Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[Abe_froeman]

Thanks James.

[dbboy]

Hope this helps [twitter.com]

COUNCILLORS - YOU NEED TO GET ONTO THIS, LIKE NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

[jamesmcash]

Hi bels123

I?ve looked into the London Lorry Control Scheme for you.

The LLCS controls the movement of heavy goods vehicles over 18 tonnes maximum gross weight, at night and at weekends on specific roads on London?s road network. The scheme has been in place since 1985 under the Greater London (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1985 and is enforced utilising the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. The scheme is in place to help minimise noise pollution in residential areas during unsociable hours through restricted use of these roads.

https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/london-lorry-control

The above link is to the mapping and information for this; in summary:

The map shows a Yellow shaded area: London-wide night-time and weekend Lorry Controls area (all roads outside this area have NO night-time and weekend controls)

Roads which are exempt:

? motorway with junction number

? primary road

? ?A? road

? ?B?/ other road

To the best of my knowledge Chesterfield Grove is within the control area.

Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Road as A roads are exempt

So this means that any lorries on Chesterfield Grove which weigh more than 18 tonnes are already in violation of the scheme. It may be that the lorries are lighter than this, in which case they would not fall foul of the LLCS.

It is possible to put in local restrictions on lighter vehicles. However this would mean that residents on Chesterfield Groce would not be able to receive deliveries from a lorry (online shopping etc) which I suspect would be fairly unpopular!

I hope that this is helpful

Best wishes

James

[El Presidente]

What about the number 40 bus? Unanimous opposition on this forum yet silence from Councillors.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

This! I hope you are listening to us and intervening on our behalf to ensure that the 40 bus route doesn?t change.

El Presidente Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What about the number 40 bus? Unanimous opposition

> on this forum yet silence from Councillors.

[Hawley]

jamesmcash Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi all

>

> Abe_froeman - re the building on CPR, I am fairly

> sure that this is private property and therefore

> the works will be privately funded.

>

Good luck with that.

[jamesmcash]

Hi ElPresidente and DulwichBorn&Bred

Yes indeed, I have been paying very carefully attention to the views expressed on here and elsewhere, and I have discussed it with my colleagues.

The Southwark Labour Group, which comprises the 49 Labour Councillors in Southwark, opposes these cuts to bus services, including the rerouting of the 40. The Council has submitted a consultation response to this effect.

This will be discussed at the next Council Assembly and I will be asking the relevant Southwark Cabinet member about what the Council is doing locally on this issue, in particular with regard to the number 40.

Best wishes

James

[bels123]

.

[jamesmcash]

Hi bels

I responded to your query a couple of weeks ago. I'll repost it here.

In addition I am also liaising with a group of residents who are making a note of the arrival times of the lorries in the morning to see if this is in violation of the planning conditions.

Best wishes

James

jamesmcash Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi bels123

>

> I?ve looked into the London Lorry Control Scheme

> for you.

>

> The LLCS controls the movement of heavy goods

> vehicles over 18 tonnes maximum gross weight, at

> night and at weekends on specific roads on

> London?s road network. The scheme has been in

> place since 1985 under the Greater London

> (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1985

> and is enforced utilising the London Local

> Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. The

> scheme is in place to help minimise noise

> pollution in residential areas during unsociable

> hours through restricted use of these roads.

> https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/london-

> lorry-control

>

> The above link is to the mapping and information

> for this; in summary:

> The map shows a Yellow shaded area: London-wide

> night-time and weekend Lorry Controls area (all

> roads outside this area have NO night-time and

> weekend controls)

> Roads which are exempt:

> ? motorway with junction number

> ? primary road

> ? ?A? road

> ? ?B?/ other road

>

> To the best of my knowledge Chesterfield Grove is

> within the control area.

> Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Road as A roads are

> exempt

>

> So this means that any lorries on Chesterfield

> Grove which weigh more than 18 tonnes are already

> in violation of the scheme. It may be that the

> lorries are lighter than this, in which case they

> would not fall foul of the LLCS.

>

> It is possible to put in local restrictions on

> lighter vehicles. However this would mean that

> residents on Chesterfield Groce would not be able

> to receive deliveries from a lorry (online

> shopping etc) which I suspect would be fairly

> unpopular!

>

> I hope that this is helpful

>

> Best wishes

> James

[THX1138]

Can a serious council notice of abandon vehicle have unofficial scribble at the top of the note, No Reference number, no location, no proper signature & inaccurate information regarding number plate?

Our vehicle had this kind of notice. We had to claim ownership (number plate of taxed & moted vehicle is present)but apparently we are not able to speak to anyone in the right department and our e-mails are not being answered to. The notice was 7 days and after...we don't know.

Many thanks

[Jakido]

James

Given the recent car crash into the front of Harris Primary school I wondered whether the labour councillors had any view of road safety measures to protect school children. For example, a safe crossing, or a lollipop person. It would be great to understand if you are, or plan to, make any effort in this regard.

Many thanks

[pecksniff]

Hi James

Both myself and another forumite have raised a similar issue and hoping that you can assist. Do you know whether there are any plans to introduce a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to restrict parking on Jarvis Road once the new Charter ED school is open.

Regards

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

THX1138 - are you the same person who contacted me about this issue by email? If not, can you please email me with more details and a photo and I will look into it.

Jakido - I have been working with the school?s headteacher and one of the school governors on this matter for some time. The crash over the weekend only confirms for me what I already knew - that we need to improve road safety measures around the school. There?s a number of different options. Some are more complex than others but I think it?s vital that we get the issue right.

Pecksniff -let me look into this for you.

Best wishes

James

[singalto]

With regards to the crash I can?t see how you can make anywhere totally safe from accidents. How that car got where it didis a mystery. There isa crossing very near the school so see no need for another crossing. The children go into school at the back where the real danger comes from the parents themselves who park all over the place.

[Jakido]

That?s good to hear James; if you need any help please let me know.

[worldwiser]

I put it to you that the real danger is caused by having unrestricted traffic flow from LL into and from Whateley Rd. The crossing you mention only gets you from one side of LL to the other, leaving one more street to cross.

I agree, where possible, parents should try and avoid driving and the school does discourage the practice. There is also a traffic warden present most mornings. But since every other school in the area has either Lollipop patrols or pedestrian crossings to or near their entrance, it doesn't seem at all inappropriate to expect this here too.

[Sue]

Jakido Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> James

>

> Given the recent car crash into the front of

> Harris Primary school I wondered whether the

> labour councillors had any view of road safety

> measures to protect school children. For example,

> a safe crossing, or a lollipop person. It would be

> great to understand if you are, or plan to, make

> any effort in this regard.

>

> Many thanks

Given the description of the accident by somebody who arrived on the scene very shortly afterwards, which is now on this thread:

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1992300

I'm not sure that either a lollipop person or any kind of crossing would have prevented it?

It was very lucky that it happened in the early hours when nobody was standing near the bus stop.

[Jakido]

As noted above, the main problem is the lordship lane whateley road junction.

[ed26]

Not sure if this should be listed as a new thread or on this "councillors" thread, but it would be great if a councillor could acknowledge that it has been seen.

The following thread details a few incidents that have taken place in Goose Green playground due to the slippy green matting around some of the play equipment:

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1982352

Today, I saw three people slip over on the matting (2 young kids and 1 adult). No one was seriously hurt this time but the problem is that the matting looks like it is non-slip and gives people a false sense of security. I don't know if it's just growing algae and needs jetwashing, or whether it's completely unfit for purpose and needs replacing, but someone else is going to break a bone before long.

I'm pleased to see that the playground is maintained regularly - the seesaw disappeared and has returned after maintenance, the arbor has been rebuilt, the rope bridge was repaired quickly and I hope that the low bridge will return soon too. But there's nowhere obvious on the Southwark website to report this problem, so I would be very grateful if this can be brought to the attention of the relevant people.

[jamesmcash]

Hi Ed26

Thanks for raising this on here. This is definitely the best place to make sure I see it, alongside email.

The original poster of the thread above also contacted me and I'm looking into what can be done about the issue.

Best wishes, and happy new year

James

[ed26]

Thanks for acknowledging :-)

[goldilocks]

Hi James - wonder if you can provide insight to something for me please.

I'm delighted to see that Southwark is having a week starting on Monday 21st January whereby they're promoting kids getting to school walking or scooting. What I'm less delighted about is that cycling is specifically excluded from this initiative. My kids school is doing this and my children will understandably want to take part. We cycle to school so are now faced with having to walk instead which will substantially increase our journey time.

It seems particularly short sighted in that where kids do live further from school, the chance of them being driven or getting a bus is probably higher and cycling would get past the barrier of the distance.

Surely the thing here is to promote 'active travel' rather than just walking or scooting? Could the initiative be extended via info to the schools that cycling time could be included?

[singalto]

Goldilocks, surely ?promoting? doesn?t mean compulsory, surely.

[goldilocks]

I have a 5 year old. 5 year olds love to get involved in initiatives at school. They're conformists and don't want to be different.

Schools are getting behind this and tracking the time they spend walking or scooting only each day to get to school.

Yes, I can tell her we're not doing it - then every day whilst they're talking about this at school she has to not participate.

Or - I can switch how we get to school, making the school run longer and more painful for all of us - especially on the way home when they're tired.

I think that my main point is that there is no reason to exclude cycling, running, unicycle if you want.... just active travel is what should be promoted with the idea that travelling under your own power is good for us and our environment.

[jamesmcash]

Hi Goldilocks

I agree that cycling should be equally promoted as a form of active travel. Let me look into this for you and see what I can do.

Best wishes

James