Dulwich Hospital – the future

Liberal Democrat Vision for Dulwich Hospital site

Local Liberal Democrat councillors deeply regret the running down and the loss of services at our hospital in East Dulwich. We want to keep our Hospital not lose it.

We congratulate local residents who have fought a long running campaign to protect health services being delivered from this site. Given the current position of the site we believe it is important for the community and local elected representatives to be clear about the long term aspirations for the area taking into account the new economic realities.

We have, therefore, set out below our initial views following our many conversations with local residents. We are keen to hear more from local people about what they think and what they would like to see on the site and will be specifically asking residents about these proposals. We appreciate the need for any plans to be financially viable, but also recognise that the site is of such local importance that community uses must also be valued most highly.

Taking into account Southwark’s policy for 35% social housing and Section 106 SPD and the expected developer contributions we propose the following:

Western section

We appreciate that the site will need residential units for it to be financially viable for a developer and, therefore, suggest the western part of the site for this purpose. Developers would, of course, have to go through the planning process which would ensure that development is appropriate in terms of design and density. We want a development of the highest possible green credentials to enhance and inspire East Dulwich. We would want to see a high quality development which also provided affordable homes and a financial contribution to the community (to be used in the eastern section).

Eastern and northern sections

As well as a financial contribution from the western side we would also need to find uses which were as economically sustainable as possible while still bringing positive benefits to the community. In this area we would therefore like to see:

– Housing for retired people

We want Southwark to show leadership in providing a high quality ‘retirement village’ development. These would be for a mix of income levels and have different levels of adaptation for varying needs as people become older. They would provide income in ground rent, which would help the rest of the eastern area with developing other community uses. As with the housing development on the western side, the development should have the highest green credentials. A vibrant place for older people in this area would also help to free up larger council properties on nearby estates for families.

  – Primary School

We strongly believe that a primary school should be considered. Local parents tell us that a new primary school will be needed in future and building around 200 new homes will only increase such a need. Although this is not needed right now, pupil projections are clear that we need to be thinking about this possibility over the next few years. We would, therefore, take this opportunity to plan ahead and to consider building a new community primary school here (at the other end of the eastern section from the retirement village.). We would look at a number of sources for the funding of a new primary school.

– A new Medical Centre.

Our vision for a medical centre would for a clinic which offers a GP surgery plus. It could also include blood tests, potentially a pharmacy (although a local one on Melbourne Grove exists) and other medical services. This would be in keeping with the history of the hospital and could be flexible according to local needs and whether local GPs wanted to move in. It would also tie in perfectly with the retirement village and could specialise in services for pensioners.

– Sports, gardening facilities and indoor community space.

The potential opportunities for sharing space with new residents, existing residents and a potential school are vast. This has been done in other parts of the borough and would mean that there could be provision for sports facilities (indoor and/or outdoor), a shared community hall (for use by residents when the school does not need it), and some form of allotments or walled garden.

The Chateau

This building should be kept for community uses into perpetuity as a standalone charity unless the school is able to provide all the necessary shared facilities. It could also have some rented office space and possibly a nursery to bring in revenue. A similar project at Cambridge House is proving to be very successful. The council could even rent office space from here if it needed to. And SELDOC could be based in this building.

The Chateau should also provide space for the Dulwich Helpline and this should be confirmed with them as soon as possible so that they know they have a secure home. If there are other local voluntary sector organisations who need a base then this would also be a good location for them.

Environment

This whole development could and should be carbon neutral. We would create an East Dulwich Zero Emissions Development along the lines of Liberal Democrat London Borough of Sutton’s Beddington Zero Emission Development BedZED (http://www.bioregional.com/what-we-do/our-work/bedzed).

Following the Zero Emissions principles for development would maximise the space used for new homes and retirement homes while minimising the impacts on the local area from cars, energy and water use. This site is less than 5 mins walk from a local station and 5 busy bus routes and there are fantastic opportunities to lead the way in radical environmentally friendly ideas as part of this process.

Conclusion

We are realistic that there will have to be private housing developed on the site to make our other suggestions viable. However, with council commitment and funding as well as the private sources of income we have a fantastic chance to pursue a vision which provides homes, education, leisure and health in a sustainable and exciting way. If you have any comments, suggestions or ideas that you would like to share with us, please send them to info@southwark-libdems.org.uk or complete our survey.

Saving Council Hot Air

Southwark Council generates a lot of hot air at its Tooley Street HQ. Sadly much of it escapes through the front doors as many don’t use the revolving doors – revolving doors minimise the amount of hor air escaping and save a lot of energy.

I recently had the pleasure of visiting Centrica offices in Windsor. I took a photo of their entrance where they very positively encourage people to use the revolving doors via big signs on the adjacent doors stating “Help us save energy – please use the revolving doors”. Such a simple and effective measure. I witnessed everyone using the revolving doors. Contrast that with Southwark where it appears 50:50.

Come on Southwark make it clear to everyone. Put such simple stickers up saving hot air escaping and all those tax payers pounds going out the front doors of Tooley Street and numerous other council buildings.

Surprise road works

Over the last few years we’ve seen a lot of highway renewal works in East Dulwich – Crystal Palace Road, Dunstan’s Road, Grove Vale, Melbourne Grove.

Great in principle but painful in the delivery. At a recent council committee council officers reported on surveying residents on how some of them went. Eye opening to discover that 43% of residents on Crystal Palace Road and 35% of Dunstan’s Road reported they were not aware of the road renewals before they started and that respectively 47% and 39% hadn’t received a leaflet or letter about the works.

We’re not talking about little projects. We’re talking about removing the roads and footpaths and completely rebuilding them. Major works. I can only imagine residents alarm to find this happening as a complete surprise to them!

If you’d like to be kept informed in advance send me an email and I’ll keep you posted on things before they happen to your street.

Capital road pricing

Congestion in London can be grim – even with the Congestion Charging Zone. At this time of year, a fortnight of bliss, getting around town by bike or car with near empty roads is a cinch. But normally our roads are bulging with people travelling generating enough air pollution to kill 4,000 Londoners every year. The plans for London to grow by a million people will only make this beyond worse – calculated to be 20% worse. With precious few plans to increase public transport enough what should be done?

A study about road pricing of the capitals roads has just been produced which states “It is our view that a London-wide road pricing scheme is essential and without it congestion will worsen, air pollution will worsen” it also states “the health of Londoners will suffer, CO2 reduction targets will be missed”. Heady stuff. The study and its review has impeccable academic credentials Professors Whitelegg, Goodwin and Nash.

They suggest a fee of 20p per km (roughly 30p/mile) would cut 10% of car trips while raising £1.2bn gross a year from the remaining 90% of car trips. These sums are enough for a new tube line to be built biannually. Very appealing. They also calculate other benefits such as bus costs coming down by around 11% from less congestion – reducing bus fares by 11% would really help the poorest Londoners.

The appeal is accentuated by their statements that “International evidence is very clear that when car parking places of traffic levels are reduced the local economy thrives and grows in number of people employed and turnover. This is because large numbers of people are shopping locally and have a greater amount of disposable income available for local goods and services because they have reduced spending on vehicles”. I know my family would use its car far less with road pricing  – we’d ration it for important trips – staying more locally to spend our money.

At the same time that the case for road pricing seems like a potential solution popular feeling, as reported in the 2010 British Social Attitudes Survey, shows that only 18% agreed people should pay more to drive on roads at the busiest times.

So for road pricing to happen would take a braver politician with a big sell.

For Southwark only half our households own a car and under half the traffic on our roads starts or ends it journey in Southwark. So we probably have the most to gain from road pricing. We also suffer more from air pollution killing residents with roads like the Old Kent Road. But I’ll not hold my breath that road pricing happens soon.

Home Heat Helpline

With increasing energy prices more people are now at risk of fuel poverty. 

If you or anyone you know is struggling to pay for comfortable levels of heating please do get in touch with the Home Heat Helpline on 0800 33 66 99.  This helpline was created 6 years ago and is one useful outcome of the last Labour government.

From November the coalition governments new Warm Homes Discount has been giving an extra £120 each year to the least well off pensioners to help them keep warm. And from October 2012 the Green Deal will start which will help people to insulate their homes at no cost to themselves.

Call the helpline and you could be entitled to a range of help:

  • Help to save money on your gas and electricity bills
  • Grants for free home insulation
  • The Priority Service Register — a special service for elderly or disabled people and those living with long-term health conditions that includes bills in easy-to-read larger text or in Braille, as well as security passwords and a free annual gas safety check (conditions apply)
  • Flexible payment options for customers in fuel debt
  • Benefits entitlement checks to see if you are missing out
  • Trust funds that some suppliers run for vulnerable customers

Controlled Parking Consultation

The council officer reporthas just been released about proposed a controlled parking zone near East Dulwich station. I suspect everyone agrees with some degree of controlled parking – even if only disabled parking bays outside disabled people’s homes – but the degree of other reasons for controlled parking is very controversial.

The administration applied to Transport for London for money to study and consult the streets most vocal about parking pressures near East Dulwich station?Council officers receiving 44 compliants about parking pressures in three years from the consulted streets out of 130 for the whole of Southwark.

It seems clear that the proposed streets north of Grove Vale in South Camberwell ward do not want controlled parking. The East Dulwich ward streets south of Grove Vale are more mixed with Derwent Grove and Tintagel Crescent clearly in favour. Several other streets in East Dulwich ward against East Dulwich Grove, Elsie Road, Grove Vale, Lordship Lane, or in favour if neighbouring streets were to have controlled parking – Oxonian/Zenoria. A majority of Melbourne Grove residents are in favour of parking controls but shops are against stating they needed places for employees to park.

If controlled parking is introduced most wanted the ‘lite’ version 10am-12noon  Monday-Friday.

241 people responded to the consultation via the questionnaire and from the proposed streets and 155 from people on streets not proposed across the East Dulwich area. Another 114 responded outside the questionnaire. With a further 1,826 people signing a variety of other petitions by people from adjacent roads as well as a from Peckham Rye to Herne Hill.

The proposed options are:

1. Do nothing.

2. Do a little remarking of local roads.

3. Introduce 1hr Mon-Fri controlled parking to Derwent Grove

4. Introduce 1 hr Mon-Fri controlled parking to Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Melbourne Grove (Grove Vale to East Dulwich Grove), Oxonaina Street, Tintagel Crescent, Tintagel Gardens and Zenoria Street.

5. Introduce 1 hr Mon-Fri controlled parking to Derwent Grove, Elsie Road and Tintagel Crescent.

I can see arguments for and against all of the proposed options. If you have views tell me.

So much for representative democracy

I was saddened to read that big money appears to have stomped all over another aspect of representative democracy.

I recently sat on the main Southwark Council planning committee which heard the Eileen House planning application. After a long session hearing evidence for and against this scheme the committee voted 5 against with the chair abstaining. The reasons for refusal were many (I’ve added the parentheses for clarity):

“The proposed development is contrary to strategic policy 10, saved policies 3.20 (Protection of Amenity), 4.2 (Quality of Residential Development), 4.4 (Affordable Housing) of the Southwark plan, strategic policies 5 (Providing new homes), 6 (Homes for people on difference incomes) and 7 (Family homes) of the Southwark Core Strategy, and policies 3.5 (quality and design of housing developments), 3.11 (definition of affordable housing) and 3.12 (Affordable housing targets) of the London Plan.”

It was a rubbish scheme versus Southwark and the London Mayoral policies. I’ve never read a report whose recommendation was so at variance with the body of the report. Stupid things like the applicant not properly taking into account Cycle Superhighway 7 going along Southwark Bridge Road.

Personally it looked like the ugly younger brother of the council housing block at the southern E&C roundabout. Southwark has surely had enough of such blocks to want to avoid having more built. And I’m not a luddite having voted to approve other better designed supertall buildings at other locations.

So why would Boris call in this planning decision for a relatively small scheme of 335 flats that fails to conform to his policies and is not strategic?

My hunch is that the developer has somehow encouraged this. Whatever Boris decides it speaks volumes for his view of representative democracy. It also seems a strange scheme for the first time ever for these powers to be used by Boris against Southwark’s residents.

Metal thefts

Metal theft has been a problem for many years. British Transport Police and others have shown a link between metal commodity prices and levels of theft – higher metals prices more theft.

It has reached the stage where on a typical month £1M of metals are stolen from church roofs every month. Even war memorials are being stolen and melted down for scrap.

With the eurozone crisis metal demand in Europe has seen a temporary downward blip but in Spring 2012 it is expected to surge again with Chinese house building causing demand to rise.

You can only harden targets so much and many have been.

So how to get really reduce metal theft? Currently scrap metal dealers keep very poor records despite the Scrap Metal Dealers Act requirements. Ensuring greater compliance to accurate records would help but more importantly making it illegal to deal in cash would start to nail this crime. Whilst cash is king in the scrap metal industry, annoymity and corruption and theft follow close behind.

A private members bill has been proposed to make it illegal to make cash payments for scrap. An ePetition has been raised which is nearly halfway to the required 100,000 signatures to ensure the matter is debated by parliament.

Please do sign this PETITION to help end most metal theft.

Kerbside Haikus for East Dulwich?

These feel a marvellous idea – “John Morse has brought his unique blend of imagery and poetry to the streets of New York City.”

Traditional haiku poetry consists of 17 syllables, in three phrases of five, seven and five respectively. Making road safety Haikus is a great idea by the New York City Dept of Transportation commissioning artist John Morse of Dog Star Studiosto design the imagery and the Haikus. He had an installation around Atlanta using just Haikus graphically presented to emulate commercial roadside ‘bandit’ adverts.

Perhaps around East Dulwich we could use these. We’d also need one about parking selfishly around schools, dashing across roads to catch buses, jumping red lights.

Please do send me your Haiku ideas about East Dulwich road safety to me and any pictures to go with them. Perhaps we’ll get some guerrilla kerbside Haikus going.

Supersized lorries

The government has proposed a very long trial of supersized lorries. The trial will last 10 years and involve 900 lorries.

The supersized lorries will be 18.55m / 60 foot long – 2.05m longer than the current longest lorries.

The lorry industry have suggested they will save fuel and increase capacity by 15%. But industry reports are that huge proportion of lorries are travelling empty. Instead of the Department of Transport working on such trials for bigger lorries they should be working on trialling cross industry loading of lorries to maximise them being fuller when trundling along in our wing mirrors.

Opposers have suggested it will lead to another 6 road deaths a year. And how many seriously injured with life changing injuries each year.

I think this trial and the thinking behind it misses the point. In a planet suffering global warming we need to reduce the quantity of resources we consume and supersized lorries just plays to the past excessive consumption of goods.

We should be trialling how to make things last longer and be more durable not how to shift ever more of them about. And how to use the current lorry fleets much more efficiently sharing loads.

My last point is such lorries wont fit onto the majority of our roads. We should instead be focusing on moving such bulk goods by rail and this detracts from any incentive to do this.