former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[Andrew1011]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> OK James, so long as you stop slagging off Labour

> at every opportunity and telling us how great the

> Lib Dems are by comparison.

Hear hear.

[pipsky2008]

Hello James

Do you know of any councillors borough wide and cross party who are lawyers?

Thanks

[James Barber]

Hi pipsky2008,

Not in Southwark at the moment. Until 2014 my lot had a couple of barristers.

The council leader Cllr Peter John (South Camberwell ward) is a barrister and I believe still practices in commercial law.

If you want to email me or PM with your issue I can try and offer more information/help.

[pipsky2008]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi pipsky2008,

> Not in Southwark at the moment. Until 2014 my lot

> had a couple of barristers.

> The council leader Cllr Peter John (South

> Camberwell ward) is a barrister and I believe

> still practices in commercial law.

> If you want to email me or PM with your issue I

> can try and offer more information/help.

Thank you for that and your offer James. I'll take you up on it, should it be necessary

[first mate]

James, you asked:

Hi first mate,

I receive around a 100 councillor emails a day. So I don't recall the email.

Could you narrow it down to a time so I can retrieve it more easily please?

My reply, posted from another thread but reposted here to avoid taking the other thread off subject:

Hi James, look up around 10 April 2014, the date S'wark state you were consulted about double yellows on Chesterfield? Don't think I can be any more precise. i'd imagine an email search on that date with the keywords Chesterfield and double yellows might be fruitful? However you know more about IT and technology than me I am sure, so apologies if I am teaching granny to suck eggs.

Please see below the email to you last month which states the date you were consulted about "new lengths of double yellows" on Chesterfield. Note the penultimate paragraph.

I cannot think that you would require any more detail in order to respond to the very simple question, did you say "yes" or " no" to new "lengths of restrictions" that js, double yellow lines, when consulted on the matter on 10 April 2014?

You seem to have omitted the name of the person that sent you the email below, but I am sure they could find your response when consulted on that date, that is 10 April 2014, were you to ask?

Our Reference: 551054

________________________________________

Dear Councillor Barber

Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th August 2015, in which you requested information regarding yellow lines in the East Dulwich ward. I believe you are referring to the recent making and publication of a 'consolidation order'.

The traffic order which has been advertised is known as a 'consolidation order' which is exactly this -a consolidation of existing traffic orders to ensure these remain manageable and easy to follow. This London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2015(1) ('the 2015 Order') consolidates the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012(2) ('the 2012 Order') together with the 60 subsequent amendment orders amending the provisions of the 2012 Order.

It is deemed best practice (e.g. in guidelines issued by the British Parking Association) for local authorities undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement to regularly consolidate and maintain the traffic orders forming a basis for that enforcement.

This follows the Consolidation Order process laid out in Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489).

There are no new restrictions being introduced by way of this consolidation order.

The yellow lines you have specifically queried at Ashbourne and Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove were originally included in an order made on 8 May 2014 as part of the Lordship Lane area traffic order and sign decluttering review . The name of the Order was the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. 32) Order 2014(3) ('the 2014 Order').

As part of our review process, surveys on street were undertaken by an officer to check that the road markings in existence matched the traffic orders. In the case of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove the traffic order waiting and loading definitions would have been amended to reflect more closely the markings as existed on street. Chesterfield Road had new lengths of restrictions installed at this time.

Statutory stakeholders and ward members including yourself were consulted in the process of making the 2014 Order, on 10 April 2014.

I trust this addresses your concerns but if you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me.

"

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit was today, 10:05am by first mate.

[Cora]

James,

I think you mentioned a service which meant you would be alerted to planning applications that come up in your area now that the planning department will not be informing affected parties with letters?!

Can't see how to do this on the main planning sight....could you explain how to do it....thanks

[intexasatthe moment]

Cora - http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200074/planning_and_building_control/3832/user_guide scroll down to item 3 .

" now that the planning department will not be informing affected parties with letters?! " - why do you say this ? Surely a misunderstanding ?

[Cora]

My memory from one of James's posts or maybe se22 magazine was that the council no longer intends to post letters to those local to a planning application but instead only need to put up the yellow notices. This seems like taking local consultation out of planning applications....for example, someone might be wanting to develop behind me but because I don't walk down the road behind me I wouldn't see the yellow notice and therefore wouldn't know about it.

But maybe I've Mis-understood?

Anyway hence why I want to sign up to alerts! Thanks for the link, I'll try it.

[Bic Basher]

James,

Do you know with the move of of the 369 LL Post Office to Costcutter next Tuesday if the postbox currently outside which has a later collection of 5.30pm is moving to Costcutter too?

[James Barber]

Hi BicBasher,

No I don't know.

I will try and find out. Moving it would make sense. That whole outside area needs some TLC.

Hi Cora,

Planning dept. have contacted me to say all a mistake they will contact people about planning application.s Then gave me a long list of exceptions when they won't!

So in reality we all have to assume they won't tell you. Until a few years back all homes and businesses within 100m of a planning application would be told. More recently the immediate neighbours. Now mostly you'll have to spot notices on lamp posts.

Main thing is please sign-up for the email notifications.

Hi ITATM,

Thanks for putting clear link in.

[BrandNewGuy]

Just a nudge to find out if there's been any movement with the old garden centre site.

[first mate]

James,

Have you remembered your decision about double yellows on Chesterfield yet? I have given you all the information you need to find out, including an email from a council officer stating the date you were consulted. Your decision will also be on record.

[Chief]

Councillor Barber - please take some action re Saltash! Investigate this contractor's relationship with Southwark Council.

You are unusually unresponsive / inactive. I wonder why?

[first mate]

James, the whole back of the old Iceland building has now been ripped out. Workers heard at 6.15 am today.

What is happening on this site? Were the last plans for the penthouses and a 4th floor passed after you called them in?

I have asked you about this recently too and you have not replied.

[first mate]

If our local Councillor is unable or unwilling to comment on the current building work on the old Iceland site ( going ahead at breakneck speed) is there anyone else who is able to say what is going on?

Is it known if a fourth floor( cunningly called a 3 rd floor in the plans) is going ahead?

Have the developers been allowed to go with the other two floors as offices? From what I can glean on S'wark planning site, this appears to be the case and would indicate that the developers have, yet again, been allowed to do pretty much as they please.

It is noteworthy to see the incredible speed at which this work is going ahead, compared with say Nx or Townley. Anyone would think the developers had some deadline they were trying to beat?

[Penguin68]

It is noteworthy to see the incredible speed at which this work is going ahead, compared with say Nx or Townley. Anyone would think the developers had some deadline they were trying to beat?

Or perhaps the site owners have simply signed a proper contract, with timing and penalty clauses. Or perhaps the builders are not in some sort of cosy, 'we'll always get the work anyway so we don't really have to bother' call-off contract relationship with their employer, or perhaps the employer has not specified impossible to source materials still on a slow boat from China. Who can tell why and how the commercial world differs from that of local government gravy trains?

[James Barber]

Hi Chief,

I lost my bicycle pannier early yesterday - I was very lucky to recover it intact with all my possessions - but had cancelled all the cards etc. But I also have a full-time day job. Hence why I don't respond instantly all the time.

Saltash. Can you please email me the problems as they affect East Dulwich area that you've experienced and I'll happily investigate what I can do to help.

Hi first mate,

I'm unaware of having been asked about this?

If you're referring to the application for two extra flats on the tope http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/2221&system=DC

No decision has yet been made. Cllr Rosie Shimell and myself have requested any officer plans to grant permission be called-in and decided by a planning committee.

Hi P68, first mate,

I suspect a desire to open asap is driven by renting the site - so incurring costs without revenue - and being ready for Xmas. Vs. council not incurring any costs for public inconvenience.

[James Barber]

Final plan for the new Crown Post Office look at 76 Lordship Lane - please see attached.

[first mate]

James, forgive me if I am being utterly thick but if no planning permission has been given how come there is a yellow note stuck on a post outside Iceland and more to the point, are you aware that building work on that site is going great guns as I write? Perhaps it is only demolition and perhaps no permissions are required for this? Could you please clarify?

Additionally, still no answer from you about Chesterfield double yellows. I've lost count of how often I have asked you about this now, on a variety of threads too.

[AbDabs]

First mate, the developers (and I think their predecessors) have made a variety of planning applications. Cynics (including myself) would suspect that this is so they can mix and match the bits they find most economically advantageous together (and try and avoid any social housing requirements). They currently have permission to do a large amount of work extending the shop and the existing floors above (although whether they become residential or offices only time will tell). I expect they are hoping to get the remainder of permission (for the additional floor) in time for when they want to do the work. But, as it stands, they have plenty to get on with, hence the demolition works.

[first mate]

AbDabs, yes I share your cynicism. I still cannot understand how plans for offices with penthouses atop could be even be countenanced since the 'office space' has until demolition been used a residences. They would surely have to apply for change of use?

In addition, much was made in earlier applications that there was no call for office space and great demand for more flats/ housing so to then apply to build mainly office space looks utterly perverse.

[James Barber]

The current residences at this property did not have planning permission.

If they get planning permission for the two flats on additional floor they'll then apply to convert the offices into flats. Such conversions the gov't has issues guidance are allowed and nearly nothing councils can do to stop them.

The result in 10 residential properties. Normally social housing is required for development of over 9 homes. So they'll have side stepped this.

Cllr Rosie Shimell and I are calling this in.

[MarkT]

James,

I understand that they already have planning permission to convert the 2 floors of offices into 8 flats. The current application for the 4th storey pair of flats makes no mention of that prior approval but shows the 2 floors as offices.

When you call in an application do you then attend the planning committee meeting to argue the case in person?

MarkT

[James Barber]

Hi MarkT,

Usually I would attend the planning committee to argue the case in person. Usually other residents also attend to argue in person as well.

[Bic Basher]

Going back to the 76 LL PO proposal. A shame they're keeping the current queuing system instead of the waiting room area used in some other post offices which work better than the long queue that sometimes goes out of the door.