former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[James Barber]

Hi DJKillaQueen,

The 12 homes will take about 2 years to complete. The number of young children who will move in who will match the admissions criteria of being 4 years old before a September will be very low. Southwark officers suggestion maybe 1 or 2. They stated it was rare for parents to change schools when they moved in ther area.

During this delay I would also expect, as Ofsted implies, that Langbourne School will move from being a Satisfactory school to a Good school. Reading the Osted report the disruption to the school when its new building works were completed in September 2009 just 3 months before the inspection wont influence the next inspection.

[James Barber]

Report produced and posted on GLA website about Air Pollution:

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Health_Study_%20Report.pdf

It calculated 6 premature deaths due to air pollution in East Dulwich ward. 136 across Southwark.

[blackmamba]

I agree that there is a housing shortage and we do need more affordable homes for all, however this should not be at any price. The plot of land in this case is a railway embankment at the bottom of Woodland Road in College Ward. I note Mr Barber refers to the area as being near Gipsy Hill Train Station, this is mis-leading as it is nearer to Dulwich Wood Avenue.

The development could house up to 50 children at any time and although they may not all be of primary school age this will have a massive impact on the 1FE school. The reality is Mr Barber's decision has reduced the catchment area of the school and will force residents like myself in College Ward to send our children to a what we consider a substandard school or be forced to educate them much further away, although I'm unsure exactly where as it's the same old story everywhere as the good schools are sought after and oversubscribed.

Mr Barber points out that Langbourne is in the middle of an estate and seems to infer that this is why people like me don't want to send their kids there. Owch Mr B that hurts! Pardon me for wanting the best for my children. I know parents from the Kingswood Estate who, despite Ofsted telling them things can only get better, refuse to send their children to Langbourne in the belief that they must do the best they can for their children. The reason that school has places is because most parents, whatever their background, do not want to put their children through a 2nd rate educational experience and it is wholly unacceptable and unreasonable to suggest those of us affected by yours and Ms Helen Hayes' decision should.

Further the proposed 12 family homes are designed to minimum standards (standards that are currently being reviewed upwards by the Mayor's office meaning these homes will be substandard by the time they are built. This is in reality a future ghetto). I believe the poor quality design and high density build is only acceptable because the entire application is for social housing so things like lack of room space, parking and amenity space are not regarded as a necessity. Moreover the applicant submitted incorrect measurements that showed the habitable room size met minimum standards (it does not). The applicant also incorrectly measured the site to include a right of way that runs along the back of the railway embankment as part of the amenity space. Apart from the obvious safety issues with children and railway lines the inclusion of this strip in the use-able land calculations was misleading as was the rest of the application and the officer's reports.

That application should have been considered by an independent panel as the land belonged to Southwark, who had been trying to sell the land for years, the applicant put in an offer to buy but only if Southwark approved planning permission first. There were supposed to be 7 Southwark Cllrs on the DCC, 2 pulled out due to conflicts of interest and 2 were pre-disposed, in the end only 3 took their seats. In my view the interesting conflict was: Southwark owned the site, Southwark wanted to sell the site, Southwark runs the Community Council and the planning department....

[James Barber]

Hi blackmamba,

I'm sure that you'll recall at the meeting what councillors were told we were legally allowed to consider and legally not allowed to consider.

Plot size. We were shown maps and officers confirmed the plot size. The access strip you refer to used to have houses on it and that wasn't a problem for the rail companies. So having amenity space/gardens shouldn't be either.

It was clear on the evening that we had no legal grounds for refusal. Every objection was responded to by council officers. On that basis a refusal would result in an appeal and the council losing at appeal and incuring costs on behalf of the residents of Southwark.

I'm sorry you're so angry that you think potential for collusion. The first time I knew Southwark was the land owner was when this issue was raised by objectors at that meeting. I can honestly say it had no bearing on my decision. It transpires it was a Tory executive cllr who agreed the sale some years ago. It's a Labour run council that would benefit from the capital receipts.

[blackmamba]

Hi James and thank you for your response but again you are mistaken or misled as the access strip you refer to has never had houses built on it. Parish records and indeed the OS maps record that prior to 1945 there were ten small, 2 up 2 down, railway workers cottages. The right of way, a sloping edge of embankment was not, indeed could not be built on. Nor was it ever used as part of those properties. The cottages were destroyed in WW2 in a German bombing raid. Nothing residential has been built on the land since due to it's challenging geography (slopes into railway embankment) and it is incorrect and misleading to suggest otherwise.

I am afraid this is another example of the lack of understanding of yourself and Cllr Hayes, Cllr Michael Mitchell did not accept the applicant's proposal and voted for refusal. Had the DCC been operating on all cylinders ie 7 not 3 Cllrs then I am sure planning laws would have been adhered to, particularly the policies regarding impact on social infrastructure that you chose to dismiss.

You say that you were not aware who the land belonged to and again I would suggest that this illustrates the lack of interest and attention you and Cllr Hayes applied to this case. It is clear from all the reports I've read as a lay person who owns what and who wants what and I find it alarming that such a badly put together application, full of holes, false claims and incorrect measurements, was not given due and proper consideration. Seems to me what is and what is not a planning consideration is completely arbitrary.

[James Barber]

We were shown on the night an OS map of the site with property outlines and overlapping right of way for the railway companies. This was shown to the front row of objectors. Equally any works close to a railway line will require Network Rail approvals to proceed + party wall agreements. The objections on this ground didn't ring true when it had clearly never been an issue before. Equally the site is overgrown and the access strip not cut back allowing access for Network Rail.

NB. DCC is composed of 9 councillors. So as chair you can imagine my frustration that 6 cllrs for very good reasons could not stand on the committee.

Not knowing who land belongs to is not a material consideration. We decision on the merits of a Planning Application not who owns land. Should we be more lenient to suppliers of social housing and harsher on big business? No. We are acting in a semi judicial non political capacity on planning committees and must act impartially.

I read the report twice in detail. I sat on the first committee that decided to defer for a site visit (just before the election). I've privately visit the site. I take the role of councillor making such decisions very seriously.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this particular application.

I'm hopeful the final scheme will be accepted by the local community.

[thelittlebigvoice]

Hi James

Can you address the works currently taking place on LL - at the moment they are up by the library.

I fully understand the need to update - but after setting up by the church - on Thursday they expanded up a further 150 meters. This has wiped out a he'll of a lot of the parking for residents - and with absolutely no notice.

I arrived home to a note on the car telling me to move. What a cheek!

Parking is so hard - there are a number of people with children who are now having to park streets away from there houses or risk safety by unloading as a double parked vehicle.

Are there any plans afoot for residents parking in the area ?

Most ofmost of the cars come from outside Dulwich cat hinge the links into town ?

[edanna]

James, I think there are lots of people in the area who would benefit from residents' parking - I know I would. But as I'm sure you're aware there are also lots of people who see it as unnecessary, inconvenient and/or a cynical money-making scheme. It's particularly problematic when people at one end of the street feel they have a big parking problem, while people at the other end don't, so if you do a poll by street the idea of a CPZ could well be rejected, even though there are plenty of residents who are badly affected. I'm really interested to hear your views on this. Where we are, I don't think people who park are commuting - they seem to be visiting shops, Market, mosque. Also I know traders would be concerned about the impact on their business.

[intexasatthe moment]

Not knowing who land belongs to is not a material consideration. We decision on the merits of a Planning Application not who owns land

I understand that an applicant who includes land in his application that he doesn't own ,has to serve a notice on the person who does own it .

If no notice is served then ,again as I understand it ,the planning application is invalid .

This is my understanding from info.supplied by Southwark Council .

No doubt it's more complicated or something ,sure I'll be shot down for contributing .

[James Barber]

Hi Edanna,

About 2 years ago East Dulwich councillors undertook a parking survey across East Dulwich ward. Every part of East Duwlich was against controlled parking except the area near East Dulwich station which was much more evenly split.

So no plans for controlled parking near Lordship Lane.

Hi intexasatthemoment,

I understand applicants have to tell the site owners but frankly without the site owners cooperation no much point applying. Owning copyright to an appoved scheme would have some value but realy gamble witohut prior agreement of site owner.

Hi thelittlebigvoice,

I don't know and don't recall being warned about these works. I'll ask and report back.

[edanna]

James, Thanks for your speedy reply. On a separate but connected point, I've heard there are plans to pedestrianise north cross road on Saturdays and maybe also Sundays. Is this true? I think it would be great for the Market. But it would definitely have a big impact on parking in the nearby streets.

[thelittlebigvoice]

Hi James

Thanks for the response and I look forward to your findings.

I also want to add my thanks for your views/help you give over a number of issues. It's very easy to criticise but seldom are you thanked.

NJ

[James Barber]

Hi edanna,

No current plans to pedestrianise Northcross Road on market days. Several residents have raised the issue of speeding vehicles being especially dangerous on market days. Plans a re afoot to put some power sockets into the ground for market stalls so fewer have minim generators.

A few glancing thoughts about closing Northcross Road to through traffic on market days but impact on residents would be high so not taken further. Could you tell me perhaps as PM who thinks it might be closed.

[James Barber]

I was asked how come the car parking on Lordship Lane near Dulwich Library had been removed for road works without notice.

I've been assured Southern Gas distrubuted a letter to all residents. Council Officers have promised to botain a copy.

Apparently Southern Gas are in second year of five year programme to replace the worst pipes. Using an insertion process - dig a hole onto existing cast iron typically 18 inch pipe. Insert upto 200m of slightly smaller snub plastic pipping into the existing cast iron pipe. Clearly this dramatically reduces the road digging, cost and time taken. Then side trenches to make new and replacement connections for homes and businesses. Where valves etc hole dug to replace that section to allow the insertion to continue. Smallerbore replacement pipes means slightly higher pressure of gas. Fascinating and I've learnt something new so thanks to the orignal enquirier.

The new pipes should be good for a 100years or so.

Seperately Thames Water are running a Victorian water Mains replacement programme....

[James Barber]

Hi plimsoul,

The response from council officers about 1-11 Pytchley Road land you asked about.

"In 1995 Executive Committee approved the regeneration of East Dulwich Estate. The scheme consisted of the refurbishment of the existing units and the sale of land for the purpose of constructing new build housing for private and shared ownership in partnership with Hexagon Housing Association.

1-11 Pytchley Road is one of the sites approved for the New Build scheme for private sale and is being developed separately from the current refurbishment programme.

The new build design development is currently underway. We hope to be in a position to submit a full planning application for the new build sites by the end of August 2010. We do not currently have a set timetable for the development of the site but we expect that a contract may be let in 2011/12.

"

Submitting a planning application in August should result in either the application being granted or refused within 12 weeks ie by end December. It then takes 12-24 months to build. So plan broadly in place and movement but I'm afraid not as quick as you'd like.

[James Barber]

I owe an apology.

The letter I received last Friday stated the reopening of Dulwich Leisure as delayed until September. I thought I'd read it but as it appeared identical repeat of letter sent earlier stating August I didn't notice small paragrah in the 4 page letter tucked away stating:

"The dulwich Phase 1 construction site suffered a break-in in early June 2010. Although very little was stolen, siginificant damage was done to the internal wiring of the new entrance building. The work to repair this damage commenced immediately, however we now expect phase 1 area to open in spetember 2010."

[thelittlebigvoice]

Hi James

Thanks for looking into this. I ve had no letter from the gas board apart from the bill. I m glad they are at least getting back to you.

Thanks for your help in this matter.

JC

[Jeremy]

The work on the estate has been in the pipeline for 15 years?? Surely a typo?

James, are you able to give contact details for the council officers responsible for the development?

[plimsoul]

thanks for the info james. thanks jeremy for picking up the baton...

[northlondoner]

Where are my manners? I meant to write to say thanks for sorting out the foxes' buffet around Hindmans Rd. All offending blue bin bags are now left perched on the bin out of the reach of these vile vermin. Nice one.

[northlondoner]

Where are my manners? I meant to write to say thanks for sorting out the foxes' buffet around Hindmans Rd. All offending blue bin bags are now left perched on the bins out of the reach of these vile vermin. Nice one.

[James Barber]

Hi Jeremy,

I've checked the letter sent to be that I copied across and its clesarly states 1995. I suspect that is when the whole thing was orignally started. Orignal proposal was to sell the estate I seem to recall and when Lib Dems started leading the council in 2002 it was a big inherited issue with residents up in arms and they come up with the alternative of funding the estate renewal via some private building and converting washrooms to homes etc which was what the adminstration agreed to.

[DJKillaQueen]

.

[James Barber]

Attached is bus route 12 consultation letter.

What do you think?

From November 2011 the bendy buses on bus route 12 will be changed to normal double deckers. This will make the lives of those on Etherow Street far more bearable and something we've campaigned on.

To compensate for smaller passenger loads per bus more buses will run. So overall slightly better frequency. Equally bendy buses have a reputation as ?free buses? so capacity can be marginally reduced as you can?t get on a normal double decker without paying.

Only caveat I have is that countdown real time bus information wont be isntalled at all bus stops. Waiting around for 30 minutes at nighttime is bad enough but not having information if a bus is cancelled could see a wait of upto 90minutes. Having information means passengers can change their plans.

[James Barber]

Hi plimsoul,

It transpires that Southern Gas didn't tell anyone they were staring work. They were ahead of their programme so decided to ploug on without telling anyone in advance.

I've been assured a letter of apology has been delivered and I've attached a copy to this post.