worth flagging this up with the council direct or via your councillors. Victoria Peckham Rye Labour

simonethebeaver - yep this all seems to make things less clear... If it's okay I'll sent details of your response to the council officer who was at the Community Council meeting in the hope we can get the clearest possible response at the next meeting. Victoria Peckham Rye Labour

mrsw/Peckhamgatecrasher these works are in Peckham Rye ward rather than East Dulwich ward. I've asked that the ward councillors chase the council about this. Will get back to you. Victoria Peckham Rye Labour

Hi James - not sure I quite follow what you mean about Ivydale? It's been the delivery rather than the decisions that have been problematic. I have to say that I've lost track of exactly when things were going to happen but, very roughly, residents were consulted over a year ago and the work was initially planned for June or July. This has been pushed back on numerous ocassions with the works only starting in November though not on the dates set out on the final letter drop. The works on the Peckham Rye end of Ivydale are still to start but I'm assured that Conways will give us 7 days notice by letter drop and that the re-routing of the 343 and 484 will be well-publicised in advance... Fiona has done a great job of chasing council officers and Conways throughout the process. This included getting us a letter with a clear and updated timetable in December. Nunheaders lurking on here can find info on www.nunheadforum.co.uk But all this aside, hopefully something will come out of the Community Council query so that we're all a little bit more clued up on what we should be looking for and the council/contractors get a little better at telling us what's going on. Victoria. Peckham Rye Labour

Emily - hope Woody is still doing well and that the SNT continue to work on your case. This is just a quick update from Peckham Rye and Nunhead Community Council last night where there was an update from The Lane's SNT. Lane ward doesn't cover much of the Common but the team's work should hopefully reflect what's going on nearby. They reported that in recent months there had been a sustained effort to crack down on dangerous dogs and that this was as a result of local residents telling them this is a big concern. In the last three months seven section 1 dogs have been seized and four people have been taken to court and found guilty (I'm afraid I don't have exact details but presume this is for offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act). I asked whether the particular focus on cracking down on dangerous dogs and their owners would continue and the reply was that as long as residents keep reporting problems and keep indicating that this is a priority the local teams will keep up their efforts. There was a Peckham Rye SNT drop-in meeting last night (I don't know if anyone was there?) and there is a further one on 17 March from 7.00pm until 9.00pm at Harris Girls or you can phone the team anytime on 020 8721 2443 or 07920 233915. And if dangerous dogs aren't your priority, all the more reason to get in touch to tell them what is. Victoria. Peckham Rye Labour

Just an update from Community Council last night. I raised both this scheme and the ongoing problems on Ivydale Road at the meeting. Cllr Fiona Colley (Nunhead ward) also spoke about the problems she's had finding out what was going on on Ivydale Road and with how Conways have been communicating with residents. Rather than going into the specific details of the problems with any particular set of works, what we've asked council officers to look at is: - How residents are contacted about proposed works - is it a notice, a letter drop, notification in the Southwark News, something on the Southwark website? If the works are the result of a consultation, could the consultation document detail this? - Could there be a bit of consistency so that we all know what to look out for? - Who is responsible for contacting residents - the council or the contractor? - If it's the cntractor (which I think it is/was for both Ivydale and Marmara) how is the council monitoring that it's being done/what's the come back if it isn't? There were traffic/transport council officers there who I think got a fair idea of what I and others are asking for so hopefully we'll get a decent response at the next meeting and hopefully a few suggestions to improve communications in the future. One of these could be a promise of someone on site at the start of all works as simonethebeaver mentions above. Victoria. Peckham Rye Labour

Willow it's the by the Audit Commission, the independent body assessing council performance.

Hi James I'm sure that most people will accept that there are two ways to pay people - either by a fixed salary or you can incentivise pay and make it performance related. Fair enough you might think. However PeckhamRose is right to point out the unfairness of the system that means only around 40 of the most senior (and already highest paid) staff at Southwark receive bonuses of 10% or even 15%. But the really outrageous thing is that these bonuses bare no resemblance to council performance - just a few weeks ago Southwark was officially rated the worst council in inner London! Surely we should be holding the most senior officers to account for this, rather than paying them bonuses? At a recent council Overview and Scrutiny meeting your party refused to review this system of bonuses therefore allowing this ridiculous and unfair situation to continue. Victoria Peckham Rye Labour

Both Aske's and Prendergast were originally linked/set-up by London Guilds. I think they will be considered foundation schools or voluntary-aided schools or something like that - not totally dissimilar to state faith schools - with the governing body and/or some kind of charitable foundation, presumably linked to the original Guild, running the school rather than the local authority. But the schools are still part of the state school system and there are no fees involved.

I don't know much more than the results being very impressive and that it being a hugely popular school/oversubscribed as a result. Aske's recently took over Monson Primary and my understanding is that, as a result, children are guaranteed a place at the Secondary School - this means that places are even tigher. Entrance is dependent on the usual admissions criteria combining with 'banding' that's worked out as a result of an assessment. For a lot of the bands the further places offered last year were between 300m-600m away so someone in Honor Oak would be unlikely to make it.

I've spoken to a few East Dulwich/Honor Oak parents whose children go to Forest Hill School. All seem very happy with it. I went there a few years ago and the new sports facilities are really impressive. Depending on where in Honor Oak you are, and whether you just have girls, you may stand a chance of getting into Prendergast school on Hilly Fields which is a very popular school with good results. My friend's daughter goes and really likes it/would recommend it. Crofton School in Ladywell is less popular and in the past hasn't had very good results but I don't know anyone with children there so it may be that the results don't paint the whole picture. It's gone into federation with Prendergast and is now called 'Prendergast Ladywell Fields'. The idea behind federations is that schools work together, sharing resources and expertise and hopefully some of the successful leadership and teaching at Prendergast Hilly Fields could begin to make a big difference to the Ladywell Fields school in the coming years.

It's not just Labour saying that Southwark's recycling is bad - it's official statistics. The Lib Dems haven't managed even a 1% rise in recycling in the last year and they have slipped from being the 10th worst recycler in the country to the 6th worst - after 8 years of running the council the Lib Dems need to take responsibility for this situation. If Labour, Lib Dems, Tories and Greens are to be believed, we all share a concern for our environment and we all want to boost recycling rates, in conjunction with a whole host of other green policies. The thing is, I don't think this is necessarily an ideological thing in Southwark, it's really about a bit of political will and about how we use resources. Yes, blocks of flats present a problem but it's not a problem that other boroughs haven't overcome. Yes, we have a high number of blocks but if we manage to give some recycling facilities, why are there blocks in Peckham Rye ward that have no recycling facilities? This is despite both residents and councillors requesting them and even suggesting where communal bins could be sited. Similar arguments hold for population turnover - maybe Southwark Life, that's getting a panning elsewhere on this forum could, once a year, be a specific recycling issue that sets out the latest details on recycling for residents. Southwark's website is terrible, a few changes could help get the message across on recycling more effectively. I'm sure people not posting at midnight after 5 mins thought could come up with better suggestions! A couple of people have mentioned Greenwich which is regularly rated the best council for recycling in London. They have a simple colour coded system which people find easy to use and is something that we could replicate in Southwark. It would also encourage separation at source something which, as Tom's says, evidence suggests ultimately boosts recycling rates.

*Anna* I posted a little bit of information about longer terms plans to the PR/ED junction here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,405364,405920#msg-405920

Hi Emily - very sorry to hear about this too and do hope Woody is doing okay on what sounds like it will be a long road to recovery :-( It sounds like you've done pretty much all of what follows but, for information, back in October dangerous dogs were discussed at the Peckham Rye and Nunhead Community Council. The Safer Neighbourhood Teams advised that the police would always treat the owner as the problem, not the animal itself. They said that if residents had an immediate concern, and the SNT was not available, they should ring 999, or speak to the Community Wardens. As a result of the discussion about what enforcement action the council could take to make sure owners control their dogs, Eileen Conn suggested that the Community Council investigate how other boroughs enforce dog related anti-social behaviour. This was agreed to and the Community Council proposed inviting council officers from boroughs that are deemed to have good dog control practice to a Community Council meeting. I appreciate that this isn't going to resolve issues overnight but if we are able to come across suggestions or ideas that we can get other Community Councils to support we might begin to get a bit of momentum. Both the Safer Neighbourhood Teams and Community Wardens attend Community Council and I would hope that they were involved in this meeting when it takes place.

Really sad and awful news. I asked Barrie Hargrove (Labour transport spokesperson) to raise the roadworks with the council (which he has done) and I've contacted him about today's accident. I'll continue to press this as much as I can and it sounds that James Barber will too. Obviously it's not yet clear whether today's accident is related to the recent works but either way the junction is busy and bad for pedestrians. The following plans, tragically, come too late but I understand that this junction should be the subject of improvements during 2010/11. Council officers have proposed that the roads around the Rye are the subject of improvement using TfL funding. When they consulted on this last year they said: ?These busy streets carry significant amounts of through traffic and crossing them can be difficult for pedestrians. The junction with East Dulwich Road has a very high level of collisions... To address these issues a review of the timings of the junctions on East Dulwich Road could be carried out. Additional raised crossings could be provided on both branches of Peckham Rye.? The last I heard was that funding should be confirmed by December (2009). I'll contact the council officer I had contact with and confirm what the latest is. It's heartbreaking that such improvements may have prevented today's terrible events, though I appreciate that may well not be the case. Victoria.

Hi Mrs P I've posted a few times on this topic: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,363001 I popped along to the meeting tonight and spoke to a couple of people from the one o'clock club as well as council staff and the architects. My understanding is that ?200k of funding is secured for the new club and that a bid has been made for another ?200k (via SureStart I think). The result of the bid is still not known but should be very soon. I get the impression that, if successful, this level of funding would then go a long way to getting the new centre but the more money, the better facilities - so great if other funding sources can be exploited by anyone in the know!

I raised the Ivydale scheme at the October Community Council meeting but also asked what the process was for disseminating information about impending works and how the council follows up with residents who have been consulted about any scheme. The response I got at the December meeting was really quite unhelpful as it referred only to the Ivydale scheme and simply said that a letter drop had been done and that work had started on so-and-so date in November. In fact, many residents hadn't got the letter and the start date stated was inaccurate. But more importantly the wider point wasn't answered. I missed the start of the December meeting so wasn't able to query the response. However I promised Nunhead Forum readers that I would follow this up at the next meeting on 8 Feb. Happy to mention the Marmora Rd stuff as well or would be great if others came and raised this too.