Crossovers

People park their cars on their front gardens for a variety of reasons in East Dulwich. Some to ensure they can park outside their home, others for security. Every crossover adds an extra place for pedestrians to be injured – they’re mini junctions.

One very simple idea some residents have proposed is that when new crossovers are proposed is to ensure that they are safe under section 184(5) of the highways Act 1980 to require a mini speed hump at the edge of the pavement with the private land. Sections 184(3) & (4) and (1b) of the same act allows local authorities to impose such conditions.

Crossovers need to also ensure that they are largely at the level of the pavement maintaining the pedestrian priority and NOT lowered to create a mini bits of new highway.  Only then can we ensure pavements are fully attractive for walking and safe for our children.

Taken for a train ride

Recently Southwark Council Planning Committee approved the latest Network Rail plans for London Bridge station. The original application approved in 2002 was flawed and this one is also fundamentally flawed.

I had thought by getting inserted into the Southwark Core Strategy p.43 point 4.21 that any London Bridge station improvements “station improvements should prioritise links to buses and train stations within Southwark” I’d avoid a repeat but sadly I didn’t. London Bridge and its monolithic viaducts cutting through communities is a large blot on north Southwark. Such a blot having little benefit for Southwark is outrageous.

The planning application was passed with no improvements of more and better train services from other Southwark stations. If fact it’s a key part of closing train services to Southwark residents.

We know that the stated reasons for closure of the South London Line will be lack of terminating platforms at London Bridge station with the proposed reduction from 9 to 6 terminating platforms. The South London Line serves Denmark Hill, Peckham Rye, Queen’s Road Peckham and South Bermondsey stations and is used by many residents in my ward and others. Approving the reduction of terminating platforms is effectively a confirmation the council agrees with the closure of the South London Line.

No use was made of a Section 106 to protect or expand Southwark’s existing train services as per Southwark’s Core Strategy.

The application shows Network Rail abandoning the existing platforms 1&2. Not abandoning these platforms would enable 9 through platforms and 8 terminating platforms.
Equally the signal box and its technology date from the 70’s. I’ve visited and witnessed how archaic it is. Network Rail have plans to relocate and modernise this signalling. This allows platforms 17, 18 and 19 to be rebuilt again ensuring 9 terminating platforms.

Part of the now approved plan includes canopied roofs which will be such a poor passenger experience that passengers are expected by Network Rail to stay on the subterranean passenger concourse. This is a really poor solution for what we’d all hope would become one of the premier stations in the UK.
The Southwark Design Review Panel when they reviewed the scheme were unhappy.
Network Rail state any train delays of more than 15mins will see passengers experience dangerous crowding. 15mins.

The now approved plans do not serve Southwark well, the travelling public well or the public purse well.

New Grove Vale Library

Yesterday core samples were taken under the Dulwich Garden Centre – see the picture. Core samples of the ground are used to check how much weight the ground can hold and what type of foundations will be required and a key step forward.

It also marked the Section 106 agreement making another step forward. Watching paint dry would be quicker but progress is progress. Still not resolved and still with some daft sections but close to being sufficient for building to be started.

If you’d like to know more about this scheme for a new Grove Vale library in late 2014/15 get in touch.

The Charter School

I was shocked to read the admissions adjudicators report about The Charter School admissions. The report is shocking. Amazingly Southwark Council supported the school submission to the adjudicator despite the council leader being a ward councillor for the most negatively affected area.

BUT I’m pleased to see the school has now acted quickly to accept the reports findings about the schools admissions administration hadn’t reflected the actual policy and this is corrected. This will change who goes to this school – probably at the margins – but only time will tell what impact this has. People will buy and sell houses to be closer to outstanding schools so really hard to tell what the long term impact will be.

But the good news the school now accepts safe walking distance using routes that local Police officers has confirmed are safe rather than mapping that effectively was driving routes only.

Well done to all the residents who made this happen.

Betting on sadness

It’s as if Bookmakers are multiplying on our high streets!

Since our Labour MP Tessa Jowell brought about The Gambling Act 2005 changing the premise for granting gambling licences from an operator having to prove “un-stimulated demand” for betting in a location to NO proof of need. Effectively she created a free for all.

She also liberalised slot machines making betting shops even more profitable.

Southwark Council is a major land and shop owner in Southwark and the Labour led council hasn’t decided to stop letting shops to bookmakers.

So it is ironic that local Labour councillor Rowena Davis has started a petition against legislation of the former Labour Government.

Either Way please do tell the council Labour leader Peter.John@southwark.gov.uk asking him to ensure Labour led Southwark Council avoid letting properties to betting shops BUT especially tell your MP that you want The Gambling Act 2005 revoked and a return to the previous requirement of applicants proving a local need and asking that all existing betting shops need to reapply.

NB. Near the start of my worknig life I was a betting shop manager for 6 months. A wild experience where I learnt a great deal about me and also experienced the deep sadness of seeing people blowing wage packets. I learnt first hand how critical it is to limit Betting Shops.

Cycling covenant

I’m delighted to see that The Times newspaper has today launched a campaign for a new Cycling Covenant. But saddened to see that one of their colleagues and friends grave cycle injuries were requried to inspire them.

They propose:
1. Trucks entering cities by law must have sensors, audibles alarms, extra mirrors and side bars/guards to stop cycling being thrown under them.
2. The 500 most dangerous junctions must be identified, redesigned or fitted with priority traffic lights for cyclists and Trixi mirrors allowing lorry drivers to see cyclists.
3. A national audit of cyclists to keep track of making cycling safer and more popular.
4. The Highways Agency should earmark 2% of its budget for next generation cycle routes providing £100million a year towards world-class cycling infrastructure. Each year cities being graded on the quality of cycling provision.
5. The training of cyclings and drivers must improve and cycle safety should become a core part of the driving test.
6. The default speed limit in residential areas where there are no cycle lanes should become 20mph.
7. Businesses should be invited to sponsor cycle ways and cycling super-highways.
8. Every city even those without an elected mayor should appoint a cycling commissioner to push home reforms.

These proposals if implemented well would see a step change for the better at making cycling safer and more attractive. Only number 8 seems to mis the mark – setting targets for local authorities instead would achieve more than a commissioner.

More people safely cycling would see a fitter, heathier nation spending money more locally. Huge opportunities for regeneration and community growth.

But will the coalition government listen.

But many of these we could implement here in Southwark…

£10 gift

The Lib Dem GLA team have submitted their amendments to Boris’s budget. Lots of useful suggestions to save lots of money from what appears wasteful or overly generous staff perks – such as free housing for senior Police officers to free travel for TfL friends and family.

This budget would see £10 less taken from every London family every year while providing the following extras:

  • Reinstate the 150 sergeants -I’d hope we’d get our East Dulwich sergeant back again.
  • One PCSO within each Safer Neighbourhood Team to work with young people.
  • Fund  more Safer London Foundation to boroughs with the highest levels of gang crime.
  • Improve cycle safety including vital junction safety improvement works.
  • Better and fairer fares package: the One Hour Bus Ticket to allow passengers to change buses and only pay one fare; part time Travelcards to stop the discrimination faced by those who only work part of the week; reintroduce a Zone 2-6 one day Travelcard to save people having to pay Zone 1 fares when not required; and to help those often low income earners, we will introduce an ‘early bird’ fare for the Tube, TfL rail and DLR.
  • Promote walking.
  • Ensure continued operation of the London Fire Brigade Museum and develop a ‘Blue Light Museum’.
  • Protect environmental projects and speed up the rate at which London’s buses and taxis become cleaner and develop a central Clean Air Zone where pollution is worst.
  • Guarantee the roll-out of easy-to-install energy efficiency measures.
  • Tackle rogue landlords establishing minimum standards for private rented housing.
  • Take effective action to build more affordable housing in London.

All in all a great budget amendment to make London a better place.

What would you do to make London work better?

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.

Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell and beyond…

The Bakerloo line is the only tube line considered to still have spare capacity. So it could be extended. It already extends significantly to the north so a southern extension deeper into Southwark is the obvious direction and South London has very poor public transport.

1949-1952 such a southern extension was started – several ventilation shafts were built along the Walworth Road and tunnelling proceeded as far as Heygate Street. That Transport and Works Act passed by parliament in 1930 and renewed in 1947 was based on a stops at Walworth Road, Camberwell Green and interchange at Denmark Hill.

Transport for London in 2006 produced a study “Transport 2025” which suggested 3 options for such an extension.

Option 1 – Burgess Park, Peckham – Lewisham-Bromley.

Option 2 – Walworth, Camberwell, Denmark Hill, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, Streatham Hill, West Norwood, Gipsy Hill, Crystal Palace.

Option 3 – Burgess Park, Old Kent Road – Lewisham-Bromley.

Option 2 would create the most new capacity with 6+ trains per hour. Option 3 mostly replaces Network Rail trains on train lines – increasing capacity from 5 to 6 tph Hayes into central London representing poor value.

Cost. When the DLR was extended to Woolwich Arsenal it cost £180M for 2.5km including everything – new carriages the works.

http://developments.dlr.co.uk/extensions/woolwich/details.asp?id=7

DLR trains are large and rectangular rather than small circular tube trains. So tunnelling under the Thames and other parts would be more expensive but DLR trains are much shorter so stations smaller – broadly similar costs per km. Also it was run as a PFI into DLR who have been shown to be much more economic at building things. Broadly they follow the Madrid model where after an election they spend 6 months planning a new tube line dividing it into 100M Euro chunks that contractors spend 3 years building and the new tube line opens a few months before the next Madrid elections. Contractors are managed for cost and know they can’t get future work unless they hit the price.

But TfL are proposing for the Northern Line extension of roughly 2.5km from Kennington to Battersea Power station £550M.

Adapting the Madrid model and getting DLR to run a project to extend the Bakerloo line could see the Bakerloo line extended to Streatham Hill for circa £600M all in or just to Camberwell/Denmark Hill for £250M.

Its clear TfL don’t have serious intentions to extend the Bakerloo line. So how to make it happen. The coalition government is now proposing to allow councils to borrow money against the Community Infrastructure Levy. Along any proposed extension route are many development opportunities – such as building above the current London road depot.

Interest costs could be offset by reducing bus services that would no longer be needed with passengers switching to tube journeys. Each bus route is subsidised on average cost £4M. Deleting the 68 and terminating the 468 at Camberwell alone would save £6M.

Such an extension would also be suitable for EU regional funding which could bring a many tens of millions.

The problem is TfL and its warped cost base and mayors with vision. But perhaps Lambeth & Southwark councils could use localism powers to make this happen. The former could be bypassed and handed over a turn key as they do with DLR projects and the latter local councils could really focus on such a step improvement in public transport.

Currently the only council doing anything is Lewisham committee pushing for Option 3 – the worst option for Southwark and Lambeth.

One last practical but important factor is where you’d build from. With the Heygate estate about to be demolished this is great opportunity to use this site to base much of the works from. The quid pro quo for the E&C regeneration is that it would make that scheme also much more attractive.

Do you think the Bakerloo line should be extended? And if so which option do you support?

Nice one for new Grove Vale library?

For a number of years I’ve been working towards a brand new Grove Vale library. We had a scheme ready but the banking collapse killed that one. The latest scheme gained planning permission earlier this year. But getting a sensible section 106 that details the library has proved shall we say ‘ellusive’.

Council officers wanted to include a clause about deciding whether to take a library or money instead with realy complicated ocnditions and clauses. So complicated that lawyers have been having a field day. The uncertainty this caused meant its been hard for the developers who have to keep in mind what banks will lend against. Banks don’t like uncertainty.

The developer, and even more so I, became worried that the council was deciding to stall and planned to take the money. It would appear from assurances today that I was reading the runes wrongly.

TODAY the council leader Councillor Peter John has stepped in and I sincerely hope will break the deadlock. He is clear that Labour Southwark also want to keep Grove Vale library and also want to have a new double sized Grove Vale library. So he has today stated that the cabinet report on libraries being decided 18 October will have a recommendation for the new Grove Vale library. Nice one. Thank you Peter. I will hold you to this.

Why so much passion for a new Grove Vale library? Its right on the doorstep to the most deprived area around East Dulwich – the East Dulwich estate. It will bring much improved access to books, etc but also computers, study places and space to job hunt. Huge proportion of our library users are job hunting and studying. So a real lift for people wanting to do this that can’t easily do this at home.