former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[intexasatthe moment]

James - thank you for your update on double yellow lines and dropped kerbs .

You always seem to be claiming credit for things and I'm prompted to ask what actions you took that were different from other councillors in this issue . I attend DCC mtgs and when this was raised noted that all councillors were in agreement that this policy should reviewed .There was no dissent to lead .

And could you respond to this part of my earlier post

" How did this policy come into being with no one

> seemingly aware of it ? My reading is that there

> should be consultation which at a very early stage

> involves Community Councils . Did this happen "

[Andrew1011]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> You always seem to be claiming credit for things

> and I'm prompted to ask what actions you took

> that were different from other councillors in

> this issue . I attend DCC mtgs and when this was

> raised noted that all councillors were in

> agreement that this policy should reviewed .There

> was no dissent to lead .

I was there too and you are absolutely right.

There was no dissent from any of the other Dulwich Community Council members, regardless of their political colour.

[rch]

Thanks, James, for intervening on the Green Dale tree... I have got the email to the tree dept that you copied me on, so will respond to that.

Was going to respond to Dominik's post, but it looks like it's been deleted...

[James Barber]

Hi ITATM,

I don't believe I ever claim credit for anything I don't have a direct involvement with making happen. Yes, I am doing this more as some other political party literature has started to claim credit for projects me and my Lib Dem colleagues have achieved.

In this particular example.

At the Dulwich Community Council I persuaded at two previous meetings that we NOT approve half a dozen requests for new dropped kerbs because each included the requirement for 2.5m of double yellowness past the edge of the proposed dropped kerb and across the actual dropped kerb.

I persuaded my fellow councillors that worst case we should recommend approval ONLY if council officials limited the double yellow lines to 0.5m. Otherwise we would pequirethose officials to appear before the committee ideally with their director to explain why 2 x 2.5m was so crucial and indeed double yellow lines.

The third attempt to push these through council officials changed the policy. Without double yellow lines these decisions don't come to community council and the item was withdrawn after the papers had been issued to councillors.

Usually these decisions had been rubber stamped by councillors. So I'm chuffed - and the debate on the forum helped - that we made a stand and that led it. And thanks to my fellow councillors of both other local parties for their crucial help in sorting this out. The job isn't done as the policy still applies to principal roads such as Barry Road.

I'm just sorry we had to hold up several families new dropped kerbs to get the policy changed. You did ask ITATM.

[intexasatthe moment]

James this won't do .

Back in August 2014 the issue of double yellow lines was raised .You confirmed that you were unaware of any new ruling ( 27 August, 2014 10:46 ).

In November despite many posts from concerned individuals you were still diverting the talk to the issue of Southwark not re painting white lines and missing the point about the 2 metre extension .Finally ,you get the issue James Barber 25 November, 2014 13:08 " But you make a good point about the 2m. This is clearly excessive so I will add that into my request "

Prior to this Renata confirmed in October that she was aware of the policy ,that councillors on the P&NCC were unanimous in their objection to it and that she was raising the matter .

: Dropped kerb application

Posted by Renata Hamvas 09 October, 2014 13:17

It does seem to be a new policy, we had several come up at the recent Peckham and Nunhead Community Council. Almost all were deferred in a unanimous decision by Councillors. One on St Dunstan's Road was approved but only with the stipulation from Councillors that it can't extend outside the dropped kerb to a neighbouring property which doesn't have a dropped kerb. I have communicated my concerns about this new policy. I still haven't had the official response from officers about this.

Renata

Another poster confirmed that Charlie Smith was also opposing the new policy and taking action - lesalden 09 October, 2014 17:14 .

I asked you -18 October, 2014 08:42- whether you and Renata would be co operating on this but you did not respond to the query .

It seems to me that posters on the EDF had to fight hard to get your attention on this and that there is little evidence that you had to lead any kind of action in getting other councillors to agree with you .

[intexasatthe moment]

And yes ,I do ask .

I've repeatedly asked this

" How did this policy come into being with no one

> seemingly aware of it ? My reading is that there

> should be consultation which at a very early stage

> involves Community Councils . Did this happen ?"

intexasatthe moment March 18, 11:25AM

James what I don't understand is how this policy came about with out councillors ( or anyone else it seems ) being aware of it or having the opportunity to object or suggest modifications .

Doesn't Southwark have decision making process about such traffic issues which involves community councils fairly early on in the process ?

What's your view on this James ?

but I don't get answers .

[James Barber]

Hi ITATM,

Good to hear fellow councillors were also up in arms about this. Not sure they've rejected any dropped kerbs with double yellow lines though.

The problem appears to have come from Southwark's adoption of the Southwark Street Design Manual. Within the various sections officers have produced these restrictions - still no replacement H bar. irony is remove H -bar was produced to reduce street clutter by putting double yellow lines instead.

I believe the SSDM is a cabinet councillor decision. All such decision are advertised to all councillors. So you could say 62 of us missed the implications of this manual.

I have asked the cabinet member to amend the manual - both for this and it's banning of cycle parking allowed everywhere else in London.

I will try again and we need a proper review of this manual - could you help me do this during August and anyone else interested?

[MarkT]

James,

Re double yellow lines on dropped kerbs, from your recent postings I?m not clear as to the change in the policy, whether the double yellow lines will now be shorter or non-existent. There are 2 separate lines of reasoning in the purpose and objections to the policy - the parking/access rights and the safety issues relating to sight lines.

On non-principle roads will a dropped kerb now be approved with no double yellow lines at all?

Does the change in policy apply across the borough?

Is it retrospective?

You say you have asked the Cabinet Member to amend the manual. I understand, however, that the Cabinet Member's Decision of a few years ago was to delegate the writing of the SSDM to officers. Officers have written the manual and can now amend it, with no need for instruction or permission from any elected member.

MarkT

[James Barber]

Hi MarkT,

For non principal roads we've been assured policy changed so double yellow lines are no longer required. They also wont install white H bars.

But we have several principal roads in the area such as Barry Road, Lordship Lane, Forest Hill Road, East Dulwich Road, East Dulwich Grove, Grove Vale, Half Moon Lane where officers still require double yellow lines.

We're about to have our first example of a new crossover on Barry Road to test this out on.

[intexasatthe moment]

." Not sure they've rejected any dropped kerbs with double yellow lines though. " - you need to read Renata's post again then .

" could you help me do this during August and anyone else interested? " - I doubt we'd make a good combination . Posts by me on here ( in an effort to help you ) quoting specific policy items relating to this and attempts to try and get you to see that it wasn't a simple white H bar v. yellow lines issue met with you telling me that I was "overcomplicating" " the matter . And that the issue had been debated " near to death " on the EDF

Also when I asked you to talk me through the process of leading a deputation you didn't respond .

Why don't you team up with councillors from other persuasions who are also concerned about this ?

[James Barber]

Apologies for not explaining how to lead a deputation.

You need to contact the committee clerk to organise one. Typically as a minimum one week in advance so it can be include in the committed papers.

State what your deputation is about and ideally send some materials supporting your case in advance.

Emailing about the subject in advance to all committee members/councillors can help persuade about your case/argument.

A deputation with just one person wouldn't look so convincing. Ideally others present as well.

Good to have a specific request of the committee which can then decide whether to act on that request or not.

hope this helps.

did you have a specific committee in mind?

[intexasatthe moment]

It's ok James someone on the Melbourne Grove thread has posted a link to Southwark's webpage which explains the process very clearly .

It was stupid of me not to look there .

[MarkT]

James, you wrote:

?For non principal roads we've been assured policy changed so double yellow lines are no longer required. They also wont install white H bars.

But we have several principal roads in the area such as Barry Road, Lordship Lane, Forest Hill Road, East Dulwich Road, East Dulwich Grove, Grove Vale, Half Moon Lane where officers still require double yellow lines.

We're about to have our first example of a new crossover on Barry Road to test this out on.

Having reversed the policy for most roads, how do the officers justify its retention for principal roads?

National legislation allows parking on the street in front of a dropped kerb with the permission of the resident with no differentiate for class of road.

Southwark?s Streetscape Design Manual ? SSDM ? Section DS 114 ?Highway Visibility? paragraph 1.2 states:

?Stopping distances vary with vehicle type and speed. However, research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at.? Again that does not differentiate class of road.

[James Barber]

Hi MarkT,

Sorry I haven't a clue. It does feel rather made up on the hoof to avoid embarrassment.

I was more than puzzled when they introduced the original policy change in the first place. "To remove street clutter we'll no longer allow white H bars painted on the road but instead will have lots of double yellow lines". Truly bizarre.

[fazer71]

Maybe not maybe it's that white street paint costs more than Yellow and the contractor has given the responsible council employee a bung to remove the need for white paint to make their contract more profitable?

Wouldn't be the first time something like that would turn common sense into the bizarre....

That's the real world of local authorities the NHS and the corrupt staff & hangers on ....

True life stranger than fiction.

I know I'm clutching at straws, probably just an honest blunder. ;)

[Lazero]

Hi James - did you manage to find out anything regarding the below, following my post on 11th June? Judging from a lot of other threads recently we are going to see an awful lot more of speed bumps and road closures/ barriers. Would be interesting to know if average speed cameras are ever an option on some roads with more traffic.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I agree with your take on average speed cameras.

> But London has a lonson Camera Partnership

> controlled by the mayor of London. So I'm not

> clear if we can have them locally without LCP

> agreement - let me find out.

[James Barber]

Hi Lazero,

No, haven't found out yet but have asked our ED SNT sgt who is also an ex.traffic sgt.

I've asked if we could install average speed cameras on Barry Road and she is finding out if this is possible.

[James Barber]

Southwark are about to make some more disabled parking places...

LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK - DISABLED PERSONS PARKING PLACES

Provide new ?at any time? unlimited stay disabled persons parking places, 6 metres in length, at the following locations:

CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD, the east side outside No. 71 Crystal Palace Road

CRYSTAL PALACE ROAD, the south-east side outside No. 127 Crystal Palace Road

FOREST HILL ROAD, the north-east side outside No. 29 Forest Hill Road

LANDELLS ROAD, the south-east side outside No. 64 Landells Road

SILVESTER ROAD, the south-west side outside Nos. 1-3 Silvester Road

TARBERT ROAD, the north-west side outside No. 12 Tarbert Road;

Relocate existing disabled persons parking places as follows:

HILLSBORO ROAD, the north-west side outside Nos. 5-7 Hillsboro Road ? to be relocated south-westward by 3.5 metres

Further information may be obtained by contacting Michael Herd of the council's Public realm projects parking design team by telephone on 020 7525 2131.

Copies of the proposed orders http://www.southwark.gov.uk/trafficorders

[Mustard]

Who is the councillor for Nunhead Cemetery and for Camberwell Old Cemetery?

[Siduhe]

Mustard Wrote:

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

> Who is the councillor for Nunhead Cemetery and for

> Camberwell Old Cemetery?

COC is in Peckham Rye Ward, so Renata Hamvas, Gavin Edwards and Victoria Mills. Don't know about Nunhead, sorry.

[James Barber]

Hi Mustard,

Apologies for the delay - just back from holiday and getting back to normal.

Camberwell New and Old Cemeteries are in Peckham Rye ward - Siduhe has kindly stated the councillors for that ward and their email address are [email protected] etc.

But these cemeteries are also across the road from College ward whose councillors I'm sure will also be interested - [email protected]@southwark.gov.uk and

and also opposite Forest hill ward, Lewisham Council area.

Nunhead Cenetery is in Nunhead ward whose councillors are: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

[first mate]

Hi James, hope you had a good break.

Please see the threads on Melbourne Grove and Townley, where there appear to be some new developments. A number of us would be grateful if you, Rosie and Charlie could explain the ramifications and to what extent any of you knew about the proposals?

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

Many thanks for sign posting that. I've commented on the East Dulwich ward proposed new double yellow lines.

They have not been brought to the Dulwich Community Council and local councillors have not agreed them.

[first mate]

Hi James,

Thanks for that and you are welcome.

Unless I have missed them elsewhere on the forum, could you let us know what your comments are and whether you are in favour/ supporting these proposals, that is new yellow lines as indicated. It would be good to know what your colleagues think, though understand that you cannot make them tell us.

[rch]

FYI, I've studied the TMO document and done a walkabout and posted my observations on the Melbourne Grove thread... the cited Ashbourne and Chesterfield double yellows are already there, so I doubt they can be removed... the only new double yellows are proposed for Tell Grove in line with the Ashbourne and Chesterfield yellows... the rest of Melbourne is happily to remain untouched.