former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[chazzle]

James, I've asked a question on the Railway Rise thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1532206

[James Barber]

Hi chazzle,

Southwark Council refused planning permission for the planning application seeking the demolition of 2 & 3 Railway Rise and replacement with new building with 135m2 retail space and flats above.

The applicant submitted an appeal on 23 September. Apparently appeals typically 80% decisions taken within 14 weeks. So probably we'll hear this one on or before 30 December 2015 - as per government website - http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/appeals/appeals-against-refusal-of-planning-permission/

The concept of demolishing such aged properties at one end of a row or pair has local precedent e.g. 255 Lordship Lane. But the site context is different. I'd prefer them to remain. Hopefully the planning inspector will hold a similar view.

Edited to be less defeatist!

[MarkT]

James,

re Railway Rise you say:

"it's well and truly outside of our hands now."

I think that is a little defeatist. Objectors to the original application are entitled to make representation at the Appeal, and in my experience this can be very effective.

MarkT

[James Barber]

Hi MarkT,

Yes, you're right ANY INTERESTED PARTY can write in via the planning officer. And I'd encourage them to do so.

If it was an informal or formal hearing we could have attended in person as I anticipate doing for the 2/"A Crystal Palace appeal hearing.

If anyone has further objections they should email the case officer [email protected] stating they're emailing about the planning appeal for planning application 15/AP/0192 2-3 Railway Rise reference Ref. No: w/15/3135088 please copy me [email protected]

you can see the three documents the application has provided as the basis for their appeal here - worth reading to put any objection in that context - http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/0192&system=DC

Such submissions must be made within 5 weeks of the appeal so the deadline for us is 28 October 2015.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

Many thanks for pointing out the inconsistency between the consolidation traffic management order and being advised it represented no local changes and a traffic management order from April 2014 for Chesterfield Grove.

This is the explanation I've had from council officers:

"

Dear Councillor Barber

Thank you for your enquiry dated 22 September in which you enquired about changes to parking restrictions on Chesterfield Grove.

As part of the Lordship Lane signs and lines review completed in spring 2014, we introduced 5m of new double yellow line adjacent to the vehicle crossover to the west of No 2a Chesterfield Grove. It replaced a single yellow line of the same length. This is the only change to waiting restrictions in Chesterfield Grove in recent years.

I have attached two photographs of the length. As you can see, the purpose of the restriction is to prevent parking adjacent to a vehicle crossover. Were the yellow lines not there, it would still be an offence to park in the location. However, officers felt at that time that a double yellow line would give a much clearer message to keep the crossover clear at all times, and indeed a single yellow line was positively misleading.

I am sorry to say that this restriction was introduced without approval from Dulwich Community Council. I must, however, stress that we did fulfil the statutory traffic order process, including three weeks of consultation and that therefore the restriction is legally enforceable.

5m represents 0.4% of the yellow lines that were repainted as part of this particular project and an even much smaller proportion of the all the regulatory lines that were reviewed, had new orders made but were unchanged. In terms of cost, the 5m represents 0.2% of the total spend on signs and lines. The vast majority of the works in this project did not increase restrictions and therefore officers did not prepare a full report to Community Council.

I do apologise once again that this change did not go via the normal decision making process with a report to Dulwich Community Council but hope that you will understand what a small component of the project this was.

If you consider necessary, I would be happy to send a report to the community council seeking comment on whether the restriction should be kept or removed. I await your comments in this respect.

Yours sincerely,

"

Hence why I didn't have any recollection and couldn't find any paperwork.

As the impact of this is to my mind adding clarity I wont be taking the matter further.

[first mate]

James,

Many thanks for getting to the bottom of this. I do think it shines a little light on the way some things are getting done. Okay so this was a very small change but I remain a little disturbed when even small things do not got via "the normal decision making process".

[BrandNewGuy]

James,

Just another quick nudge to see if there has been any movement on the development of the old garden centre site. Last news was February and with Morrisons selling off their M Local stores, what is the deal looking like?

And if there's no prospect of immediate action, can the developer be asked to secure the demolished site sufficiently to move those horrible hoardings back off the pavement?

[James Barber]

Hi BNG,

Sorry I heard some news yesterday and been meaning to share it.

The scheme for the site had a planning application to make it cheaper to build - make the core concrete squarer rather than odd shapes. Suggestion that so much work for builders that build costs rocketing. This application Southwark planning asked the developer to withdraw as planners were minded to refuse.

Without these changes the development has stalled and is being reassembled and hope is to start building later this year.

It is now officially 10 years since I originally suggested a new Grove Vale Library as part of this scheme. Frustrated.

Hi first mate,

Certainly far from ideal.

[James Barber]

Some small highway resurfacing coming up 13 & 14 October.

1. North Cross Road between Lordship Lane and Nutfield Road

2. Shawbury Road at its junction with Lordship Lane

3. Chesterfield Grove also at its junction with Lordship Lane.

At some point in the near future we'll also see Lordship lane resurfaced around its junction North Cross Road and then a week or two later anti skid surfacing added.

[chazzle]

James,

[re: Railway Rise]

Thanks for pointing out the planning documents - I'd assumed the letter was all there is. (I wrote to the consultant for clarification, but he hasn't replied.) I've had a skim of the appeal and it seems largely a re-hash of the original. They make the same claims about the largely high-rise environment. They haven't even bothered to update the photos to include the mess this developer has left over the road. Most annoyingly, they again suggest that they might get their hands on 1, Railway Rise in the future - which they won't.

Thanks also for the update on the former garden centre site. I wrote to Westrock and Morrisons to get some information, but again no reply. We all know that 'later this year' isn't going to happen. They are saying that the original overblown plans are not viable, so can we not call those in for a viability review and start to get something actually built? In the meantime - as BNG says - they should be more responsible and maintain the site safely and properly. But they won't. They can just bank the asset values.

Feeling a bit defeatist myself. But, like MarkT, not giving up!

[first mate]

James, why is so much being spent on the area around Nx? Is it anything to do with imminent arrival of M&S?

The endless and infamous Nx junction path works are now complete and I feel distinctly undewhelmed...really what was all that upheaval for?

Have you had a look at the paths along Ashbourne, Chesterfield, Blackwater, Melbourne, lately? .Appaling, as they are in other side streets. How about a bit of money spent on these? We are all sick of the vast puddles that accumlate at the slightest bit of rain. An elderly lady was complaining to me about dangerous some of the paths are too and so easy to lose footing or trip on uneven paving. A nightmare if you are disabled.

[James Barber]

All three side road junction with Lordship Lane need some resurfacing. So I'm delighted that Southwakr central funds are being used in East Dulwich.

I don't believe this has anything to do with M&S coming to town. Southwark Counci ljsut isn't that organised if even someone somewhere in the council wanted to make things better near ot M&S.

I don't disagree many paths in our area need renewing. We don't have the devolved budgets to fix much of them and central budgets aren't catching up on such delapidations. My lot would use capital funds to again start catching up as we did when we ran the council.

[first mate]

Oh well, that's that then. I guess we just have to vote in your lot in next time to get something done with the pavements. James, are you being serious, with respect that sounds defeatist on your part. If half the energy was put into basic stuff like this, as to road barriers and so forth, I feel sure pavements could be improved.

I keep hearing arguments about how 20 moh and more cycling will improve the lot of the elderly and vulnerable by making our streets safer, not much point if they can trip on paving and break a hip the moment they step out of the front door.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

Sorry pragmatism. Is this the most significant issued in East Dulwich and Southwark that I should divert all my councillor energies to it over and above continuing to work on more school place - no.

Have I raised this repeatedly with council officials and as a group in capital planning yes.

And insurance claims are decreasing so on that measure it appears not to be getting worse. Although the planned near stopping of council spending on highway and pavement renewals will have an impact eventually.

[James Barber]

Further news on insisting upon double yellow lines around crossover.

Officers insist that after many decades of them not being required they will be required on A&B roads:

"

Council - Member enquiry

Our Reference: 556029

________________________________________

Dear Councillor Barber

Thank you for your enquiry dated 28th August in which you raised concerns about the retention of the policy requirement for double yellow lines at new crossovers on classified roads.

Classified Roads (A and B Roads) are at the top of the road hierarchy and take a considerably higher volume of traffic, including a greater percentage of HGV's. They tend to be wider roads and irrespective of whether they are fronted by residential or commercial properties will likely have higher than average vehicle speeds.

I have put together a comparison of the traffic flows and speeds on Barry Road with a selection of adjacent roads to illustrate this. Although this data is from 2008 and 2009 I don't expect that traffic data patterns will have significantly altered in the last five years.

Data from 2008 / 2009

Vehicle numbers Average Speed 85 percentile

Barry Road (N) 4248 25.6 30.9

Barry Road (S) 5024 25.6 30.6

Whately Road (E ) 1225 16.5 19.6

Whately Road (N) 1408 16.7 21.1

Crystal Palace Road (N) 860 16.7 19

Crystal Palace Road (S) 846 17.5 20.6

These factors tend to combine to result in an increase in risk of collisions for vehicles entering those roads. I think it is appropriate that we recognise these roads have demonstrably higher risk of collisions and ensure vehicles entering the highway have sufficient visibility splays provided to reduce this. We have no plans to further review the highways visibility or vehicle crossover design standards at this stage.

"

What do others think?

When all our roads weren't 20mph they didn't required these. Now we're a 20mph borough the administration is insisting upon these. Topsy turvy world.

[first mate]

James, thanks for raising this and letting people here know. Why do you think this is now on the agenda, what is the rationale?

[BrandNewGuy]

James, a while ago I think you posted something about Southwark Council asking people to suggest possible spots for car club spaces (in this case, Zipcar). Do you know if that's still the case? And if the Council intends to expand the scheme?

Perhaps better would be promoting the 'e-car' system for car club use, in conjunction with TFL:

http://www.carplus.org.uk/bollore-to-put-3000-electric-cars-on-londons-streets/

I would be more than happy to ditch my car when it reaches the end of its 'life' if I felt there was sufficient local provision for car club cars.

[MarkT]

James:

Re Visibility splays on crossovers:

The Southwark Streetscape Design Manual Section DS114 includes the following paragraphs that I quote in full:

1.2 Discussion

a. Providing adequate visibility between street users is important to everyone?s safety. Visibility should generally be sufficient to allow road users to see potential conflicts or dangers in advance of the distance in which they will be able to break and come to a stop.

b. 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.

The officer responding to your Member Enquiry disregards the cautionary note in the Policy, with a contrary belief that increased visibility reduces danger:

?I think it is appropriate that we recognise these (classified) roads have demonstrably higher risk of collisions and ensure vehicles entering the highway have sufficient visibility splays provided to reduce this.?

The warning in the Policy does not differentiate classified and non-classified roads. It suggests that the application of extended double yellow lines should be decided on a case by case basis.

The increased splay allows vehicles to cross the pavement at increased speed. I think that presents a real danger to pedestrians.

[Abe_froeman]

"I think it is appropriate that we recognise these (classified) roads have demonstrably higher risk of collisions and ensure vehicles entering the highway have sufficient visibility splays provided to reduce this..."

James very helpfully provided a link on the Melbourne Grove thread to a websaite that detailed all collisions in East Dulwich. Most of them seem to be at junctions rather than crossovers: www.crashmap.co.uk

Lordship Lane has the highest number of incidents, most of which took place in the section with the most restricted parking and with no crossovers at all.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

Southwark issued a Southwark Street Design Manual in 2012. Organising that I think put it n the agenda. We've had the policy reversed for non A & B roads but despite the borough being designated 20mph since the policy we've still not had it changed... yet.

But I'm tenacious if nothing else.

Hi BNG,

In East Dulwich ward we've ensured we have much better car club coverage with more cars and vans than other parts of the borough. We used some of our Cleaner, Greener, Safer money to achieve this. And despite having more car per head of population we have slightly higher utilisation per car.

Two weeks ago I asked if we could get lots more and how we could help make it happen. Research suggests that each shared car over time takes up to 25 private cars of off the road. So great for easier parking pressures.

But the exclusive contract with Zipcar has slightly less than a year to run so the procurement exercise to select the operator after the current contract is about to kick off and we now have to wait for that to run. If a new operator were selected they may have different views on where they want cars for example. Frustrating.

So yes I'd love suggestions but in about a years time.

Hi MarkT,

I agree and have made those points. I hope to get the policy improved.

Hi Abe_froeman,

Indeed. The thought had crossed my mind. Then again relatively miminal traffic goes over crossovers. So I don't know the crash rate per movement.

[James Barber]

Update on Lordship Lane Crown Post Office - the remodelling works will start on Monday last two weeks and they'll make every effort to minimise disruption for customers who part from Saturday am 17 October they will work around. (17th it will be closed).

I had asked for a chair or two could be included as some older customers need a rest after getting ot the post office. But sadly no luck yet.

[BrandNewGuy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi BNG,

> In East Dulwich ward we've ensured we have much

> better car club coverage with more cars and vans

> than other parts of the borough. We used some of

> our Cleaner, Greener, Safer money to achieve this.

> And despite having more car per head of population

> we have slightly higher utilisation per car.

>

> Two weeks ago I asked if we could get lots more

> and how we could help make it happen. Research

> suggests that each shared car over time takes up

> to 25 private cars of off the road. So great for

> easier parking pressures.

> But the exclusive contract with Zipcar has

> slightly less than a year to run so the

> procurement exercise to select the operator after

> the current contract is about to kick off and we

> now have to wait for that to run. If a new

> operator were selected they may have different

> views on where they want cars for example.

> Frustrating.

> So yes I'd love suggestions but in about a years

> time.

Thanks, James. We'll revisit it then, but it seems to me that greatly increased car club provision and usage will cut the Gordian knot of increased parking pressure, hopefully without us having to go down the CPZ route.

[James Barber]

BNG, I couldn't agree more. That's partly why I've been pushing this so much for so long. The other angle is 60% of the CO2 for a car comes from its manufacture. Pooling dramatically reduces the eco impact of using a car. it also saves people money for spend on other things. Money spent on cars almost all leaves the local economy.

I'd like to get pool cars such as Zipcar onto every single street in East Dulwich ward (65) within 60 seconds walk of every front door. So we'd need about 10 times the current 11 cars and vans in the ward.

We clearly need to much much more ambitious as a borough and community about this.

[fazer71]

100% Zipcar is NOT an answer!

This is Paris Autolib' Electric cars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autolib%27

Nissan Leaf or BMW i3 Zip Cars or equivalent would be an answer.

[James Barber]

Hi fazer71,

I'm not convinced. The energy taken to make some of these eco cars is much higher than standard car at the moment. So the total energy during the hole life cycle can be as high or higher. Also, disposing of the end car can currently be more complicated.

So, agree with what I think you're trying to encourage but concerned the whole life cycle should be considered.