former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[Pugwash]

With regard to my previous posts re mini census, my acquaintance who initially alerted me re this informed me today that another mutual acquaintance who lives in Peckham is also being harassed re completing this form. The person in question has learning difficulties and is a vulnerable adult (having been financially abused in the past)and not only received several letters in the post but has been visited 3 times by people asking why the form has not been returned. Our acquaintance has limited reading ability and all his financial and correspondence is dealt with by a relative.

If the form filling is voluntary why are they chasing up people in their own homes?

[Jacqui5254]

I wonder if the 'visitors' are on some sort of bonus scheme...the one who knocked on my door said she had visited twice and was very persistent...

[James Barber]

Hi pugwash,

Please offer my help to your acquaintance, I would be happy to help them resolve this.

[Abe_froeman]

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

[bargee99]

How about a mini roundabout at the Chesterfield Rd/ Melbourne Grove junction. It could act as a pedestrian refuge if designed to be so, stop large lorries turning and make traffic stop thus slowing it down as seems to be desired. And it's cheap or it could be if the powers wanted it.

[James Barber]

Hi Abe_Froeman,

You can see minutes of Dulwich Community Council meeting here - http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=176

The delivery condition is about time. It doesn't specify any route and M&S have stated in writing that they can't use the delivery yard for deliveries.

Hi bargee99,

Roundaobut are notorious for being more dangerous for pedestrian and people cycling. In fact I was knocked of at a mini roundabout two weeks ago. I was lucky not to be more seriously injured and unlucky the driver 'didn't see you' in the first place. They admitted guilt, two witnesses, Police have decided not to take it any further.

I can't recall the source so take this with a pinch o doubt - but I recall reading roundabouts 14 x more dangerous on average that traffic lights. I'm not proposing traffic lights before some says I am!

[HelBel65]

I completed the census online with the code that arrived with the letter, and have since received at least 2 letters nagging me to do it.

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> It's a test for the new online census to see how

> the new online system works in practice and what

> problems people have filling it in.

>

>

> 060679155507203

>

> https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/news/testingforthe2021

> census

>

> We got one with a cover letter that gives a number

> to call if you have concerns.

[bargee99]

Thanks for your reply James.

Sorry to hear about you being injured after being knocked off your bike at a mini roundabout. It seemed a good idea to me but people obviously aren't taking proper notice of them if they are that more dangerous. I must admit to seeing deplorable behaviour at full size roundabouts.

I do come to almost a full stop to get through the width restrictions on Hunts Slip Road by the college but people will still need delivery vans and removal lorries so that can't really work on residential streets.

[Abe_froeman]

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?

[James Barber]

Hi Abe_froeman,

Hmmm. Should be there somewhere in minutes. I'm sorry I wont be able to make the time to search through them.

Delivery conditions. M&S are ignoring this condition have mistakenly screwed up their service yard somehow. Apparently rubbish trucks are collecting from it before 5am.

[first mate]

James, what further actions will you be taking as local rep to ensure M&S adhere to planning conditions?

Edited to say meant servicing conditions re time of delivery etc...

[first mate]

Abe, you may need to request that info under FOI, seems like it is being very well hidden or does not exist.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

I have and will continue to keeping raising such problems with Planning Enforcement.

I hope it doesn't reach state where we need to consider legal direct action to get M&S to listen and act in a civilised way.

[rch]

Abe, you can see the confirmation of the ?15,000 CGS allocation, which appears to have been directed to the Chesterfield buildout, made at the March 25 DCC meeting here:-

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?AIId=43733

If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you can see the link to all the applications here:-

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s67386/Appendix%201%20Dulwich%20Community%20Council%20Cleaner%20Greener%20Safer%20Capital%20programme%202017-18%20Applications.pdf

I was at the DCC meeting and some of my own applications, which were refused, are listed on the PDF so I have been able to triangulate part of what's happening as I have quite a lot of background on this, but I probably won't have time to type until over the weekend.

But you can see that there are two "Traffic Calm Melbourne Grove (south)" applications, one for Village ward (200099) and one for East Dulwich ward (694030). I'm assuming that this is because Melbourne Grove splits the ward down the middle, so the Village award pays for the humps (?) and the ED one is allocated to pay for the Chesterfield buildout (?). I'm assuming that both were submitted by the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group by residents who live across the street from each other. FYI, I submitted a CGS bid last year to have both the Chesterfield and the Ashbourne junctions assessed on behalf of the signatories of the 300-signature petition, as these are the two locations that are having noted accidents due to visibility issues, but it was refused (long explanation, I have the paperwork so I can explain).

At the moment, only the humps are being consulted on, letters went out to Melbourne residents a couple of weeks ago, the Chesterfield consultation hasn't been processed yet, so this will take a while, which is why I'm trying to speak to someone...

I also want to address some of the misleading comments that have been made about me - special thanks to those to defended me - but I'll also need to do this in bits and pieces as my life is complicated at the moment.

[Abe_froeman]

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 Barber]

Hi Abe_fromean,

the actual CGS applications contain lots of personal details from the applicants. So you would get a redacted version.

The actual content is broadly in the minutes of DCC meetings.

What do you actually want?

Residents applied for CGS funds to solve what they perceive to be speeding and traffic issues on Melbourne Grove south). We funded a study and then we've funded the option for sinusoidal humps - the kinds we've previously funded on Ashbourne, Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove (north). These costs are shared between East Dulwich and Village wards.

We had other options to consider as councillors from that study but actually are seeking to fix the East dulwich side where Chesterfield meets Melbourne Grove. We've had several CGS applications to do this over the years but with M&S not using this route we now have opportunity to do this. Counci officials are checking what this would look like and cost for us to consider as ward councillors but we've allocated ?15,000 for now.

If you'd like to walk the route with the report I'd be happy to do this with you or anyone else this Sunday am.

[Abe_froeman]

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 !

[rch]

As you can see, Abe, the problem is that councillors can pick and choose which CGS applications they fund. And if they take on a project themselves, then certain pro-active residents are cut out of the loop. If my applications had been approved then I would be able to liaise directly with the highway engineers on how to solve the problems (including pavements). But, instead, applicants with a 150 signature petition have been repeatedly chosen for speed calming measures over applicants with a 300 signature petition asking for other ongoing issues to be addressed.

So, I'm now trying to circumvent obstacles on progressing tree issues, pavements, road issues and other aspects of the community that I've lived in for decades and care about.

In Dulwich and Herne Hill, there are specifically non-political community amenity groups that are noted by the council as stakeholders, which can apply for funding and speak out, but East Dulwich has disintegrated. In fact, both The Dulwich Society and the Herne Hill Society have planning committees which are given opportunities to make direct representations to planning officers and other council depts... I actually sit on the Dulwich Society planning committee, but it hasn't taken on issues in East Dulwich yet.

Some of the work I've been trying to progress behind the scenes is to get an ad hoc East Dulwich committee together (I was actually talking to Laurence Roullier White about leading on this before he sadly passed away), as The Dulwich Society has had all the old East Dulwich Society assets folded into it, but East Dulwich is just too fragmented and the political obstacles are too obstructive.

This is what I'm trying to sidestep...

[nxjen]

Perhaps it might be an idea to start a new thread regarding setting up a New East Dulwich Society so that those who would like to become involved in the setting up of such a society can contribute. For it to be effective it needs to be more than an ad hoc East Dulwich Committee and properly constituted. It has been said a few times on the forum that East Dulwich is in need of such a society.

[James Barber]

Hi Abe_FRoeman,

No, the Melbourne Grove (south) people applied for funding to fix speeding/traffic issues. They install suggested that might be humps. It then got confused when someone suggested closing the road. We agree to fund a stud initially to give options. Of those options we've agreed to fund speed bumps and added an option, recalling past CGS applications, for Chesterfield Grove to be normalised if it can be.

If this isn't clear please PKM me and perhaps we can take over the hone or meet up over the weaken. as clearly ping ponging via the forum isn't working.

hi rich,

The whole point of devolved funding to ward councillors is that we do pick and choose.e I'm sorry we don't always fund your proposals - but we often do. You will have picked and chosen when you were a councillor!

Hi nxjen,

The East Dulwich Society has been formally folded with the remaining funds and members transferring over to the Dulwich Society. The Dulwich Society has a good proportion who live in East Dulwich. For a number of years the Dulwich Society had more members than the East Dulwich Society. The Dulwich Society has good active sub committees which I'm expecting to cover our patch as well as they cover Dulwich Village and the surrounds.

[rch]

The difference is that some councillors allocate devolved funding in ways that actually benefit the community...

[Abe_froeman]

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.

[nxjen]

There is a different dynamic between Dulwich Village and East Dulwich, not the least the overwhelming presence of the Dulwich Estate in the Village. The history and character of East Dulwich differs considerably to that of Dulwich Village. There have been a few queries on the EDF regarding the East Dulwich Society from those interested in participating but the organisation seemed to lapse some time ago and no information was forthcoming. Now it is has been subsumed into the Dulwich Society when I think there is a case for a newly formed and re-invigorated East Dulwich Society. It's just a thought really, I appreciate it requires people, energy and commitment to make it happen which may not be forthcoming.

[bargee99]

Shouldn't we put a freeze on putting in road humps in light of the study that they greatly increase pollution from vehicles. It may soon be government policy to instruct all boroughs to remove them and we will look silly having put them in after the report was made public.

[rch]

Yes, Abe, you've hit the nail on the head.

The Chesterfield project came from a CGS proposal that I made a year ago (to rework the proposal that was voted against in 2009), which was refused, and now James has picked it up and is organising it himself. So, although I would have done it differently, now I'm powerless. There are several situations that are evolving like this, it's so frustrating. But this is how the democratic system works...

nxjen - I totally agree with you, which is why I've been working through the Dulwich Society to address ED issues (as I live here and not in the Village). But I am finding that setting up an East Dulwich Society is going to be difficult because people have genuinely lost heart.

bargee - I doubt if anything will freeze the road humps now... residents are convinced that they will change the road and councillors are committed to them.