former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[Orange owl]

Please stop putting your negative Tory leaflets in my letterbox,there is a large notice which you seem to ignore.

[Nigello]

Re the petition - I very much doubt the council would agree to planting trees in the play park if the aim is to protect against pollution. A few trees or bushes wouldn't do that, and would hardly block out any noise - not that it's that noisy anyway. Better just ask for trees and plants purely because they look nice.

[Cllr Rosie Shimell]

Hi Nigello

Thanks for your message regarding the tree pits on Goodrich road. I understand these trees were probably removed becuse they were diseased. We have some local funding which we can use to plant new ones in the next tree planting season, which is January-March. We will make sure this spot is on the list of sites when this funding is allocated.

Rosie

[Cllr Rosie Shimell]

Hi David_Carnell, Thank you for your queries about the coaches on Maxted Road and cherry plum tree in Warwick gardens.

I am afraid I am not sure on the background to issues as they are slightly outside of the ward we cover, but I will certainly try and get some more information on them and come back to you ASAP. Rosie

[Cllr Rosie Shimell]

Hi LD929

Thank you for your inquiry about planting trees/plants around Goose Green playground. If you would like to make representations to the council about this, then the Southwark Parks Department would be the best people to direct it too. This is also something you could apply for funding for from local councillors covering the area, as we have some devolved 'Cleaner, Greener Safer' funding we are able to allocate (as East Dulwich councillors, we have in the past made allocations to Goose Green), however the date to apply for the next round of this funding will probably not be until autumn.

As another post has also suggested, you may also wish to discuss this with Friedns of Goose Green?

I hope this is helpful but please do let me know if you have any further queries.

Rosie

[James Barber]

Thanks Rosie for covering for me last week on the forum. I had large evening work commitments unsually last week. Back to normal.

[James Barber]

Lovely piece of casework. Residents on Heber Road asking about how to enable kids to play on the street - http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/?p=2461

Today's Southwark News lists 4 dates, 1 a month starting Sunday 25 May 2.30pm to 5.30pm, where Heber Road between Cyrena and Landcroft Roads will be open for kids playing on the street.

If you'd like this to happen on your street please get in touch so we can help you organise this.

[Ant]

Hi James, not sure if this is your area or not but the pavement on Dulwich Common between the park and the sports clubs is in a terrible state. It's particularly bad on the south side by the playing fields. Any idea if/when it might get seen to?

[Sue]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Lovely piece of casework. Residents on Heber Road

> asking about how to enable kids to play on the

> street -

> http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/?p=2461

>

> Today's Southwark News lists 4 dates, 1 a month

> starting Sunday 25 May 2.30pm to 5.30pm, where

> Heber Road between Cyrena and Landcroft Roads will

> be open for kids playing on the street.

>

> If you'd like this to happen on your street please

> get in touch so we can help you organise this.

XXXXXXX

That's a fantastic idea! Well done Southwark!

[James Barber]

Hi Ant,

Can you please email me more details - it's the border between College ward and Village ward so keen we pin point it precisely for officers to explain their plans.

Hi Sue,

It is good.

How about your street joining in?

[Sue]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> Hi Sue,

> It is good.

> How about your street joining in?

xxxxxxx

Sadly I have too much to do already (including forthcoming street party involvement!) and have no children young enough to want to play in the street, however I will mention it to neighbours who have :)

[Pugwash]

James I have heard that it is the ruling Southwark Labour party policy that any council tenancy which falls vacant and the property is deemed to be worth more than ?300K is to be sold rather than being offered to another tenant.

Please advise if this is correct. I am assuming that this relates to houses or conversion flats rather than blocks of flats. Since the majority of council properties in ED are 'street properties' this would mean that those looking to downsize or transfer council tenancies will no longer have an option In ED and parts of Peckham and Nunhead.

If this info is correct - do we have any stats on how many properties in the 3 Dulwich wards have been sold? Where does the money go?

[Penguin68]

the property is deemed to be worth more than ?300K is to be sold rather ...

Based on current property prices in ED (and assuming we are talking about market price, not about 'price to sitting tenant' that must mean virtually all empty properties in ED would be put up for sale!

[Pugwash]

That is what I heard - many of the flat conversions in Barry Road, Crystal Palace Road, Rodwell Road were originally owned by the GLC and then taken over by Southwark. People who want to downsize because of the bedroom tax are finding it difficult to find smaller properties - so the sell off could be true.

Situation will get worse when the Government extend the bedroom tax to pensioners some time in the next few years.

There are no council tenancies in Bromley as they sold off all their housing stock to Housing Associations to manage

[James Barber]

Hi Penguin68,

Yes, Southwark Council sell council properties worth over ?300,000 when they become vacant. These rules are the policies from the Southwark Labour Party who currently lead Southwark Council.

It means that all council properties will be sold as no properties are on the market for less than ?300,000 in East Dulwich ward. Clearly this threshold needs to be raised if we're to keep any council social housing in East Dulwich. Effectively without changing the threshold this will social cleanse the area. We currently have around 800 East Dulwich ward council tenants.

One argument might be the receipts for such sales could be used to improve the remaining stock. But the council is sitting on close to ?100M of unspent receipts.

[Pugwash]

James Thanks for confirming the council property sell off. The money collected could go to creating more extra sheltered council housing for those aged 55 plus. There is a scarcity of property for older people in ED to rent or purchase, especially important for those of us who want to downsize and still live in ED in accommodation suited for people with reduced mobility etc.

I cannot remember seeing anything on the various leaflets we have had from all parties as to what each party is going to do for us 'older folk'. Given the recent publicity that loneliness is on the increase on pensioners, what can be done to reduce this in ED? There do not seem to be many activities/clubs etc around which cater for the less well off older person, who does not need care or day centres.

[Renata Hamvas]

Hi James,

It is incorrect to state that it is Labour policy to firstly, sell-off any council tenancy that falls vacant and secondly,that a property worth more than ?300,000 is automatically sold rather than being offered to another tenant. There will therefore not be a sudden decrease in the number of council properties in East Dulwich

It has been standard Council policy for years, to review where a property is empty and void (usually a period street property) and also in need of substantial repair, to balance that cost with selling it in the interests of sound public finance. Since 2010 a total of 138 void homes have been sold; this is out of a total of 55,000 properties ie 0.0025%.The policy that set the figure at ?300,000, as a threshold for the consideration to sell, was agreed by the

Liberal Democrats in March 2009, when they were in power and not by the Labour Party. Labour has already given a commitment in Council Assembly to review this figure upwards to ?500,000 or ?600,000.

Overall, approximately 1,000 council homes have been sold, removed or demolished since 2010, compared with 2,570 between 2006 and 2010 and 6,181 between 2002 and 2006 under the Liberal Democrats. In total since 2002, under the Liberal Democrats 8,751 council homes were sold, removed or demolished ? over 1,000 a year.

Renata

[Renata Hamvas]

In terms of receipts that the Council holds, they have already been earmarked for expenditure towards Labour's commitment to build 11,000 council homes, our continued warm, dry & safe major housing external refurbishment programme and internal upgrades for our tenants. The new homes being built are a variety of size and type, this would include properties for the over 55s.

Renata

[James Barber]

Come on Renata people aren't that daft.

No, the requirements for major repairs to be needed causing the council to sell homes ended when your party took control of the council. Even ?1,000 of repairs caused the sale of a 4 bedroom house. Perfectly good homes are being sold and the threshold for selling is ?300,000. In East Dulwich ward we have no homes for sale under ?300,000. It doesn't take Einstein to work out this mean social cleansing.

You can't pretend this isn't your local parties policies causing this.

Over 900 council homes have been sold or demolished since your party took control of the council in 2010, you've promised to build 11,000 new council homes but only built 26 in four years.

And the council doesn't have 55,000 properties. It has 55,000 freehold properties but 13,500 of those are leasehold properties and not for the council to sell.

[KalamityKel]

Strange that the "council" think they have control of property that's not theirs... sounds very much like a certain school project no?

Do you think perhaps, you, James, could keep the politics out of it for now? The Libs are doing enough bad mouthing in the real world. We don't really need it on here too.

I'm sure there are plenty of faults to be found with all current policies regardless of party. It would be nice for everyone to work together to make a better world rather than push blame around when something doesn't operate who you personally would like.

[KoolBananas]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Come on Renata people aren't that daft.

> No, the requirements for major repairs to be

> needed causing the council to sell homes ended

> when your party took control of the council. Even

> ?1,000 of repairs caused the sale of a 4 bedroom

> house. Perfectly good homes are being sold and the

> threshold for selling is ?300,000. In East Dulwich

> ward we have no homes for sale under ?300,000. It

> doesn't take Einstein to work out this mean social

> cleansing.

> You can't pretend this isn't your local parties

> policies causing this.

> Over 900 council homes have been sold or

> demolished since your party took control of the

> council in 2010, you've promised to build 11,000

> new council homes but only built 26 in four years.

>

>

> And the council doesn't have 55,000 properties. It

> has 55,000 freehold properties but 13,500 of those

> are leasehold properties and not for the council

> to sell.

Social cleansing? Social cleansing? What the hell does that mean? A STRONG accusation to make there! Is it also a problem - aren't LibDems proposed policies similar?

I'm confused as to why you think that sort of thing is purely a Labour initiated plan? Are not your own ideas targeting mostly voters with families a way of social cleansing?

Whilst mud slinging is expected at this time on the cusp of the local elections it would be nice to move into the 21st century and not do this. It doesn't look professional, shows your true side (hmmm you're not as nice as you attempt to portray yourself) and is boring!

[James Barber]

Hi KK,

I was asked a question and responded. Renata responded and I responded to her. I genuinely think it a long-term problem for East Dulwich if it doesnt remain a mixed community.

Hi KoolBananas,

We havea shool places crisis that we've been worknig on solving by getting new free schools built since 2011. The latest pahse is a secondary school after securing primary schools. We've also campaign to make Lordship Lane 20mph and aded crossings, new cinema. We've made a lot of things happen locally scuh as the Dulwich Leisure Centre ?6.2M revamp.

So I think it a bit unfair to choose one element of our work and criticise us for being one dimensional.

[KalamityKel]

James i think your missing koolbananas point and cleverly dismissing the accusation youve made. To also throw in "one dimensional" comments is a bit hypocritical as it was, afterall, you who made the social cleansing an issue here for no reason except, how i also now see it, as an opportunity to hit out at party other than your own. If it was the libdems "fault" you would not have said what you did would you?

Whilst its great our local councillors are doing much for the community it really should be through a sense of unity regardless of party. Much of what you claim to achieved as a party are tasks anyone could be expected to undertake, again, regardless of party. Its all well and good to give yourselves a pat on the back for your hard work but without the community giving you guidance the work would in all likely not have come about anyhow. The community is what is important not self congratulations

[James Barber]

Hi KK,

If my party was selling all East Dulwich ward council homes as they become vacant I would be declining the whip and telling people why and trying to change the policy and campaigning to do this.

But we're a very democratic party and I'd hope never to have to take such drastic action as we make group decisions for such important issues.

So sorry I can not feel unity for Renata (as much as I personally like her and respect her) about her political party selling all East Dulwich ward council homes when they become vacant.

Lastly, before I hope we get back to the reaosn for this thread, councillors are not all the same. They each bring different amolunt of effort. Many do it for the Southwark wide stage. Many like me and ward colleagues do it to change their area for the better. If we lose on 22 May I'll still be campaigning away to finish what we've started.

[GinaG3]

Can you tell me why Southwark feel the need to mulch when grass cutting? I don't know whether the setting is wrong on the mowers or what but it just clumps everywhere. I understand the benefits of it but its so unsightly. Up at Lordship Lane Estate it looks lovely when the grass comes alive with daisy's. The Dulwich Common side now just looks plastered with grass cuttings and even worse when they dry out. Can this road side not be left in a meadowy state? Even for longer intervals between cutting?

Please also note, on Dulwich Common grass verge outside the estate there has been a dead decomposing fox for about 2 weeks, today they have just cut the grass around it. It is by the back wall of the Harvester.