former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[James Barber]

Hi Bic Basher,

I've checked and it appears that those recent plans were just to redo the frontage and that the internal layout will be self-service predominantly as shown on earlier plans.

That they'll undertake all the works during normal hours and have to close for just one Saturday morning so they get a whole weekend to work uninterrupted.

They'll complete the works during the first two weeks of October.

[mhoward]

Hi James

I have repeatedly tried to get a response from you on traffic calming on Landcroft Road. Can you update me on this please?

many thanks

Max

[James Barber]

Sorry mho ward.

We've ensured it's 20mph. After several years it's mostly been resurfaced. But the volume of traffic on Landcroft Road means traffic calming won't be centrally funded.

I have two sets of traffic counts. 2009 & 2013.

LOCATION DIRECTION YEAR AVERAGE DAILY FLOW PEDAL CYCLE AND MOTORCYCLE AVERAGE DAILY FLOW CAR AVE_SPEED _85TH_SPEED

Landcroft Road north section North 2009 30 292 19.4 23.7

Landcroft Road north section South 2009 7 51 18.2 24.4

Landcroft Road south section North 2009 12 162 18.6 23.3

Landcroft Road south section South 2009 5 162 19.9 25.5

Landcroft Road south section North 2013 14 171 17.1 21.5

Landcroft Road south section South 2013 13 187 18.3 24.4

So our locally organised 20mph appears to have helped. But we still have some speeding.

Please submit a Cleaner, Greener, Safer application for speed humps OR let me know if you'd be happy for me to do this.

[fazer71]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

Good work by the government there.

Apparently we need more homes and that's a policy which will deliver not hinges.

Excellent.

[James Barber]

Hi Fazer71,

I think adding another floor to the Iceland/M&S site would be potentially an over development. It would potentially have serious overlooking of other neighbours.

It would also be an abuse of the planning process to develop this site in a piece meal way to avoid planning obligations.

You're obviously much more economically liberal than me on how East Dulwich is developed.

[first mate]

James,

I agree, building penthouses while neatly avoiding any social housing is an abuse of the system. Developers should not be allowed to get away with this. It would also be overdevelopment of the site and there are associated health and safety risks with that. These have been repeatedly flagged up by knowledgable residents but the Developer seems much more worried about any risk to maximum profit to be squeezed out of this small oarcel of prime land. Planning is toothless and always seems to " have its hands tied" in ine way or another.

James,

There may not have been planning permission for the two flats that existed on the upper floor of the old build, when it was still Iceland, but those flats were inhabited and fully functioning for many years. Does this not create some kind of precedent in terms of the existing application which lists those floors as for office use?

[MarkT]

James,

you write: "I think adding another floor to the Iceland/M&S site would be potentially an over development."

I suggest that the planning argument against this application would be based not on what we think should be, but that it is contrary to policy, therefore is actually defined as overdevelopment.

Suburban Zone development is limited by the London Plan to 3 storeys. The density is limited to 350 rooms per hectare, or its equivalent in commercial floorspace, calculated with a precise conversion factor. The proposal therefore is one storey too many and about twice the policy density.

In addition there is a clear policy regarding such a piecemeal application, that if the Planning Authority believes that there is a deliberate attempt to avoid obligations, then it must refuse.

It has been pointed out above that the developer describes the proposed additional floor as a third floor rather than a fourth storey, which might also be considered by the Planning Authority as an attempt to mislead.

We all have an opportunity to affect those policies, when they come under review, as currently with the new Southwark Plan. The Draft Southwark Plan clearly reaffirms the Suburban status for Lordship Lane. The definitions have been clearly restated in the 2015 update to the London Plan.

As these matters are well defined in the Policies, refusal should in this case be automatic. Otherwise what a waste of all our effort in creating those policies.

MarkT

[fazer71]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Fazer71,

> I think adding another floor to the Iceland/M&S

> site would be potentially an over development. It

> would potentially have serious overlooking of

> other neighbours.

> It would also be an abuse of the planning process

> to develop this site in a piece meal way to avoid

> planning obligations.

>

> You're obviously much more economically liberal

> than me on how East Dulwich is developed.

James

I'm realist.

We need more homes a lot more homes!

Compared to North London South London has very low buildings and a far lower density so we are a long long way from overdevelopment.

5 floors is acceptable cities across Europe have 5 floor buildings from before the invention of the lift.

I have never understood the overlooking argument if a property is currently overlooked by 1 person at 1st floor level what changes when it's overlooked by 4 more floors ?? Nothing !

The crazy British planning system and everyone moans about the lack of homes and the high prices ... Insane

[first mate]

Fazer71,

You need to be across the detail of this particular application. It is overdevelopment in terms of current planning

policy. I do not feel that developers should be supported in flouting policy, there have to be checks and balances.

You argue for more housing so why not support the earlier application for 8 residences above the retail outlet, which was passed and could be built right now, offering homes to 8 families very soon?

The developer has instead chosen to drop that to greedily pursue a probably lenghty process of getting another floor again for two penthouses with two floors under for offices. It will then reapply once the penthouses are built to try to get the offices converted back to flats, they would figure it is worth a punt and if they fail they have not lost.

So, if you are justifying the build on the basis that we need more housing it does not add up at all.

It is also spectacularly disingenuous of the developer to try to shove through the new application for offices and two penthouses when it argued hard for the last applications for 8 falts on the office floors on the basis that there was no demand for offices in the area.

There is also the real issue of health and safety with this particular site. i cannot be bothered to go into it all again, but if you research the detail and history you will see that there are real and valid concerns. The Developer is trying to squeeze too much into the site.

Finally, I find it disconcerting that retail outlets like M&S are apparently hand in glove with these sorts of shenanigans. It seems that behind every over developed site you find the footprint of a suoermarket giant.

[fazer71]

The planning system is overly complicated it appear to be designed for the creation of jobs in planning above the provision new homes.

Bonkers!

This is an example of what happens, when you develop a system which is open to abuse and misinterpretation.

It results in delays in development expensive housing poor use of existing housing stock.

Boris hasn?t made things better, Labour over 13years in power did nothing.

The UK?s nutty Housing supply and the associated nutty conversation.

Social housing must be a part of all new developments.

This is a mad policy restricting supply of new homes it creates a two tier market

Developers avoid building more than x number of homes to get under the requirement ? utterly Bonkers!!

Stick rather than Carrot we know stick never works.

The UK needs more homes we should have simple planning rules as they do in much of Europe then maybe house prices would be lower and rents would be lower as there would be more supply.

Only housing associations benefit from lax planning they are allowed to build at twice or more the volume and far higher density than other builders with a virtual carte balanche from Local authority planners and councillors.

Social housing has become an evil which now supports high rents in the private housing sector it restricts supply of new homes and creates a skewed false relationship between demand and supply in prime locations.

Right to buy

According to some is bad ?it reduces the number of homes... ??

How does it reduce the number of homes do these homes disappear from the UK?s housing stock in some magical way?

No they simply end up in the ownership of those who cherish and maintain their homes.

Compare that to abused social housing which tax payers end up fixing expensively until the next tenants trashing!

Right to buy takes homes away from incompetent management by local authorities which is great!

Local authorities have crooked and incompetent employees who waste hundreds of millions of tax payer?s money on substandard repairs and maintenance.

I know this first had from Southwark my freeholder, the ?contractor? charged me and you the tax payer ?44,000 for ?7,000 worth of repairs! Insane but true!

Ahh the NIMBY?s ..

Pandered to by local councillors who want the nimby vote so interfere with the planning system at every opportunity.

Nimby?s only exist because they are indulged by these local politicians who will do anything to get a vote.

I hear green party councillors have vote against planning applications which would build more efficient homes or make better use of existing buildings! Utterly Bonkers.

Yes our housing system is broken? totally broken ... by local misgovernment. and vote chasing ! Insane.

[James Barber]

Hi fazer71,

The planning system isn't the problem. Developers land bank as if they wait the property prices will likely to have risen.

Planning departments can be a problem in that officers on the same case give wildly different views from one meeting with applciatns to another.

People with deep pockets can trump the system through fear of losing appeals.

Objectors don't have a right to appeal decisions but applicants can.

A system of taxing un occupied land could help stop land banking. It would see developers get cracking to build schemes they have permission for.

[Zebedee Tring]

Fazer, knowing your political views, I am sure that you would fully support a system of taxing unoccupied land, or indeed the taxation of the notional rent payable on all property (owner occupied and otherwise) that was in force during most of the term of the 1951-64 Tory Government (Schedule A tax).

[fazer71]

James

I disagree.

The planning system is constantly restricting applications and the supply of homes.

My uncle has a house which would have been able to be split into 3 flats, now with the new planning rules is can only be split into two flats.

So there will be one less home!!!

That?s a huge reduction in use of the existing housing stock crazy.. We want more homes and the planning system now allows 33 % fewer !

Housing associations are given planning for huge developments which would make sense for other developers, but other developers are simply not allowed to same privilege.

Land banking isn't a problem in Southwark ?

it is only an issue where no one wants to live!

Can you show any land banking sites in Southwark? or within the M25 for that matter . ??

Thankfully there is an appeals system to deal with the restrictions and refusals the councils make !!!!!!

Without the appeals system everything would grind to a stop and nothing would allowed. We?d be build one new home a year.!

I find your views on planning totally bizarre but as you are a local councillor I am not surprised there is nothing in our system which would make you want to increase the housing stock and everything which would make you side with nimby?s and tiny weeny development ?

As I explained in my previous post local authority?s and councillors are the main reason we have high house prices and are short on homes.

[Penguin68]

Councils should be ensuring that local needs for housing are being met without compromising on basic minimum standards, of build quality and of amenity. Accommodation also needs 'assets' (schools, transport, power, water and comms infrastructure, doctors etc.) New build and modified buildings need to offer basic minimum standards of e.g. space etc. so that we are not just building future slums. It is where councils also use their powers to implement social engineering that problems can arise, as those of a different political bias can object.

One thing councils try to do is to preserve the 'look and feel' of an area (i.e. through urban density standards, building heights, policies about building on gardens etc.) - but here the long view might suggest that simply withstanding change is not, in the end, acceptable. Whichever way they jump on this, the council cannot do it 'right' for everyone. Maybe a long term (20-50 year) strategy is required - one which can be bought in to by most interest groups, even accepting that individual consequences will cause ructions. But then, long term forecasts to support such a strategy will inevitably be wrong.

Councils and councilors are really between a rock and a hard place here. Any judgement can be challenged, and most will probably, over a sufficiently long term, be seen as an error. Or not.

[fazer71]

Zebedee

I?m a humanist not political and happy to attack any political party.

Politicians of all sides have done terrible things from Attlee's post war starvation rationing madness to Thatcher?s attempted poll tax the lists are long they are all capable of inhumane stupidity.

I don?t subscribe to punishment the idea of taxing unoccupied land makes little sense, far better to use a carrot rather than a stick.

In the UK house building is geared to only work for large corporations.

Ho many of us know anyone who has built their own home (ie bought a plot of land and got a company in to build a house)?

In Europe individuals build their own homes all the time in the UK it?s a handful of large property companies who build all the new homes.

The problems we have in are caused by a planning system which panders to the nimby political nonsense also has a poor plan and doesn?t work to make the best use of the existing housing stock also by the debt mortgage system which gives too much to some and not enough to others.

There are other factors like the large land owning families and historical poor development large footprint used for small houses in the 30?s ie one house built where the Victorians would have built two.

Penguin68

Councils and councillors only care about keeping power they don't give a damn about making things better unless it gets them a vote. which is why nimby's rule .

[Penguin68]

unless it gets them a vote. which is why nimbi's rule .

Actually, unless the 'back-yard' is seen as very big (normally it isn't) then councilors can happily ignore nimby-ies as, on any one issue, they are in a very small minority. Once the 'back yard' is seem to be as large as, e.g. a whole ward (as it was on the CPZ issue) then politicians have to take notice - but then that amount of shared disquiet is what democratic accountability is actually all about.

I am sure your cynicism is correct about some career councilors/ politicians - my experience is that many (within their own political positions) act as best as they can to the general interests of their constituents. Of course, they have political biases, which they exercise - but that is why they often are elected in the first place, their political views being their manifestos. Mr Barber likes cyclists and dislikes cars in the city, but this is hardly a secret. I may not chime with him on that, but I don't believe he has taken this stance 'to get a vote'. Indeed I suspect it has lost him some, as may have his equivocations over the CPZ issue.

[Abe_froeman]

I don't know if that's necessarily right Penguin. The number of signatories to the original Melbourne Grove segregation barrier petition would be about ten per cent of the number of votes needed to be elected in Southwark. Supporting three or four such schemes a year for each electoral cycle should be more than enough to ensure re-election.

East Dulwich councillors only need 1350 nimbies: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/1000/5_previous_election_results/3486/2014_council_elections/7

[fazer71]

Abe_froeman 100% agreed.

Planning is all about getting local votes for local MPs

Local MPs would vote against anything in planning if they sniff a vote.

It's a scandal the system is biased towards nimbi's ...

And that's a big reason we don't have enough homes in London !

[James Barber]

Hi P68,

You may be right about losing lots but I decide what I think it right rather than whether it will win or lose more votes. Vote chasing would mean inaction to avoid any chance of offending. East Dulwich is far being perfect to be able to do that.

I do think we have an incredible challenge with global warming, obesity with cycling and walking being part of the answer to both. Driving is unavoidable for many journeys so I don't dislike cars as much as the consequences of not addressing global warming and obesity. to me that's an important difference.

Hi Abe-froeman,

Do you honestly think people vote en masse based on single issues. It's hard enough to get people to vote. We do really well these days in East Dulwich getting just under half the electorate to vote in local elections.

Hi fazer71,

Planning is about shaping our communities for the better. Not allowing annoy thing goes mentality ruining what we have.

The reason we don't have enough homes in London is taxation with no real consequences to leaving homes unused. Land unused. Homes even get a council tax discount is only one occupant. Rapid growth in London population causing incredible home price inflation.

Hi first mate,

You've asked repeatedly about emails I received 10 April 2014. I've made a special trip to the council hQ to read my email account fully- normally just use a Blackberry. I've search the inbox, sent folder, deleted folder and could;t find anything about Chesterfield grove from that date +/- 2 days. I might have squirrelled it away in a folder but after 30 mins of looking went home. If you have a copy of anything do share so I can see what you're trying to get art.

[spider69]

Are you not there to represent what the residents think not what you think?

You are supposed to be impartial.

MG to an extent proves you are not

[first mate]

James, I don't have any paperwork at all. I just wnat to know whether you agreed to extending double yellows on Chesterfield or not....perhaps you never answered. The person who replied to your recent email on consolidation Orders, and who stated in that email the date you were consulted, will know the answer whatever it was, perhaps you could simply ask them?

I want to know because I am not clear why double yellows were suddenly extended on Chesterrfield, there must have been a good reason for this or was it just done because someone somewhere thought it would be a good idea?

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

I would not expect to agree to any increase in double yellow lines on any local roads without an exceptionally good reason. I will have asked for existing linings to be repainted as we have a long term problem around the car wash there parking and enforcement not having been particularly effective.

I'm not aware of any extension in double yellow lines - perhaps they'd worn away and were repainted.

I will ask officers for the recent history of linings on that road.

[first mate]

James,

It is stated in the email from the Council official to you about Consolidation Orders, that double yellows were "extended" on Chesterfield Grove, and that you were consulted on this on 10th April 2014.

The email also states that other roads like Ashbourne had double yellows put in the same place they have always been, that is not extended.

We need to find out the rationale for extending on Chesterfifield, where the idea came from and who ok'd it? Perhaps you never repsonded and unwittingly let it go through?

[Abe_froeman]

This saga reminds me of Jeremy Paxman's infamous interview with Michael Howard!

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

I have formally asked for details of all changes to Chesterfield grove yellow lines over the last few years as determined to get to the bottom of this.