I was very pleased to read that Southwark Council has emerged as one of the top performing boroughs for preserving and planting street trees according to a new GLA report. Southwark outperformed neighbouring boroughs Lewisham, Lambeth and Bromley.

Trees contribute much to the local environment, offsetting the concrete mass of the city sprawl and framing offices houses and shops. They offer cooling relief in the summer and provide a first line of defence against climate change.

Southwark has an interesting tree history.  We have some excelllent large Plane trees and the Bermondsey Borough Council between the wars is still remembered for the tree planting programme enacted by its ‘Beautification Committee’. We benefit from the legacy of cherry trees they planted today.

But the record had become tarnished in recent years and in  the last few years of the old Labour administration there was no new tree planting taking place at all.

When the Lib Dems won the council elections in 2002 I was pleased as Environment portolio holder to play a part in turning that around. Southwark’s positive attitude towards preserving our street trees has been recognised in the figures in this report.

 In Southwark we have 15436 street trees. In last five years we have planted 1775 trees and removed 251, mainly due to storm damage, disease or subsidence. This net gain of 1524 (9.87%) compares with Lambeth’s net gain of 877 (9.36%), Bromley’s net gain of 900 (2.37%) and Lewisham’s net gain of just 31 trees (0.26%).

Overall, Southwark ranked fifth of all 32
London boroughs in terms of percentage increase in street tree numbers.  

The only story that anyone’s talking about  in Southwark this week is that the attendance records of all Southwark Councillors has been released.

Three councillors had a perfect attendance record at all meetings they were due to attend, of which I was one  - having attended 31 out of 31 meetings. My Lib Dem colleague Paul Noblet  (19 out of 19) together with Conservative Robin Crookshank Hilton (21 out of 21) also  scored top marks. But I attended more meetings than them in total, so I am claiming the best record on goal difference.

And since I’ve decided that, in this regard at least, modesty is not  the best policy, I am also pleased to report that Liberal Democrats top the party poll too.  

Overall turnout by Liberal Democrats for the period until the end of March stood at 83%. The figure for Labour Party councillors was 75.9% and for Conservative 78.7%. The bottom three slots were filled by Labour councillors. Two Labour councillors failed even to attend half of the meetings at which they were scheduled to be present. 

Southwark Council’s Executive met last night to consider our response to the Government on the ‘urban/suburban’ issue.  Having taken advice from the planning committee we agreed that we should not cave in to demands from ‘Communities’ Secretary Ruth Kelly that high density developments should be allowed in
East Dulwich (or Herne Hill, Nunhead and Rotherhithe). We recommended that Council Assembly challenge the Government through the courts if necessary to force the Communities Secretary to re-consider her decision. 

We have made our case and it has been supported by the people of Southwark and by the Government’s own inspector. We will ask Council Assembly to support our view once more that this plan is right and appropriate for Southwark.In the meantime, we have also reiterated our desire to talk directly to the Government in order to find a solution outside of the legal process. 

The proposal for a T-Mobile phone mast opposite 202 Dunstans Road has been defeated

As reported previously local people, parent and Governors of Goodrich School and the local FOCUS team campaigned effectively to persuade Southwark’s Planning Committee to reject the application.   As we always knew they would T-Mobile appealed against this decision.  

I am pleased to be able to report that the decision of Southwark Council to reject this mast has been upheld.   The Inspector agreed with local people and councilors that the mast would have an adverse impact on pedestrian convenience, resulting in ‘street clutter’ and would be harmful to pedestrian safety.  

This victory would not have been possible without  so many people making their voice heard – first to Southwark Council and then to the Planning Inspector.   

Well done to everyone who helped.

I reported last month that Southwark Council has engaged Living Steets to look at ways of improving Lordship Lane for pedestrians

On Saturday three different groups ofresidentwalked up and down the street noting specific problems faced by pedestrians and discussing ways they could be addressed.

Living Streets will then be reporting to the Dulwich Community Council with their suggestions. 

One improvement that could be implemented straight away would be to remove this bus stop - the P13 doesn’t go that way anymore….

Labour’s  Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, has ordered the closure of the Maudsley Emergency Clinic.

This is a hugely disappointing decision by the Government. The Campaign for the Maudsley Clinic had the support of all parties and wide sections of the community. No one really believes  that the best way to provide emergency mental health services in our area is via a single small room attached to an Accident and Emergency Department.

Worse, Patricia Hewitt has given the go ahead before proper details of the new service provision are in place.  It looks as though there will be room for a single patient to be assessed before being sent on their way. In contrast, the Maudsley Clinic had room for a number of patients and the facilities to keep them in if their situation required.

The Chair of Southwark’s Health Scrutiny committee, Cllr David Noakes has rightly posed the following questions :-          Although Ms Hewitt refers to the capital funding for the new service being in place, can the same be said for the revenue funding?-          Will the new service remain in place whatever the pressures of the A&E department or will busy times lead to a loss of provision? -          Will suitable doctors, nurses and other staff be available 24 hours a day for this new service?”

Finally, local councillors are seeking an assurance that the new service will be open before the Maudsley Clinic closes. In the meantime, we will continue with our plans to hold a debate at Council Assembly next week and to seek to secure all party backing for our position against this decision.

Coming as it does hot on the heals of the decision to close Dulwich Hospital, Labour’s 1997 election pledge to ’save the NHS’ is looking increasingly hollow.

A strange day in Southwark politics. 

Firstly one of our councillors has left the Lib Dems to go independent. Although he says he wants to join the Labour party they clearly have not yet decided whether to take him. No reason of policy has been offerred at all. Indeed he emailed me a few hours ago to say that he will continue to fight for the manifesto on which he was elected! Never mind that he only elected as  a Liberal Democrat six months ago…..

Just hours later, the leader of the Labour opposition asked me to help him with a problem in his ward.  That wouldn’t normally be strange but we haven’t spoken since I accused him in the election of positioning his party ’somewhere to the right of Norman Tebbit’ - and now  it’s all ‘Dear Richard’  and ‘Many thanks, P.’!

And then, I get an email from Nigel Farage, the Leader of UKIP, saying he
“would welcome a conversation with anyone that might consider working with us or joining us.  It is time to stand up and be counted. 
We give you an absolute assurance that you can contact us on a completely confidential basis.”

Weird. But it has reaffirmed one thing in my mind - that whilst the tribalism of party politics can be damaging it is no where near as  damaging as the cynicism that results from politicians thinking that it is acceptable to ‘cross the floor’, ignoring the results of  elections.    

But I have replied to Nigel Farage suggesting that our wayward councillor might well want to join them. Having already left Labour and now the Liberal Democrats,  it may  be an attractive option for him!

The crossroads of Adys Rd, Crystal Palace Rd and East Dulwich Rd has been a concern to local people for some time, particularly parents.   The junction serves a primary school, open space, playground and swimming pool so there are always loads of people wanting  to cross the road. The green man phase is only 5secs long with another 5 seconds ‘of flashing green man.

This just about gives time to get across one road but if want to cross to the corner diagonally opposite you , then have to take your life in your hands.

The alternative is to cross one road,  and wait until the green man phase comes round the second time.

I would like the junction to have a longer green  man time so that pedestrians can cross in which ever direction they want in one go.

Although this is a Southwark Council controlled road, it is  the Mayor’s Transport for London that controls junction timings.  I asked Council officers to approach TfL many months ago to see about extending the crossing time but we were told that pedestrians are only meant to cross one arm of the crossing at a time so the timings are  apparently acceptable.

I have therefore written again to Transport for London again asking them to reconsider this matter.     Putting in a diagional crossing is surely the answer.

This is the letter the Council Leader has written to the Schools Minister….

Andrew Adonis

Parliamentary Under Secretary for State for Schools

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your letter of 17 October 2006. I am gravely concerned that time is running out if we are to secure the opening of a new boys’ school in September next year – as promised by you in your letter to the EDEN group on 19^th December 2005, by the council repeatedly since and by Tessa Jowell MP in an open letter to constituents last month.

It is imperative that the process of recruiting staff begins now and the advertisement for the Headteacher is currently being prepared. It is also vital that planning permission for the temporary school be sought straightaway. Given these two urgent priorities, a delay of a few weeks now will mean we have lost the opportunity to open the new school in September 2007. This was promised to local parents by all levels of Government and by all political parties.  We have already received 200 applications for the 90 places and I am not prepared to disappoint all of those children who have chosen to apply to the school.  For the record, I do not believe that the ‘risk assessment’ in relation to the Bredinghurst site is balanced.  It ignores the mitigating measures suggested by our education department. I have spoken to our borough commander who says that no risk assessment has been made or cleared through the chain of command and that any views attributed to a police officer in the report should not be taken as the views of local police. It also highlights a number of ‘risks’ that would be inherent in any local school, in any planning process and in any new build project.  In our view these risks are inherent in any such project, can be mitigated against and should not prevent us from proceeding.  In many cases we would suggest that as the local planning and education authority, we are in a better position to judge these risks than the consultants employed in this exercise.  It also fails to assess the risks to those pupils who will not be able to attend the new school if the temporary schools fails to open next year, nor to take into account the many families who will consider leaving Southwark.

I must also record my dissatisfaction about the unreasonable way in which this decision appears to have been made.   Given the above, I would have expected a process of discussion with the Council before any final decision.   However, it is clear that by Friday, a decision had been made ahead of the project board meeting, without informing us, failing to give us an opportunity to point out the flaws in the risk assessment and failing to take account of your mitigations of the risks assessed. Indeed you called me to inform me of the decision on Friday as the project board was still meeting.  The aim of the project board meeting appeared to be to tie in other parties to that decision for public consumption. 

You need to decide quickly whether to re-open discussion about Bredinghurst so that the work needed to prepare the planning application can proceed quickly) or to direct the project board to find another site in Southwark.  Experience with the CoLA shows that where there is a political will to find a solution a solution can be found.  You can rest assured that both from an education point of view and as a planning authority Southwark council will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that our processes are expedited. 

I am more than happy to meet you and discuss what can be done to salvage the situation. The Police Borough Commander would also be happy to attend. I regard it as imperative that our promises to the parents inEast Dulwich are honoured and kept. 

Yours ever,Councillor Nicholas Stanton

LEADER OF THE COUNCIL

Last March, Southwark’s Planning Committee rejected an application for a phone mast on Dunstan’s Road, near Dawson’s Hill.  

The Dunstan’s Road  proposal has reared its head again because the matter has now been referred to the Government’s Planning Inspectorate. They have the power to over-rule Southwark’s decision.  

Communities have often found it very difficult to defeat proposals for phone masts.  The Inspectorate often over-rules local councils. As previously reported, the proposal for the mast on the Crystal Palace Tavern was not defeated though the planning system but by putting pressure on the owners of the pub.

As local councillors, we have written stressing the reasons that the planning committee voted to reject the application. Namely:

• The mast would have an adverse visual impact on the area and on the designated open space of Dawson’s Hill.
• The mast would have an adverse impact on pedestrians, resulting in ’street clutter’.

It is also our view that:

• The mast would have an adverse impact on a  designated wildlife area
• The mast would adversley affect the quality, access and safety of informal play space.

We hope others will be able to write making these and any other relevant points too.

(Although many people are particularly concerned about health issues,  the Inspector will  will not take these into account.)  

Even if you objected to the original proposal - and many people did - you must object again in order for your views to be taken in to account.

There are some pretty bureaucratic rules to follow:

You must send in comments by 26th September.

You must quote the appeal reference number APP/A5840/A/06/2019955/NWF

You must send three copies of your comments.

Comments should be sent to:

The Planning Inspectorate

3/19 Eagle Wing,Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Temple Quay

Bristol BS1 6PN

I’m told you can also e-mail comments to nick.kessler@pins.gsi.gov.uk