former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[alex_b]

James. There is a thread (http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1809847) on the dangerous state of the toddler play structure in Goose Green playground. Could you raise this with officers please?

Also what is going on with the council's website, the new 'stylish' design makes it almost impossible to find useful information if it isn't in the top five things the website designer thought I'd want to look for. For instance, I cannot for the life of me find a contact email (or webform) for the parks team to report the damaged play equipment.

[MarkT]

James,

The parks maintenance team have been alerted on this,

MarkT

[James Barber]

Hi alex_b,

I'll check out that thread in a moment.

One of my past roles was as a Human Computer Interface expert - loved it. Yes, the 'new' council website - aimed to make it more mobile friendly - makes the desktop, ipad type user experience much worse. Real retrograde step. I've also found my mobile use of the website much poorer.

I've tried raising this and effectively had a King's clothes conversation. Sorry.

[alex_b]

Thanks for trying James. It's really not a great website and has followed the general UK.gov approach of making very basic information easier to find and ensuring detailed information is impossible to access.

[worldwiser]

[email protected]

[James Barber]

Hi world wiser,

I reported it that morning directly. Thanks though.

[James Barber]

Hi ianr,

They have and are being installed in properties owned by the people living there, tenants of council properties, tenants of private properties. So no, the beneficiaries are not all relatively well-off. I would suggest the reduction in crime benefit us all - as residents and as tax payers.

The cost. Yes bike anchors can be bought for ?50. The ones we're providing are really solid and go 30cm down. See attached schematic. We're providing for a concrete solid base 45cm deep etc to be built for the anchors to be attached onto that can't be budged. Most paving is not sufficiently deep to attach a proper anchors to.

ianr Wrote:

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

> Since it's only property owners who can give

> permisison for the installation of a motor cycle

> anchor, isn't this ?500 going just to those who

> are relatively most well-off? The anchors I've

> seen advertised on the web seem to be in the ?50

> region. What exactly is done for the additional

> ?450?

[first mate]

James,

I see from your article in SE22 magazine that M&S have now applied for 6 am deliveries. The reason, you say, is because they have finally admitted that not even their smallest delivery vehicles can negotiate the delivery yard, so they have to deliver to the front.

1. As I recall, delivery times were a clear condition of planning permission being given for the huge M&S/ flat build.

2. Residents repeatedly said that the massively increased footprint of the M&S building meant the delivery yard would be too small for delivery vehicles, yet we were shown numerous fancy computer generated models telling us we were imagining things.

Could we somehow extrapolate an explanation for the above farce from both M&S and Planning who seemed to have colluded in a massive lie in order to get the application through. They must be held to account.

On a separate note I see CGS funds to ?15,000 are to be used to 'normalise' Melbourne/ Chesterfield junction. Did you make this decision and, if so, on whose behalf?

What exactly does it mean and where was the idea first generated and why? It's a lot of money. Personally I'd rather see those funds spent on 'normalising' the pavement around here. It is uneven and a massive trip hazard. Large areas also collect and hold detritus and rain water/ deep puddles. Fixing that would help everyone not a select few whose shutting off streets agenda will be helped along nicely by this 'normalisation' idea.

[eddeal1]

good work James keep it up.where are all the other councilors ?????

[lpool]

Not an East Dulwich issue but a Southwark one. Contesting a parking ticket for being in a permit zone. Despite me telling the parking people their signage failed to comply with the DfT guidance in terms of where to position signs to avoid error, they chose to ignore this so I now have no option but to go through a full appeal process to show Southwark is non compliant. I did point out this would involve a waste of council tax payer money but they weren't interested. Is there a head of parking or transport at the council that is able to deal with these types of issues?

[eddeal1]

MR Barber could you please look at-- {knife crime in dulwich and muggings} on EDF could do with your input.kind regards and good luck.

-

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

Yes, to your first two points.

We're fighting to avoid this earlier deliveries.

CGS ?15,000. Over the years we had numerous complaints from Chesterfield Grove residents about Iceland lorries. The fact at the moment M&S are stating they're not accessing their site via this junction doesn't preclude this n the future. So we want to block this delivery route for 18 wheelers once and for. Hence the proposal.

So the current junction is designed to allow 18 wheeler lorries to turn left from Melbourne Grove and access what is now the M&S shop. A normal junction would not have such a huge curve - swept path - to allow such long lorries.

Fixing the pavement - Ill log that on our list for our devolved highways budget. Thanks for raising.

Hi eddeal1,

I don't think that's terribly fair. Cllr Rosie Shimell covers our face to face surgeries - I have kids so covering more online activities works better for my circumstances Especially considering work and family commitments.

Hi ipool,

if you email me the details and ideally a picture of two to support your appeal I'll raise with the head of parking. Often the ticket, where compelling case, is then cancelled. As you highlight that saves lots of time and money for both parties. Best email to read me is [email protected]

[first mate]

Hi James,

Good to know our local Councillor will seek to block M&S and Planning reneging on a very clear and hard negotiated condition re the M&S application and operating hours. Didn't take them long to go back on the agreement though did it? Illustrates perfectly the cynical way large organisations seek to manipulate the planning system entirely to their own advantage, ignoring the wellbeing of local residents and holding planning over a barrel as they do so.

On the use of ?15,000 to block Iceland lorries. I have not, as you say, brought this to your attention, I read about it in your article in SE22 magazine.

Will the proposals for normalisation of this junction reduce parking? If so, not a great idea- there is already too much parking pressure on these streets. It is also my understanding that it was already agreed that M&S will not use Chesterfield to access the servuce entrance; why would they if the service entrance is too small for umloading? That is not going to change unless you are party to some new information we are unaware of?

M&S will continue to deliver to the front of the shop. The issue is whether they should be allowed to do so an hour earlier than was a clear condition of agreeing the planning application.

Don't think normalisation of the Chestefield/Melbourne junction should be conflated with the M&S issue. It might be politically expedient but is misleading.

As stated, I would prefer the ?15,000 normalisation funds be reallocated to mending the pavements on Chesterfield and Melbourne...a much more useful way to spend that money.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

Normalising the junction should result in a longer kerb line and therefore more parking - but this will be very marginal amount compared to a near perfect quarter circle kerb line we currently have.

Fixing pavements. We have a separate highway renewal devolved budget for that.

[first mate]

Great James, glad to see you state parking will be slightly increased by the normalisation of the junction but can you confirm normalisation will NOT change the junction in such a way that greater lengths of yellow lines will then be applied, in effect actually reducing parking overall?

You say there are other allocated funds available for fixing pavements. In that case how much money is available to fix and renew the paving on Chesterfield and Melbourne and could you give dates for start and completion? Is it as much as ?15,000?

Please note this is a request for proper paving, not the current trend for digging out the old paving and then shoving down a load of tarmac, which soon cracks and disintegrates and is unsightly.

Great efforts were made to improve the paving around the entrance and opposite side of road to M&S...It would be great if council funds could be also be used to improve residential streets close by.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

I can't guarantee anything while an opposition councillor. I'm currently fighting the reduction by one car parking space Worlingham Street due to a raise entry treatment - there we are reducing speeds but officers want to increase sight lines for no discernible reason.

But what i do feel comfortable committing is that there will be more kerb line for parking there.

[Abe_froeman]

James , please can you provide details of where (1) the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group application for CGS funding and supporting documents can be found, (2) the details of any consultations in relation to that application can be found, and (3) any other documents relating to the approval of that application by Southwark?

Your answers seem inconsistent on what the redesigning of the junction is about. Initially it was because there was too much speeding in Melbourne Grove, now it is to stop lorries turning there. I think it would be very disingenuous of the council to do the latter on the basis of money applied for to prevent the former, but presumably all the above documentation would show this is NOT what is going on.

Posted by James Barber March 26, 11:13AM

Hi bels123,

Sure. It is expected to use this to normalise the junction of Chesterfield grove with Melbourne Grove. Currently it is designed to maximise speeding.

Posted by James Barber March 31, 02:48PM

Hi P68,

The problem is speeding. But you raised the risk of CPZ. I responded to you and then you asked whether the problem was speeding or parking.

For clarity the problem reported on Melbourne Grove (south) is speeding by a large group of residents.

Neighbouring street report parking as a problem - I used to get complaints from those neighbouring street about speeding but installed speed humps and now I just get complaints from those streets about lack of parking.

Posted by James Barber Yesterday, 02:13PM

"CGS ?15,000. Over the years we had numerous complaints from Chesterfield Grove residents about Iceland lorries.... So we want to block this delivery route for 18 wheelers once and for. Hence the proposal.!

Posted by James Barber Yesterday, 02:13PM

So the current junction is designed to allow 18 wheeler lorries to turn left from Melbourne Grove and access what is now the M&S shop. A normal junction would not have such a huge curve - swept path - to allow such long lorries.

[James Barber]

Hi Abe-Froeman,

Every time I type something on this forum I don't write a treatise with all possible bits of related info.

The Melbourne Grove (south) people haven't asked for this junction to be changed.

But we have had two past CGS applications to do this and with M&S confirming in writing they're no longer using this route seems a great chance to act along with the Melbourne Grove (south) changes. One Traffic Management Order will save money to implement physical changes rather than advertising in local newspapers.

If we're able to proceed it should make the junction slower - wide arcs allow greater speeds so reducing this should slow things down a little, give a little more kerb space for parking, make a much shorter distance for people walking to cross..

[Abe_froeman]

So the changes to the junction of Chesterfield Grove and Melbourne Grove are to be instigated entirely on the initiative of Southwark Council, and not at the behest of the MGTAC?

Will the changes to the junction be financed through CGS money and if so which applicant was that money awarded to?

Are the works on that junction part of " Project 694030 Traffic Calming Melbourne Grove (south) ?15,000"?

[Abe_froeman]

It would also help if the documents relating to Project 694030 were available to the public. I can't find them anywhere on Southwark's website.

[first mate]

Hi James,

Increasingly confused by your answers.

1. The issue about speeding is contentious, and not everyone agrees there is a serious speeding issue on this junction, so not really a reason to spend 15,000.

2. As you say, M&S are no longer using this route for deliveries and won't ever unless they knock part of their building down to create a larger delivery area. So no reason to spend 15,000 on blocking their lorries.

3. You cannot say for sure that there will be a tiny improvement in parking, so hardly a reason to spend ?15,000.

What is the real reason to spend all this money on changes to the junction?

[rch]

I've attached a drawing of the proposed works from the 2009 roadworks consultation (which I received as a resident, NOT as a councillor), when the Chesterfield build-out was voted against.

My memory is that at least one or two parking spaces would be lost, which is why is was voted against at the time.

Bear in mind that there would have to be at least one dropped kerb at the crossing point, as there currently is in the bend, and that this would lose parking because of the 90 degree angle, so the drawing is a bit misleading as it doesn't show any dropped kerbs. Under current legislation, there may even have to be a second dropped kerb to provide a crossing point across Melbourne in addition to Chesterfield... but I would need to discuss this with an engineer.

The original reason for this build out proposal by highway engineers was to make the crossing safer for pedestrians, particularly parents with young children and disabled people. It was never intended as a speed calming measure as there are no speeding issues there. It would have been very cost-effective to implement this as part of the road resurfacing project, but democracy prevailed and it was dropped.

It would also prevent larger lorries cutting from Melbourne into Chesterfield and vice versa. The width of the build-out would be determined by the turning ratio of the council rubbish collection lorries, which means that smaller delivery lorries would still be able to use the turning.

As a pedestrian who doesn't drive, I would LOVE to see this build-out implemented, as this crossing is extremely dangerous due to the difficulty of pedestrians and drivers seeing each other behind the parked cars on the bend - it's one of the most frequently complained about aspects of the Melbourne Grove layout among neighbours. Also, during the door knocking exercises on our own 300 signature petition, many residents on Chesterfield mentioned the build-out again saying that if they had been consulted back in 2009 then they would have voted for it.

HOWEVER I am also aware that, now in 2017, residents will object to any loss of parking again... so the REASON WHY I keep asking an engineer to meet on site with me is to ascertain how many parking spaces would be definitely lost and if a crossing point could be provided by a pedestrian island instead, while retaining all the current parking spaces.

The right hand and the left hand aren't communicating. James, I tried to explain all this to you when we walked home together, but I don't think you processed what I was trying to say.

Also, be aware that the Melbourne Grove speed hump consultation has now been mailed out to residents, but the Chesterfield build-out is not on it.

The hump consultation is another nightmare, but I'll address that separately. There are so many logistical problems with the layout on Melbourne Grove that the speed humps won't even begin to address.

[Siduhe]

I've just taken a quick look at the documents filed by the developer/M&S regarding deliveries - I am not directly affected but the approach the developer is now taking is outrageous in my view. If I was a local resident I would be incandescent - not just at the early morning deliveries that are being proposed but at how this has all come about.

This is what the application letter says regarding deliveries:

Servicing

It was originally envisaged that the M&S store would be entirely serviced from the service area to the rear of the store using smaller delivery vehicles than M&S' standard delivery fleet to manoeuvre in the service area. However, when M&S opened for trading, it was clear that these smaller vehicles could not enter the service area in forward gear, turn around within the service area and exit from the site in forward gear. M&S has therefore been delivering all goods to the loading bay at the front of the store to overcome this issue. It is this arrangement which M&S seeks to continue.

Planning Permission 14/ 0280 contained 2 conditions relating to servicing. Condition 3 required details of the delivery servicing arrangements to be submitted to and approved by the LPA and included provisions for subsequent review of these arrangements. Condition 15 prevented servicing in connection with the retail unit taking place outside the hours of 0700 - 2200 Monday - Friday, 0800-2100 on Saturday and 1000-1800 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

The developer applied to discharge the first part of Condition 3 (3a) in July 2015 and this was granted on 31 May 2016 (ref: 15/ AP /2896). These details related to deliveries through the service area to the rear of the store.

The permission granted on appeal under which the development was completed and under which the store now trades (ref: 15/ AP/ 1186) contains only one condition relating to servicing with this dealing with permitted hours of servicing and replicates the hours set out in Condition 15 of 14/ AP/ 0280 described above.

The developer then attaches various documents including a noise assessment report showing that there should be no adverse impact on local residents by this extended servicing period.

Pausing here, I posted a while back about the delivery conditions which M&S had signed up to. It took me ages to find the conditions (see http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1667695,1724082#msg-1724082) but they were very clear about deliveries having to be made off Chesterfield Grove at the rear of the store.

Now it's being said by M&S this part of the delivery conditions were done away with. For some reason the reference given isn't working for me. It seems a bit odd if this was done without any consultation - James, any chance you could clarify or find out on what basis this first change of delivery conditions was approved?

But if we take what is said in the Developer/M&S letter as correct - that all which needs to be applied for is a change to delivery hours - then I've got two questions:

1. What steps can be take to claw back the significant cost and expense to Southwark Council in dealing with a planning application that was done on a clearly incorrect and unsustainable basis (as pointed out by many residents at the time). The developer pushed the revised application through with threats of litigation if Southwark declined the application based on delivery issues, saying that it was clear that deliveries could take place at the rear servicing area because it had always been done this way. They have maximised their profit at the council and the residents' expense and with what seems to be no real expectation that deliveries would be done in accordance with planning. It would be nice to see some of that money wasted by Southwark being repaid.

2. Given how incorrect the developer's expert reports on servicing have proved to be to date, why on earth should anyone think the noise assessment is of any better quality or any less self-serving?

[Siduhe]

So I've got the application reference working - the documents are here:

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9561557

What seems to have happened is that the Developer applied to lift the servicing conditions entirely, on the basis of certain delivery agreements by M&S and a noise assessment. Southwark agreed to do this without (at least on the wording of the Officer's report) appreciating that would lift the condition about delivering to the rear of the site. The Officer's report continues to operate and reaches her conclusions on the basis that all deliveries would take continue to place at the rear of the site. There was no consultation of any neighbours or interested parties who might have pointed this issue out to the Council.

[Abe_froeman]

What a shambles