Today, Councillor James Barber and I gave evidence at the Caffe Nero Planning Appeal.   

Caffe Nero opened its premises without planning permission two years ago. Faced with the enforcement action by Southwark Council against this breach, Caffe Nero then applied for planning permission.  But they were refused because allowing another cafe would have broken rules designed to protect the delicate balance of shops and food and drink outlets in the area.  Southwark has a policy of making sure that at least fifty per cent of all shops units are retail outlets in order to ensure a vibrant high street. 

Caffe Nero continued trading without permission and in April  the Council took enforcement action in relation to both this issue and the installation (again without planning permission!) of noisy air conditioning units,  which sometimes operate around the clock. Caffe Nero installed these immediately outside some local residents’ bedroom window. Two local residents explained vividly the impact of this noise.

Since the council decision last year, a number of new shops have opened - this means that there is a healthier balance of shops (54%) to cafes then previously. The Planning Inspector will  take this evidence in to account (rather than just the facts the council considered at the time).  So even if she agrees with the decision the council made then, it is unliklely the Inspector will uphold the appeal based on the 50% retail rule.

Much of the evidence today focused on the air conditioning units and arguments about whether air-con is a necessary part of running a cafe and how the noise could be lessened. Caffe Nero admitted that it would cost just £5000 to address the problem.  But they could not explain adequately why they have chosen not to do so.

In our evidence James and I focused on the behaviour of Caffe Nero in willfully ignoring the need for planning permissions both to open the cafe and to install the air conditioning units. Certainly, their attitude to their neighbours is not a model of corporate social responsibility.    

The Inspector said she would make a decision by mid-to-late February.

My colleague James Barber has been working with extraordinary dedication on a project that is set to deliver a brand new Grove Vale library - at no cost to the tax payer.

Like many East Dulwich residents I like the current garden centre - my family use it regularly (although not for compost because they don”t sell peat-free!) .  But the site has been sold by the owners for development. Left to their own devices most developers would have proposed a development of flats with a food outlet on the ground floor ( an M&S Simply Food seems to be the most popular East Dulwich rumour…). It is difficult to see how such a development could have been successfully opposed - even if local councillors turned it down, the likelihood is that Government inspectors would have over-turned  such a decision.

So James has been working to improve the development and in particular to persuade the developers to pay for the provision of a library on the ground floor. (The  exisiting Grove Vale Library is cramped, unfit for purpose and the council’s lease is coming to an end.)

Last night the development was approved by the Planning Committee.  The development is not without its objectors.   But I was pleased that the bulk and massing of the building has been reduced since initial plans were publisherd in the local paper.  The provision of a fantastic new library certainly makes the development much more acceptable.  I hope that the new library will act as a catalyst to improve Grove Vale. By increasing pedestrian activity there should be a positive knock-on effect for local traders as well as making the area feel safer.   Well done James!

Southwark has recently consulted and then voted upon a series of bye-laws. This includes stopping cycling on a particularly narrow part of the Thames Path (not the Sustrans cycle route but the Thames walkway).  

I now read in the South London Press that Councillor Jenny Jones is threatening to defy this cycle ban.

There is a very honourable tradition of peaceful protest and civil disobedience in the UK which I wouldn’t wish to denegrate. From the Chartists to the 1990s road protests - it plays an important part in a free society.

But Jenny Jones has already had an opportunity to make her case on this issue. As I recall it she was at the Council meeting that discussed the bye-laws but didn’t make a stand against this measure. She neither spoke against it nor recorded a vote against it.  This seems strange for someone who is so incensed about the issue now.  I wonder what the explanation is.

Today, I have written to the Leader of the Council informing him of my intention to  resign my post of Executive Member for Regeneration on 22nd February in order to take up full time employment with a public affairs and communications firm.  I have greatly enjoyed my six years on the Council’s executive. It has been incredibly rewarding but also demanding on my growing family.  It is in the interests of my three young children that I have decided to resume my career in public affairs and so will be leaving the Executive.  Improving our area through local politics remains my passion and I will continue to work as hard as I can in East Dulwich.  The Liberal Democrats have an exciting agenda to deliver the much-needed new school, a refurbished Leisure centre, better street lighting and improvements to Lordship Lane. With James Barber and Jonathan Mitchell, I am determined to deliver on this agenda.

Apart from the more traditional seasonal activities, I spent some time delivering the East Dulwich councillors report back on what we’ve been up to over  the past year or so. We thnk its important to keep in touch all year round - not just at election time.  

It was nice to open my mail box after the break to to the following message from a lady in Upland Road:

Huge congratulations to Anood on winnning the riverside by-election up in  the Bermondsey ward of Riverside.  She didn’t just win either but achieved a swing towards the Liberal Democrats. Usually, you’d expect a swing away from the party defending the seat as the opposition exploit a chance to campaign they might not normally have.

Right from the start of the campaign, Labour were bullish about the election and the Labour leader said the election would be fought on the council’s regeneration  policies. Bermondsey Spa is a key regeneration programme in the ward where hundreds of new affordable homes are being built - a key part of Anood’s appeal to the electorate.   Many new homes have been completed but there is still much work on going which brings disruption to everyday life.  To receive this endorsement during the process of change is a real boost.

The other area of policy disagreement was on the issue of how we spend planning gain - or section 106 - money. This is money given to the council by developers to lessen the impact of new developments and to ensure that in areas of growth we can provide the facilities that make for a sustainable community – like youth centres, or health facilities for example.

The Labour leader has argued that this money should be directed to areas that do not have such large developments.

 We argue that it is absolutely right that this money should be focused on small local projects providing the infrastructure required to support our growing communities and relieving pressure where that pressure exists – be it in Bermondsey, Walworth or Camberwell.  To suggest that money given in respect of a development in one area should be spent instead on unrelated projects somewhere else would be both unfair and illegal.

So the Labour leader has been caught out.  He invented an illegal policy of ‘redistributing’ money gained through section 106 from big development to fund his pet projects in his own patch in Camberwell. Back then, he was desperately trying to shore up support in his own backyard. The Riverside  by-election result shows that Labour’s idea of transferring this money out of the areas affected by development was deeply unpopular. 

I am pleased that they were not able to get away with saying contradictory things to different people in different parts of the borough. 

I spent Saturday afternoon helping at the Goodrich School Christmas Fair and as always there was a wonderful atmosphere with staff, parents,  children and former pupils  all having a great time. 

I had volunteered as a mulled wine assistant, but my talents were quickly recognised and I was promoted to Mulled Wine maker.  A thoroughly enjoyable afternoon!

It’s not often I use this blog for mattters of national politics but since everyone else has a view, I thought I’d express mine.

After the last general election, there was a general consensus in the Liberal Democrats that, whilst we had many popular policies, we had not communicated well enough a vision - or ‘narrative’ - of what a Liberal society and a Liberal Democrat led government  would look like.

So I have been struck that Nick Clegg has gone about this election not by listing a load of policies designed to appeal to party activists but by seeking to articulate his vision.   

In contrast, Chris Huhne has decided to portray himself as the authentic voice of radical liberalism by listing a number of policy positions that touch the activists buttons - trident, public services, the environment. I am sympathetic,  but I don’t think that is what this election is about.   

As Lib Dem Shadow Home Secretary (not the easiest of jobs!),  Nick Clegg has shown that he can articulate a liberal approach to tackling crime effectively.  I was very impressed when he came to campaign in East Dulwich in 2006 to open our local police station 24/7.  We were in the throws of a viscous campaign in which Labour were attacking us for being ’soft on crime’ and ‘on the side of criminals’.  I think he understood that having a policy of  attacking crime effectively is critical but that joining the other party’s dutch auction on ‘toughness’ would be  both unprincipled and politically pointless.

Nick Clegg has a clear Liberal vision and and fantastic ability to communicate it.  I am sure that under his leadership we willl be able to continue our habit of confounding the critics by winning more votes and more seats at the next election.

On Sunday, I attended a public meeting called by those who are campaigning against the new planned boys Academy in East Dulwich. 

Those who are against the school who spoke broadly fall into four categories; those who are against academies on principle; those who like the old Victorian building on the chosen site and want it retained; those who believe the school could be improved on  particular educational grounds (it’s too big, it should be a mixed school etc); and those who are simply concerned about a development in their back yard.

It was the first group that was dominant. Speaker after speaker (many from outside the area and many from the NUT) condemned academies.  Yet none of the Labour councillors or party members present felt moved to defend the what is after all their policy. 

And of course the anti-academy contingent all attacked the Lib Dem-led Southwark council and me for foisting this policy on them!

The part of the academies agenda that I find most frustrating is that it is largely about creating a contract between the government and the academy provider.  The Council is a player but it lacks the degree of control that many people expect it to have.  I agreed with a number of comments made around democratic legitimacy and need for the councillors, local parents and people to have an input.

So, I find myself in an interesting position. Neither I nor the Liberal Democrats share the government’s enthusiasm for academies.  But as a local council we have to decide. Do we fight a political campaign against academies - retaining our ideological purity but risking the education of hundreds of children? Or do we compromise and do our best to deliver a new school within the framework set by the Government?

For my money, the need for decent, local, free secondary education for boys is one of the biggest social needs in East Dulwich. Parents have campaigned for a school for over six or seven years. I am not willing to sacrifice the education of hundreds of boys for a political campaign to change government policy. That debate and that campaign should be waged at the next general election.  I dare say a vote for my party will be the most effective vote against that policy! But in the meantime, we as local councilors need to work for the best outcome we can achieve within the constraints set for us.  And that is why I remain a firm supporter of the East Dulwich academy.