former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[bawdy-nan]

James - that's great to hear (re Plough Lane). Thank you for following this up. Much appreciated.

[unlurked]

Dear James, FYI from the M&S thread:

I think it's at 9am at Council offices at Tooley St. I wonder why James Barber hasn't asked for the meeting to be moved to a local venue and at a more convenient time as it is such an important issue? I seem to recall he did this for the Great Exhibtion outside seating debacle.

[James Barber]

Hi unlurked,

The current council administration led by Southwark Labour removed local planning committees and they all now meet in Tooley Street. So the planning inspectorate will have been told Tooley Street is where it will not cost any money to host and the planning officers are all there.

I've yet to see a Planning appeal take place at any time other than the normal working day. They've all come from Bristol in the past with commensurate logistic issues.

[bcam]

My main issue is the insane speeds drivers reach on Lordship Lane between the Library and the Mag pub.

Closer to the centre of the town, the speedbumps slow these drivers down, but every night we have nutters exceeding motorway speeds on residential street. It's extremely dangerous and extremely noisy.

Can anything be done to force a more sensible speed?

[Penguin68]

every night we have nutters exceeding motorway speeds on residential street

I believe it is exceptionally unlikely that there are vehicles travelling at over 70mph every night between the library and the Mag - I have lived in ED for over 25 years and I have never seen this happening (though I accept that motor bikes in the dead of night might do high-ish speeds on occasion). Vehicles at 40-50 (again late at night) I would be prepared to accept, but not as a regularly nightly occurrence.

There have been police chases of vehicles (police are restricted as to the speeds they may use in built-up areas) - but again not nightly, not at 70+mph and these are the 'nutters' who are (most frequently) caught.

Hyperbole does not get traffic calmed, nor does it help make a case for this.

[James Barber]

Hi bcam, P68,

Southwark Council try and present traffic/speed count data on its website: http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/index.jsp?tooltip=yes

I say try because I've often had to chase for counts to be added.

Anyway, what I find curious is not traffic/speed counts for the section of road you've highlighted.

We can see a cluster of injuries from people crossing Lordship Lane where it meets Heber Road and also Townley and Crystal Palace / Landells - www.crashmap.co.uk. I'm sure speed will play a part in these crashes.

I'll ask if council officials have any or plan to collect any. Some vehicles do appear to be travelling well over 30mph but I'm a terrible judge of speed.

[poppet27]

Hi James

Apologies if this has already been covered, but I am aghast at the proposed tree felling in Camberwell Old Cemetery. Is no tree safe in Southwark? I live near there and have seen hedgehogs, woodpeckers and finches - I can't see the justification for loss of habitat, the environment (in a very polluted borough) as well as ruining the view for the houses on Underhill and Overhill Roads.

Can anything be done to oppose this?

[Louisa]

Hi James,

I have sent you a private message concerning the recent planning application submitted for Crown House on East Dulwich Road, with the proposal for a large retail unit at ground floor level and residential dwellings above, along with numerous extensions. Do you have any heads up on this and the impact upon parking locally with the proposed retail unit not appearing to provide on-site parking facilities for customers?

Louisa.

[James Barber]

Hi Louisa,

No I don't have any intel on this other than Waitrose have told me not them.

The site would cause serious local problems:

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9550159

The shop may or may not generate a lot of trips. For example a Magestic wine warehouse probably wouldnt be an issue as they never seem that busy. A popular supermarket chain could generate a lot of trips and over flow parking issues to the surrounding area atthe same time the leisure centre does - especially Saturdays.

But this application is to add 6 x 1 bed flats and 6 x 2 bed flats with no on-site car parking, East Dulwihc Road has no parking for some way both sides. So clearly anyone with a car wanting to live in one of these homes will have to parking on side streets causing even more parking stress than already exisits.

If you think this is a bad ideal please do email the case officer - [email protected] and cc me please.

East Dulwich councillors have asked that this application be decided by a planning committee so all the issues can be fully aired in public.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I honestly don?t get this requirement for all new properties to include off street parking. Surely this just encourages more car ownership?

[worldwiser]

I'm highly doubtful whether off-street parking encourages car use. It just makes properties more expensive. Most properties in ED have only on-street parking available, and the whole area is jammed 24 hours. Clearly the absence of off-street parking is deterring no-one from owning a car. Including me, since I couldn't do my job without it.

[BrandNewGuy]

Or maybe developers of new builds where there were no houses/flats previously could be made to offer a few years of free car club membership to new buyers. Adding twelve properties to the area with no extra parking is daft.

[James Barber]

Hi rahrahrah,

I agree with you generally. Classic in the mews along Underhill Road next to junction with Barry Road. They've all been designed with fake drives to pretend they have private parking. But allowing new homes to be built that will require parking, have no direct on street parking and no off street parking can only possibly lead to more parking stress.

Hi BrandNewGuy,

Great idea but take-up is never 100% and some will always own a car. So allowing this development will result in more parking stress. If the area had controlled parking then these homes could be formally declared car free and not allowed to have permits. But residents of East Dulwich have mad it clear they don't want to live in such an area.

I think this planning application will be a really useful litmus test. If it is granted then it's clear we'll need a Neighbourhood Plan which brings extra powers to defend the areas suburban fabric and feel.

[James Barber]

hi worldwise,

But I doubt you drive to Lordship Lane?

[unlurked]

Dear James. The leader of Southwark Council has tweeted that the Libdems did not join the opposition protest against the EDL today in Southwark. Although not ED specific it does have ramifications. Why didn't the Libdems join and show unity against the EDL?

[James Barber]

Lib Dems have always condemned the views of EDL. This particular march was planned to start in Tooley Street going to Tower Hamlets and then back again. So as you say little to do with East Dulwich.

As a liberal we believe people have a right to protest and counter protest. Personally I believe going to the counter protest feeds the media interest. So Lib Dem colleagues I;m told did attend - LAbour council leader perhaps wasn't omni present.

The real issue of far right politics isn't EDL but UKIP. I and colleagues are on doorsteps this weekend taking about real politics and not EDL freak show.

So I'm not sure what ramifications your talking about?

Lib Dems in government are implementing policies the EDL are horrified by - gay marriage being a great example.

[unlurked]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Lib Dems have always condemned the views of EDL.

> This particular march was planned to start in

> Tooley Street going to Tower Hamlets and then back

> again. So as you say little to do with East

> Dulwich.

> As a liberal we believe people have a right to

> protest and counter protest. Personally I believe

> going to the counter protest feeds the media

> interest. So Lib Dem colleagues I;m told did

> attend - LAbour council leader perhaps wasn't omni

> present.

> The real issue of far right politics isn't EDL but

> UKIP. I and colleagues are on doorsteps this

> weekend taking about real politics and not EDL

> freak show.

>

> So I'm not sure what ramifications your talking

> about?

> Lib Dems in government are implementing policies

> the EDL are horrified by - gay marriage being a

> great example.

Odd response but thank you for it. I do not agree with your stance on counter protests but won't go there. Ramifications - there are several including the march taking place on the same street where the main Council offices (town hall) are located and as elected represenatives of that Council I would expect all Cllrs to protest. If EDL had a march in ED then from what you have said you wouldn't protest either. Strange how you differntiate race hate groups.

[James Barber]

Hi unlurked,

Perhaps we should continue via PM's.

This EDL demo only become news when the counter demo's were added into the equation. It then became a conflict and the press attended, and then needed to cover it to justify their use of limited resources, expecting things to kick-off between the two sides.

Overall it appeared to add credibility to EDL. I think they're an irrrelevance with almost no suppport but others including the press might think they're not with such a huge counter demo. Eitherway it generated more column inches and photos than they EDL could ever have hoped for.

But of course if they werent an irrelevance, if they had real tangible support, I'd take a different stance.

[Calsug]

Dear James,

I was wondering what your views were in relation to the current trend of small independent shops going out of business with landlords greedily perusing the higher paying but generic chain stores? At present there seems to be an increasing number of empty shop fronts with no tenants in them as we all know this has a negative impact on businesses around them. Surely now is the time to take a proactive stance and open discussions with landlords and tenants alike to ensure that Lordship lane keeps a good mix of shops.

It would be good to see the council investing in Lordship lane and attempting to maintain the appearance of Lordship Lane and surrounding streets by addressing simple issues like redoing the pavements which have patched up poorly over the years by various works, creating a uniform frontage for stores and the entrance outside stores etc?

[James Barber]

Hi Calsug,

It's a tricky one. WE have some very limited local devolved budgets which East Dulwich councillors have allocated to things like resurfacing North Cross Road, providing electric points form market stalls. We've also successfully campaigned and after five years we have much better pedestrian conditions in terms of crossing Lordship Lane and soon 20mph.

But shop rents are not something Southwark can directly control. It can indirectly apply planning policies of 50% remaining shop use. But it does seem odd that freeholders would prefer to see empty shops than accept rent levels that shop owners can afford.

Repaving Lordship Lane pavements would be welcome but it wasn't that many years since it was last done and is incredibly disruptive. It could be the nail in some local businesses. But what we could do is fix some of those private forecourts that are a real pickle.

[worldwiser]

Calsug - I totally agree. Some of the streets around us including the pavements are an embarrassment. I honestly don't understand how utilities and others can get away with endless patches of poorly-laid tarmac and then leave the mess to the local council to pay for its eventual restitution. The gas works around the ED Grove/LL junction are a case in point. They already had to cause the massive disruption James speaks of, but instead of doing a nice, neat relay of tarmac across the whole junction while they were at it, they just patched over an uneven section and merely repainted the bit of the yellow box area they'd hacked up. It looks absolutely awful and it massively increases road noise into the bargain. The council did similarly on Crawthew Grove a couple of months ago: making a totally pointless dog's breakfast of some yellow lines over the new cycle route nonsense, providing no real advantages for cyclists, and just adding further to an already ugly streetscape. And on East Dulwich Road - around the new pedestrian crossing.. I could go on and on. No joined up thinking on display anywhere.

[Calsug]

Hi James,

Thanks for your response

I think that on Borough High Street Southwarkcouncil standardised the entrances and also put the name of the shop in metal letters on the floor which was a nice but probably expensive touch to maintain!

Certainly the pavements at the moment are a mess - uneven and also prone to large puddles when it rains. It must be a British contractor thing because when I lived in Switzerland they painstakingly removed the slabs, set them to one side and ensured they went back properly ? surely the council could enforce a similar rule before granting contractors a works permit to do the job? It really boils down to pure laziness on their part.

I am not entirely sure what a 20Mph speedlimit will do to help Lordship lane business but maybe I am missing something.

I am no way suggesting a gentrified road but surely there are things that the council can do to encourage business and make it more appealing, to for example make empty shops look better by putting artwork up over empty store fronts deters posters, the shop next to the butchers which I think has been turned into a flat is a prime candidate?

[James Barber]

Hi Calsug,

Certainly the puddling around the shoe shop is programmed to be fixed this autumn after I complained. I suspect it will take a lot of nagging to ensure this happens.

Borough High Street works wer funded by the Traffic Director for London more than 15 years ago - I used to live on Tabard Street then. So seperate funding becuase of its red route status. Sadly they've not maintained the shop names on the pavement idea.

The shop next ot the butchers is a private home that had a fire about 18-24months ago. But I am surprised by how many shop front owners would sooner have no rental income than a sensible rent.

As for UK vs. Swiss workers. We have a huge cultural gap about how all employees are trained, apprenticeships, public pride. Certainly Southwark Council should be enforcing better standards but it is an uphill struggle. But Westminster CC do seem to do a better job of it.

[worldwiser]

Hi James - I wonder if you could comment on this picture. You'll see that the builders involved in the development on the first corner of Crawthew Grove took it upon themselves to close the road for their own purposes earlier today. Can you imagine on whose authority they are empowered to do this? This in addition to permanently taking up 7 or 8 badly needed parking spaces with their plant, piles of debris and office portakabin without the apparent requirement for any licence or cost to them; creating a huge amount of dirt, dust and noise which lands daily on everyone's cars; and, I noticed today, engraving deep and damaging tracks into the road surface on that corner.

Is there really nothing that can be done to force these developers to have some respect for the neighbours around here and to bring some council oversight into how the site is managed? Not to mention ensuring that they pay handsomely for sorting out all the mess when they're done?

[edhistory]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> But I am

> surprised by how many shop front owners would

> sooner have no rental income than a sensible

> rent.

>

Fortunsately not in Lordship Lane between Tintagel and Melbourne.

Count the voids.

John K