former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[James Barber]

Hi edhistory,

The officers were from planning enforcement - but kindly have taken away a list of a frames placed incorrectly. We also noted some pavement on private land that we need fixed.

[siousxiesue]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi edhistory,

> The officers were from planning enforcement - but

> kindly have taken away a list of a frames placed

> incorrectly. We also noted some pavement on

> private land that we need fixed.

The appalling pavement outside the big St Christopher's shop in LL is dangerous, I'm able bodied and not older and I still have issues with it!

But I'm assuming resistance to repairs from the actual organisation because it's a charity? Not sure how it works?

[James Barber]

Hi siuosxiesue,

That's the prime spot we noted to get fixed. It is private land but I can't imagine a charity so we will consider using some of our devolved funds to solve this.

[Abe_froeman]

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?

[James Barber]

Hi Abe_froeman,

IF the council funded fixing that pavement the landlord would be handing over a permanent right of way. That is a good thing.

[Abe_froeman]

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.

[edhistory]

That was not the law when I looked into this matter in 2015 for a near neighbour.

Laws change.

Mr Barber will be able to answer your questions after the election.

[James Barber]

Hi Abe-fromena,

No. What the council has done and can do is obtain permission from landowners to renew private pavements. But the quid pro quo is the council requires a written agreement that the land will remain accessible to the general public.

So in this case either the charity or the freeholder will be required to renew and make safe their pavement or the council would do it after obtaining a signed document confirming public access.

[esme]

Various loose paving stones on North Cross Rd (never quite the same after a burst pipe a few years ago!), I'm sure there will be trip hazards as long as your arm if you go right up and down Lordship Lane too!

On a more minor note, would be great if SMB could stop parking their van to load/unload on Saturdays as it is a pain for people trying to use the narrow pavement outside their shop, just before you get to St Christopher's uneven paving...

[James Barber]

Hi esme,

Certainly the Lordship Lane paving. I've walked the lane with officer and they're preparing a schedule of things that need fixing based on our audit.

I'll make a point on Saturday of walking NCR hunting for more issues.

SMB. Anyone can park there.

Generically do you think such sections we need to make the pavement wider?

Several other parts of Lordship Lane where the private pavement is used and footfall seems such that the pavements can't cope?

[first mate]

Please don't make the pavement wider, that really will bring traffic to a standstill.

Why not simply find the money and means to fix the pavement, where there is a will etc..

Please note the pavement on Chesterfield is appalling in places and makes life impossible for elderly and disabled. Sections fill up with water when it rains because it is so uneven. It would not even require too much new paving, simply levelling pavement and re- laying.

[worldwiser]

I've complained to the council twice about some sections of Crawthew Grove's pavements due to repeated digging and relaying by contractors over the years. It's been so long since it was repaved that the council can't even tell me when it was last done. I see local roads being repaved all the time unnecessarily and yet ours is always overlooked.

[James Barber]

Hi worldwiser,

Can you show me on Saturday morning please?

[rch]

Okay, will try yet again to progress the pavement issues, as I, too, am tired of walking down broken, ponding pavements lined with dead tree stumps in the community that I love.

But first, James, I would like to address a misleading comment that you made about me earlier (and special thanks to those of you who defended me)... "Robin I really don't think council officers would would chance their jobs doing personal favours for you by prioritising your past ward roads and pavements."

Nobody was doing me any personal favours, James... as I have stated repeatedly, I am a highways geek - I love the technical and protocol aspects so much that I was briefed and trained at a high level at my request by council officers (who eventually agreed because it was easier than replying to my zillions of councillor queries), whereupon I could then identify errors in the council assessments and calculations, thereby lobby for roads in the south of the borough to be given higher priority based on the council's own assessments, as well as prevent costly mistakes from being made on the ground.

So, although you state that "need is now factored with interventions to stop roads getting much worse", it's possible to circumvent this tactic if you know HOW "need" is factored, in order to demonstrate that it's actually more cost effective to address "need" by a complete resurfacing.

I actually got four shopping parades (including the private curtilages) totally reinstated and resurfaced in Village ward in the 8 years that I was a councillor by querying the assessments, and working closely with community amenity societies (such as The Dulwich Society, the Herne Hill Society, and the Herne Hill Forum) on raising both internal and external funding.

It's a slow and frustrating process, but it CAN be done. The first step is not to be fobbed off by the patching repair survey routine with council officers - there are some roads, like Lordship and Chesterfield (more on this later) that absolutely should be completely resurfaced from scratch (and were earmarked for this, but dropped off the radar).

This is the reason WHY I put in the recent CGS bid to address Lordship Lane, section by section if necessary... but I'm not sure from your earlier comments, James, why my bid was refused.

If nothing else, the next section down (or north) from the corner of North Cross and Lordship would include the area in front of St Christopher's, where you are now saying that you want replace the curtilage with devolved (CGS?) funds.

But it would be better if the public pavement could be replaced with the same quality granite that was used for the Londis to Sogim public pavement section (although a different material could be used for curtilages, if this renewal was agreed with landlords, so that we could have some visual continuity. Then the private curtilage could be done in tandem if the landlord agrees (most landlords won't agree to lose control, so we ended up doing this with match funding instead).

Doing repeated repairs in patches is expensive and creates other knock-on problems. This is why I'm trying to circumvent all the obstacles and agree a unified vision for the entire run of Lordship Lane, which will almost certainly have to be done in segments due to the length of the road.

[rch]

Two more background points about Lordship...

1) The reason WHY Lordship is such a mess is because the pavement resurfacing done back in 2004/2005 wasn't done correctly. Basically, some box-ticking council employee decided that the old imperial measurement pavement slabs should be replaced en masse by the newer borough standard metric slabs... but, to save money, the old imperial slabs were simply lifted and replaced, the pavement underlay wasn't properly backfilled and screed. So, where there were problems, the new slabs simply dropped after a few rainfalls, hence creating the problems that we're still suffering.

This was one of the first ever community projects that I ever worked on as a resident (even before planting the plane tree avenue), ironically helped by a Village ward councillor (who sadly lost her seat to me in 2006) who was the only cllr to respond to my pleas for help.

It was eventually admitted by the council that the new paving wasn't implemented properly, which is why the pavement down towards the East Dulwich Tavern is much more stable, as the specifications were changed to address the issues after they were admitted.

We were then promised that the defective Lordship paving would be assessed every five years instead of the usual 20 years, with a view to relaying and improving it as the footfall increased.

But this promise fell off the radar when the council administration changed in 2006.

2) The new granite section between Londis and Sogim is excellent (funded by a CGS bid by James?). The reason why it was so delayed in being reinstated wasn't Conway's fault... because I am a geek who walks everywhere, I spontaneously cornered managers on a site visit and it was verbally confirmed to me that the delay was because of council protocol obstructions due to the new highway requirements (which Conways got blamed for as a fob off), created by the same officer who implemented the new tree planting requirements. I can explain further if any one can bear my long posts.

But bear in mind that this council officer is now gone (hurrah!), presumably due to "budget cuts", so everyone is now manoeuvring around trying to create amendments to the tree planting and highway improvement manuals so that we can sanely and economically improve our public realm again...

[rch]

BTW, the imperial measurement slab replacement fiasco is also what has screwed up Chesterfield, Ashbourne, and parts of EDG... I think I have figured out a way for the council to be required to address these roads if the Chesterfields can help me piece together timing.

Chesterfield has been patched numerous times, but I think a full reinstatement can be agreed if it could be done in sections, as it's a long road and therefore too expensive to be done in one run.

[Abe_froeman]

Thanks RCH that is very informative and helpful.

Do you know why the council are so keen to take control of privately owned forecourts? It seems that they are holding the public to ransom over this aapprent land grab!

[rch]

Hi Abe, good to read you again!

My understanding over the years is that the main problem with the council and shop forecourts/private curtilages is the time and expense of council officers having to deal with the issues, as it's technically private properly in the public domain.

Legally there has to be a certain amount of regular inspections to maintain public health and safety requirements. Then officers have to go around in legal circles trying to get identified problems repaired. This is why the "rental" fees of the council owned pavement in front of shops and A-board licenses were introduced about a decade ago, to provide an income stream for officers' time. Shops who could demonstrate the historical precedent that they had been using the forecourt for at least 7 years were not required to pay (this recently came up again with the DIY shop on Lordship), but any new applicants are charged.

Also, for instance, I seem to remember that legally enforcing Londis to repair their forecourt, which had terrible trip hazards, took years which can become expensive over time.

Conversely, traders and landlords dealing with the council system are equally frustrated in addition to the sheer expense of the repairs, so tenants and landlords tend to put off forecourt repairs for as long as possible.

One of the advantages when we did the liaison with the Village ward parades was that all the shops were delighted to just have the paperwork all done for them, whereas the council officers were equally as happy to get all the paperwork and inspections done in one go.

The complexity of a tenant's requirements is that maintaining the forecourt is usually part of the lease, so landlords don't want to pay for repairs and most landlords wouldn't want to release the footage ownership as it adds to the value of the property.

So, our formula was to offer to pay 45% of the repair costs with a view towards providing all the paperwork in return for a tenant/landlord contribution of 55% of cost with temporary legal access to their property to perform the forecourt renewal organised and overseen by the council with council subcontractors.

When I submitted my rejected CGS bid for Lordship pavement repairs, it was meant to be for the public pavement installation of the new granite paving, but we could easily include negotiations with landlords/tenants for forecourts/curtilages as needed. My bid made it clear that I would liaise closely with council highway engineers with a view towards planning the most efficient way forward for everyone.

[Mimmum]

Illegal Garage - Bawdale Road

Dear Mr Barber,

Please see previous message below re garage on Whateley Road.

We have contacted you a few times now, as well as Southwark Council with regards to the illegal garage that has been set up on our road. The garage used to be on Whateley Road (see below) and has now moved on to Bawdale Road. There are cars and vans parked on the road at all times now. These are being worked on constantly, leaving mess, oil, batteries etc all over the road and pavement. As you are aware, these roads are always busy and currently there are 6 vehicles on the road belonging/being worked on by the men who used to own the garage on Whateley Road. As you are also aware, you have had a lot of messages regarding this and nothing is being done. There are lots of children coming and going to the new Harris school around the corner and the mechanics are always using foul language, leaving mess and drinking. Not great when moving vehicles around I think you'll agree.

I would like to ask you what you are proposing to do about this problem? - you are aware of these issues and I would like to know what was done on Whateley Road about this. As you can see, this was an issue back in 2011!

I am confused how nothing is being done about this - again, they are running an illegal business on our road. We all pay our way and I cannot understand how this is allowed, especially as a lot of us have now complained to the council or to you directly. I look forward to reading your response.

Kind regards,

Herroeeeey Wrote:

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

> Hi James

>

> There is currently a worsening situation on

> Whateley Road which I would like to bring to your

> attention again and ask what can be done please.

>

> There is a car repair operation in Whateley Road

> that is causing much frustration for local

> residents and users of the road with the following

> issues being of major issue:

>

> 1. Cars worked on in the street

> 2. Many noisy power tools on the street which are

> not only noise pollution but dangerous(cables

> across the pavement)

> 3. On yellow lines and in parking bays all day

> EVERY day.

> 4. Engines are revved to there limit many times

> day EVERY day.

> 5. Cars are sprayed in their garage which is far

> far from air tight; this means the fumes are there

> for all passers by to breath in AND entering homes

> of local residents.

> 6. Openly advertising cars that are for sale on

> the street (means a huge impact to being able to

> park in the area)

>

>

> So all in all makes for a fairly unpleasant

> experience let alone the foul mouthing I get when

> walking past having asked them not to take these

> actions in the past.

>

> Some of these activities are, I believe, in

> contravention of leases provided by the council

> and also illegal.

>

> Can you advise what action is being taken

> currently by the council please?

[Mimmum]

Illegal Garage - Bawdale Road

Dear Mr Barber,

Please see previous message below re garage on Whateley Road.

We have contacted you a few times now, as well as Southwark Council with regards to the illegal garage that has been set up on our road. The garage used to be on Whateley Road and has now moved on to Bawdale Road. There are cars and vans parked on the road at all times now. These are being worked on constantly, leaving mess, oil, batteries etc all over the road and pavement. As you are aware, these roads are always busy and currently there are 6 vehicles on the road belonging/being worked on by the men who used to own the garage on Whateley Road. As you are also aware, you have had a lot of messages regarding this and nothing is being done. There are lots of children coming and going to the new Harris school around the corner and the mechanics are always using foul language, leaving mess and drinking. Not great when moving vehicles around I think you'll agree.

I would like to ask you what you are proposing to do about this problem? - you are aware of these issues and I would like to know what was done on Whateley Road about this. As you can see, this was an issue back in 2011 that was posted to you!

I am confused how nothing is being done about this - again, they are running an illegal business on our road. We all pay our way and I cannot understand how this is allowed, especially as a lot of us have now complained to the council or to you directly. I look forward to reading your response.

Kind regards,

[James Barber]

Hi Mimmum,

Yes, and I've contacted council officers repeatedly seeking enforcement against this garage works taking place on the public highways. They have to catch them in the act and so far have failed do this despite the photographic evidence you and I have provided them. Frustrating beyond belief.

It may reach the point where I initiate a Councillor Call for Action - this is where all public bodies are brought together to decide the best way for them to work together to resolve this.

[goldilocks]

Hi James. Wondered if you could help re the contractors on the site next to the ED leisure centre. We go for swimming lessons straight after school. Frequently on the way there the site is having deliveries and the pavement is closed with a sign that just says 'use other footpath'. By the return journey it is always cleared though.

Given that the site is right next to a council run pool that has swimming lessons starting at that time and is on the direct route to that pool from at least 2 schools, could the contractors be obligated to make a route through that doesn't involve crossing the road away from the crossing (it isn't always clear at the point of the lights that the footpath is closed, and in any event this would mean re crossing at a point with no lights or central point). There are plenty of barriers at the site so its not unfeasible that they could fence off a pathway next to the delivery.

Many thanks

[worldwiser]

rch that's not correct. I have an FOI response from the council stating that the reason for the delay in completing the works at the entrance to NXR was because Conway didn't order the granite in good time from China and they had to down tools while waiting for it. The whole enterprise cost in excess of a quarter of a million pounds, a figure to this day I find (and curiously few others) utterly extraordinary.

[rch]

My understanding is that that's only part of the story, worldwiser... I was told that the overall quantity of the granite from China for the whole of the borough works being done at the time was problematic and therefore it was decided by council officers that the slabs for our works in East Dulwich would be directed to a "higher footfall" area in the north of the borough where it was deemed more important, for "Health and Safety" reasons, that the pavement works were finished while East Dulwich waited for the Chinese slabs to be produced from scratch and imported, which took ages.

Conways wanted to import the same spec granite slabs from Ireland, which we had dug our heels in and done in another similar East Dulwich fiasco, but the council manager who created the street works manual refused to allow the Irish slabs to be substituted for the "more cost effective" Chinese slabs that he had specified.

So, it looks to me like the gist of your FOI is meant to sounds logical on the surface, but it circumvents the ridiculous situation that a small fortune of public money was lost in order to pacify a council officer's specifications which were intended to use "cheaper" materials in order to save overall repair cost. Baby out with the bathwater.

I'd love to see your FOI papers, worldwiser, as I'm quite experienced at determining how communications are selectively presented out of context.

[James Barber]

Hi Goldilocks,

The building site next to the Dulwich Leisure Centre on Crystal Palace Road is meant to operate to a Construction Management Plan agreed with council officials - http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/4294&system=DC

The original proposed plans I and several residents objected to. We asked that deliveries not take place 8-9am and 34pm i.e. school arrival/departures. Council officers ignored these objections. In fact the amended CMP specifically stated they would deliver at these time.

In fact to make matters worse they agreed to the pavement on the western side being closed during construction hours.

The current administration is extremely developer focused - hence why this over development for the site breaching suburban densities of rooms per hectare. Letting developers have such lenient Construction Management Plans is another symptom of this ignoring in this case the large numbers of young children passing through the area along with heavy construction lorries.

I'm sorry I've not been able to get the council or developer to act responsibly. My main hope now is they finish quickly returning the area back to us.

Therefore I would counsel significantly more caution in the area especially the junction of Crystal Palace Road with East Dulwich Road where heavy lorries are turning.