former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[Nigello]

Ring 020 7525 2000 and report it - if it's council property. They can't do anything about it if they're not aware of it.

[James Barber]

Hi GinaG3, and anyone else,

If you spot things like dead foxes in a public place in Southwark do call 020 7525 2000 and report it. If you find nothnig happens for a couple of days then do escalate to a local councillor. I've reported the dead fox.

Grass cutting. I have had casework about this before about 18months ago. I agree that sme areas could be more attractive if managed as grass meadows. Potentially this would also save money. Can you email me about this and I'll then make enquiries to see if this has been considered and if it has why not persued.

[first mate]

Pugwash said-

"James Thanks for confirming the council property sell off. The money collected could go to creating more extra sheltered council housing for those aged 55 plus. There is a scarcity of property for older people in ED to rent or purchase, especially important for those of us who want to downsize and still live in ED in accommodation suited for people with reduced mobility etc.

I cannot remember seeing anything on the various leaflets we have had from all parties as to what each party is going to do for us 'older folk'. Given the recent publicity that loneliness is on the increase on pensioners, what can be done to reduce this in ED? There do not seem to be many activities/clubs etc around which cater for the less well off older person, who does not need care or day centres."

Pugwash, Yes, very little if anything on old folk. Libdems are obsessed with garnering parent vote and wholly focused on schools; other parties seem little better. Of course kids need schools but impression made by James and others is short term vote catching and precious little long-term care of community. If all resources are going in one direction (every tiny plot of land is a new school, a new supermarket or new flats) what happens long term to other sections of society?

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

For our Manifesto please see http://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/manifesto

For our older people pledges see here: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/simonhughes/pages/160/attachments/original/1393868415/Older_People_and_social_care.pdf?1393868415

[KalamityKel]

And for those who are not "old" or with families?

[James Barber]

Hi KK,

Local East dulwih pledges http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/?p=2547

We have a great record on delivering our pledges despite being in opposition.

And Southwark wide pledges as per above.

[KalamityKel]

How are you hoping to achieve the pledges? What's the plan of action? What's involved in accomplishing these point?

I'm not being picky here. I genuinely am interested in the proposed processes. It's easy to bullet point but this doesn't have content to keep my interest (generally)

[Ant]

Hi James, have just sent some further details regarding the dodgy pavement on Dulwich Common.

[intexasatthe moment]

" And the council doesn't have 55,000 properties. It has 55,000 freehold properties but 13,500 of those are leasehold properties and not for the council to sell."

James could you explain this a bit more ? Did you mean that of the 55,000 properties that Southwark own ,13,500 are leasehold ? Is southwark leasing 13,500 properties from other freeholders ?

[James Barber]

Hi ITATM,

My figures are slightly out. 38,000 council tenanted properties with 16,700 leasehold properties where Southwark is the freeholder and the lease held by a private individual.

[Dun]

Hi, do you know why the council is suspending parking on Lordship Lane (can't remember date)? Sounds like a change is afoot.

[James Barber]

Which bit/s Dun?

I know a few tweaks to standardise parking are coming which generally slightly increase parking availability. But they shouldnt need any suspension of parking.

[Nigello]

Is the stretch of LL outside the Sainsbury's Local ever checked at afternoon/evening rush hour for illegal parking? Now that the store is being refurbished there are no drivers who park up, do their shopping and clog up the road for every one else. Hope it stays like that once it re-opens, but doubt it because Southwark is curiously indifferent to illegal parkers here, unlike everywhere else.

[Zebedee Tring]

We've been away for a fortnight so we didn't realise that the Sainsburys Local in LL was closed for refurbishment. Does anyone know when it is due to reopen?

[Dun]

there were signs posted on LL outside SMBS to the large St CHristophers charity shop

[James Barber]

Hi Nigello,

Will check this out.

Hi Zebedee Tring,

w/c 20 May.

Hi Dun,

Will take a look tomorrow evening.

[Zebedee Tring]

Many thanks, James.

I have just walked past Sainsburys Local and a sign there stated that they were reopening on 20 May. So presumably the reopening has been postponed until the week of 26 May.

[James Barber]

Hi Zebedee Tring,

If Sainsbury's now saying 2 May then 20 May I would expect to be the new reopening date.

[Renata Hamvas]

Hi James,

you really need to remove the statement that you made on this forum, quoted below, it's outrageous! I now have the figures for residential property disposal for East Dulwich since 2010. It's 16 properties, ie an average of 4 per year.

Pugwash, there are plans for over 55 accomodation for the East Dulwich area, but unfortunately I don't have further details at the moment. Once the elections are over, I can investigate this further for you.

Renata

James Barber Wrote:

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

It

> doesn't take Einstein to work out this mean social

> cleansing.

> You can't pretend this isn't your local parties

> policies causing this.

edited to remove type

[PokerTime]

Well said Renata. I still remember the LibDem record when they controlled the council. I can still hear Nick Stanton on the Politics Show saying 'an area so close to central London shouldn't be so poor' in defense of the sell off of the Heygate to private developers. Land that was sold for the paltry sum of just ?50m.

And then there were the Libdem local election leaflets from last time that proclaimed that a Labour run council would sell off council home management to private companies. Hmm that didn't happen either did it Mr Barber?

Looks like they haven't changed their tune with this little gem from the current manifesto caliming that Labour 'Roll over to property developers instead of fighting for more affordable homes' (you have to be kidding me!). And claiming they will 'Fight for 1 in 3 homes in every new development to be affordable'. Well Mr Barber, only 3% of new homes on the Heygate redevelopment will be social rented. That's just 79 homes. Previously it provided up to 3000 homes for social rent. I wouldn't trust Local Libdems on housing as far I could throw them personally.

[intexasatthe moment]

I guess we need a special hustings thread but....while we're at it ,how many new council homes were built under LibDems in Southwark ?

[James Barber]

Hi PokerTime,

The Lib Dems didn't sell the Heygate estate. Labour did shortly after taking office in 2010 and Southwark News reported for ?50M LESS than the Lib Dems deal on the table with the developers had been proposing. Also the Labour deal didn't include 35% social housing.

The deal struck over the Heygate Estate was by Labour and they chose to accept as you've stated 3% social housing.

Under the last Lib Dem administration of Southwark Council 368 council homes were built.

Please se SE1 for useful background to all this http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7565

Hi ITATM,

I hope not. I'm stuck. If I don't respond people will read things into that or think I'm being rude and if I do respond I get people like PokerTime re writing history.

Hi Renata,

Please see attached latest council data about house sales, demolition, etc. Looks a lot different to 16!

NB. The demolition is a weird one. Most of those are the Heygate estate which has only just been demolished but for accounting purposes is recorded as demolished when people leave their homes as it's going to be demolished.

[PokerTime]

You are not getting away with that one James. It was the Libdems who decided to sell the Heygate, moving out residents, promising them new homes as part of the regeneration, homes that didn't exist when they were moved off in 2007. I don't know how we've gone from 3000 council homes being replaced with just 79 social homes, but to lay the blame solely at the feet of the Labour council is ridiculous. Just look at the connections both Nick Stanton and Kim Humphries (and various former labour councillors) have to the players involved for example. It's all corrupt.

http://betterelephant.org/blog/2013/04/09/report-uncovers-corruption-at-the-elephant/

Southwark Council looked at different options for the estate in 1998. The surveyors found that the buildings were structurally sound and suggested that the best option was refurbishment. The same survey also found that four in five residents didn?t want to move off the estate. The Libdem council geve no merit to the wishes of that community, one that has been lost for ever to be replaced by what? A sizeable percentage of the new properties have already been sold off plan to foreign investors - people who will never live there. The whole thing has been a stitch up for ordinary Londoners since Nick Stanton drove up the scheme. His comments and justification of it all are not fantasy. It's very clear what he though of social housing tenants. The council will make a loss on the scheme while the developers make ?194m profit!

Also just for the record, The Libdem council either sold off or demolished 8000 council homes between 2002 and 2010. Kind of makes the few hundred homes built pale into insignificance. And then there were the plans to sell off estates in need of high investment like the 4 Squares. There is no worthy track record there.

Nor is it fantasy regarding the lies told at the last council elections desgined to scare social housing tenants away from Labour. It's the worst kind of campaign tactic, and lost all respect from me for the local Libdem party (a party I had voted for in the past). That's even before the travesty of the coalition landed on us.

But let's look at other aspects of Libdems in control. Contracts awarded to dodgy maintenance companies like Morrissons, who lied about the work they did and charged the council for it. The Libdem council completely failed to deliver a working repairs service. ?100m wasted on a failed call centre contract. Libdem wards prioritised for decent homes programmes over Labour wards. That's what Libdem policies on housing looks like.

And then you have the hypocrasy of people like Simon Hughes, voting for motions like the one to give the government power to close local hopsitals, a change in law sought after Lewisham Hospital won its legal battle against the government.

To claim any kind of moral high ground over Labour is laughable.

Whilst not perfect, imo the current Labour council has performed much better than the previous Libdem run council - and that's in spite of the draconian cuts imposed on them by central government. That doesn't take away from you though all the work you have done for your local community. You clearly put in a lot of effort.

House building is a complex issue. All local authorities sell property, for a wide variety of reasons, some of which are are vaild, others not. It's very easy to make claims of what you will build/ do in oppostion. Much harder to deliver when it comes to the cost of it all, and even harder when your party in government has cut all avenues of available funding for decent homes and construction. If you want the respect of voters on issues like housing, then stop telling lies about sell offs, acknowledge the mistakes of the past (and the self interest and conflicts of interest of key players) and have an intelligent discussion on how next time it will be different. People are fed up of soundbite playground politics. Calling Labour bad does not make Libdems good. We are not stupid. A Libdem council will have no more money or power to solve the current housing issues than a Labour one.

[James Barber]

Hi PokerTime,

You're still re writing and making up history.

The Lib Dem led council built more than 10 times more council housing when the Labour government was opposed to this than the current Labour council when the national government has supported councils housing being built.

If you opened the excel spreadsheet I posted you'd see nearly 6,000 homes were sold under the Right To Buy. The council has no choice but to sell them to tenants. So telling us of for obeying the law isn't helpful.

Closing the Heygate Estate and rebuilding it was a cross party agreed policy as part of recreating the E&C and had been talked about for many many years.

But the details of the contract for doing this does not have cross party agreement. The Lib Dems negotiated a deal that due to Purdah was blocked from happening before the 2010 local elections. The new Labour administration threw this ready contract away. Southwark News has reported that ?50M was thrown away as a result, they say that Labour settled for ?50M less and no automatic 35% social housing. I'm not legally allowed to tell you the figure as Labour Southwark are determined to keep it a secret having spent ?70,000 so far on legal fees to stop this information being made public - fighting the Information Commissioner. This week they've just lost another round and are considering appealing to a higher court at more council tax payers expense.

?100M on a call centre. Not sure where you plucked that from?

Do you mean the cost of running the call centre over many years with many hundreds of thousands of calls each year?

Southwark Council was created in 1964. For all but 8 years in the last 50 years Labour has run the council. Frankly when Lib Dems took control in 2002 it was a complete mess. It did a huge job of turning that around. The recent Labour administration has benefited from that.

[ruffers]

You know when this thread really works? When politics are never mentioned.

I'm sure someone will want the last word but if James Renata etc could try to not have digs in their answers at each other or even mention party policy, and everyone else resisted temptation likewise, this can be a great example to the world of engagement in action as it has been on many occasions.

If we need a hustings thread, keep it separate.

Sorry to come across as a bit precious but I genuinely think this thread is a really, really positive thing and it saddens me when it gets dragged off track.