former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[Jakido]

Hello

Do you know if there's been any progress on extending north cross road market?

Thank you.

[James Barber]

The formal Traffic Management Order -https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/4620/Waiting%20Restrictions%20North%20Cross%20Road%20Market%20-%20Public%20notice%20dated%207%20September%202017.pdf had a deadline for response of 8 September. Allowing for processing it gould be in place imminently...I;ll find out exact date.

[Jakido]

Great, thank you.

[Sally Eva]

London Borough of Southwark

North Cross Road Market

The London Borough of Southwark (prohibition of Vehicles and Waiting Restrictions) (North Cross Road Market) Traffic Order 2017.Th e council of the London Borough of Southwark will make the above-mentioned traffic order on 19 October 2017, the effects of which are described in the attached notice.

If you wish to be sent copies of this order or relevant drawings, in either a digital or paper format, please contact me using the details below. If you wish to make any comments regarding these proposals, please send them to [email protected], quoting reference ?TMO1718-North Cross Road Market?.

[James Barber]

Hi Sally,

Yes, but the start date will be when the lines and signs are physically changed.

[Siduhe]

James, would you be able to raise an issue with Southwark Council which has come up on the Camberwell Grove consultation thread (see http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1870355,page=7 ).

Lots of people have views and many people on both sides have responded to the Southwark Consultation which closed 2 days ago. The consultation begins as follows:

However because it will make such an impact, the council wants to hear your views before taking a final decision on reopening the bridge.

What seems to have happened in the last two days is that signs, which look permanent, have been installed showing a permanent diversion away from the bridge and a permanent bridge closure. As rendelharris put it - no matter what side of the debate you're on, this seems like an astonishing lack of regard for a public consultation process. I really can't believe Southwark would offer a consultation but then pre-judge outcome in this way. If there's an explanation for what's happening, it would be really good to hear what it is.

[James Barber]

Hi Siduhe,

I've had an anecdotal comment that signs had been tampered with hence the more permanent version. The council has to have these signs in place while a temporary closure. It can't keep re installing the more temporary versions. This could be because some are 'fired up' but it is wasting council tax payers money to commit such vandalism.

If the council had made its mind up to keep the road closed it would not install diversion signs but cul de sac signs.

[James Barber]

Hi Jakido,

The Traffic Management Order become valid 23 October. BUT The signage lining will be in place for Saturday 11 November. So I would counsel only acting as if the TMO is in place then. Hope that helps.

Jakido Wrote:

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

> Hello

>

> Do you know if there's been any progress on

> extending north cross road market?

>

> Thank you.

[Siduhe]

Thanks James.

[worldwiser]

Hi James,

Any update on this rubbish problem on Crawthew Grove..?

Cheers

[James Barber]

Hi world wiser,

From exasperation I've reported the issue to Planning Enforcement again and asked that the pavement have extra focus on cleaning until the residents and property owners follow the planning permission granted.

The building does have a bin store - http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!3hAaaUP9FJS6WGWjYFwLlw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d - but tenants may not have been told or may be just lazy.

Or the rubbish is unrelated to the building.

[James Barber]

Hi Siduhe,

The Cabinet Councillor has decided to reopen the road ASAP - likely nexT March +/- a month as it was before controlled one lane by traffic lights.

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> James, would you be able to raise an issue with

> Southwark Council which has come up on the

> Camberwell Grove consultation thread (see

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5

> ,1870355,page=7 ).

>

> Lots of people have views and many people on both

> sides have responded to the Southwark Consultation

> which closed 2 days ago. The consultation begins

> as follows:

>

> However because it will make such an impact, the

> council wants to hear your views before taking a

> final decision on reopening the bridge.

>

> What seems to have happened in the last two days

> is that signs, which look permanent, have been

> installed showing a permanent diversion away from

> the bridge and a permanent bridge closure. As

> rendelharris put it - no matter what side of the

> debate you're on, this seems like an astonishing

> lack of regard for a public consultation process.

> I really can't believe Southwark would offer a

> consultation but then pre-judge outcome in this

> way. If there's an explanation for what's

> happening, it would be really good to hear what it

> is.

[James Barber]

Hi ed_pete,

The NHS reps have submitted a second application to resolve planning conditions. Many more to come but it is movement.

Separately Ive been told The Charter East Dulwich School project team are concerned that unless the building start rapidly in the New Year it could cause a whole year slippage for the school finally opening fully.

will keep you posted.

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> James - any update on the medical centre that's

> replacing the hospital. All the building work

> seems to be for the new school and the medical

> centre site seems untouched. At this rate the

> hospital won't be evacuated for another 3-4 years.

[Socrates31]

Hi James,

Not sure if you are aware of this but the Cherry Tree Pub wants to turn it's top two floors into a 47 bed hostel?!

[planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190]

This seems an unusual use of the space, and, will only worsen the issue of noise nuisance that the pubs neighbours already suffer.

I have tried to make a comment on the application, however, although comments are meant to be made available online - no comments are appearing.

Is this something you can help with?

Such use of the space just doesn't seem appropriate (or neighbourly) for East Dulwich, is there anything we can do?

Many thanks

[James Barber]

Hi Socrates31,

I will take a detailed look tonight at this planning application and whether the system is working correctly.

[Socrates31]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Socrates31,

> I will take a detailed look tonight at this

> planning application and whether the system is

> working correctly.

Hi James

If you now click the link the page has completely disappeared and you can't make comments at all!

[jocher]

I am querying a blue notice that has been posted around Peckham Rye Park regarding a planning application for a Fair. There appears to be no app. no. I have searched Southwark planning and nothing seems to relate to it. I have e mailed Southwark planning with the details and a picture. As yet no reply. I hope you can help.

[James Barber]

Hi jocher,

Southwark Events Team should be leading on this. It wouldn't go through the planning department as such. I've emailed them asking for details.

Hi Socrates31,

IT is working for me - http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9575882

It doesn't sound a good scheme creating 47 bed hostel Home multiple Occupation. I could understand if they were creating a boutique hotel as East Dulwich doesn't have any hotels.

[Socrates31]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi jocher,

> Southwark Events Team should be leading on this.

> It wouldn't go through the planning department as

> such. I've emailed them asking for details.

>

> Hi Socrates31,

> IT is working for me -

> http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-appl

> ications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComme

> nt&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9575882

> It doesn't sound a good scheme creating 47 bed

> hostel Home multiple Occupation. I could

> understand if they were creating a boutique hotel

> as East Dulwich doesn't have any hotels.

Thanks James,

Is working now.

Other than commenting on the website, what else can one do to oppose this application, get the message out there and stop this absurd scheme happening?

[first mate]

It looks as though entry to the park from ED would be more or less blocked- that is if I have read the plans correctly?

[Socrates31]

Socrates31 Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Hi jocher,

> > Southwark Events Team should be leading on

> this.

> > It wouldn't go through the planning department

> as

> > such. I've emailed them asking for details.

> >

> > Hi Socrates31,

> > IT is working for me -

> >

> http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-appl

>

> >

> ications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComme

>

> > nt&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9575882

> > It doesn't sound a good scheme creating 47 bed

> > hostel Home multiple Occupation. I could

> > understand if they were creating a boutique

> hotel

> > as East Dulwich doesn't have any hotels.

>

> Thanks James,

>

> Is working now.

>

> Other than commenting on the website, what else

> can one do to oppose this application, get the

> message out there and stop this absurd scheme

> happening?

Also I was wondering if we could potentially ask for a licence review for the pub - looking at the seriously negative comments on the planning application:

Comment submitted date: Tue 12 Dec 2017

As a local resident I object to this proposal on grounds of the increase in drunken anti social behaviour and noise nuisance that would result from allowing up to 47 men to bunk up in 9 person and 12 person rooms over a pub, across the road from a football club. I further object on grounds that such accommodation density is exploitative .

Comment submitted date: Tue 12 Dec 2017

I do not agree with this application as it may cause undue disturbances to neighbours. The applicant can also not guarantee that its development will be ?up market? or attract less desireable occupants.

Comment submitted date: Tue 12 Dec 2017

I am a neighbour of the Cherry Tree. It does often result in late night noise outside of my home. We suffer from people using the Cherry Tree/nearby William Hill and gathering at Vale End at closing time , sometimes even urinating on our doorstep. A development of this size would be likely to increase these disturbances and make life for local residents more difficult.

Comment submitted date: Tue 12 Dec 2017

1 Hostel accommodation not appropriate for locating in a residential area. Whilst the pub is on the main road - it is surrounded on all sides by residential areas. The change from a pub that closes mostly around 11pm, to a hostel with people arriving at all hours is a hugely significant change. The pubs poor sound insulation already means noise is heard a significant distance away, therefore increasing noise in an area could be detrimental to neighbours. 2. This type of accommodation is likely to attract large single sex groups (such as stag and hen nights) with associated higher noise levels, disturbing local residents at antisocial hours. The pub would not be able to control the noise of people travelling to the accommodation after nights out and therefore just by attracting large groups it is reducing neighbours right to quiet enjoyment of their properties. In addition, even without noisy / drunken behaviour, large numbers of people going outside to smoke at night would also likely lead to additional noise. 3. Overcrowding - adding in 47 beds into 2 floors seems dangerously overcrowded in terms of overdevelopment, fire safety and associated waste (both sewage and rubbish).

Comment submitted date: Tue 12 Dec 2017

As a fellow neighbour I agree with the previous comments. We all know pubs can be noisy but they ought to be managed with consideration for those living nearby and a 47 bed hostel would have a huge impact on local residents.

Comment submitted date: Fri 08 Dec 2017

The Cherry Tree pub already causes a significant amount of disturbance to its neighbours especially during the summer months. With the introduction of a hostel element this will certainly get worse and cause more harm to the surrounding area both noise generated by the pub but also due to the increase in personnel flow to and from the pub after hours. Please consider the local residents.

Comment submitted date: Fri 08 Dec 2017

As a neighbour of the Cherry Tree Pub, we already have ongoing noise and disturbance related issues with this pub on a constant basis. This is both in terms of loud music and the pub not adhering to their agreement to close the garden at 10pm, keeping their neighbours awake with drunken shouting and swearing from patrons. The addition of 47 beds in a hostel environment will only compound this issue and make it more unbearable for the pub's neighbours. People coming and going at all hours, people smoking, talking, gathering outside etc. Such a use of the space is completely antisocial for those who already suffer at the expense of the pub. I implore you to not approve this application as it is completely against the spirit of community and neighbourhood caring in East Dulwich.

Surely it's time for a licence review????

[Penguin68]

Yes, let's just close the pub. Good call. Many more (though less than when I first moved in) to be closed in ED. Then we can finally get some peace and quiet around here.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Yes, let's just close the pub. Good call. Many

> more (though less than when I first moved in) to

> be closed in ED. Then we can finally get some

> peace and quiet around here.

Absolutely, but let's not forget the restaurants as well, and ban alcohol sales in supermarkets too! I have never lived near a pub that hasn't been complained about by its neighbours (most if not all of whom of course moved knowing there was a pub there); I can only say that as a semi-regular visitor and frequent passer-by it has always seemed a very quiet and civilized watering hole to me (and very rigorous about closing its garden at10PM, so at least one of the comments above is nonsense).

[Socrates31]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Yes, let's just close the pub. Good call. Many

> more (though less than when I first moved in) to

> be closed in ED. Then we can finally get some

> peace and quiet around here.

No one is asking for the pub to be closed - just for it to be respectful towards its neighbours.

Neither the pub nor its neighbours have priority to the area - why can't we just have a considerate attitude towards one another?

If you live by the pub your experience will be very different than if you are a semi-regular visitor.

Rendelharris - unless you live by the pub, how would you know that the pub always closes its garden on time or that they don't cause a nuisance?

[rendelharris]

OK, every time I have been in the garden at 9.45 - maybe thirty times this year - they have been rigorous about asking us to go inside. I live one street away from the pub and have seen none of the trouble referred to above, and I regularly walk or cycle past around closing time. That's just my experience.