Zebedee Tring

When I worked in local government, the auditors (internal and external) went over every item of expenditure (big and small) with a fine tooth comb. Someone should pursue an audit of Southwark's contracts with Russ Conways. There used to be a power for local taxpayers to query items of expenditure at audit time - can't remember the details.

If they were surprised by the opposition to the no right turn proposal, imagine the storm if they tried to ban the arguably much more popular no left turns.

Southwark have been warned about this potential problem several times this year, including by at least one very experienced engineer. But those arrogant four letter fellows at the Council knew best.

I presume that the dreaded Conways are involved. They usually are. The tendering exercise(s) that led to that company getting so much Southwark work would make interesting reading.

Milo Road is a very short road with very few houses. It therefore bears very little comparison with Melbourne Grove.

In answer to Mick Mac, Georgia and others, I will repeat what I said in an earlier post. This was not a one off party held by a local resident. It was a commercial venture run by an organisation for a profit. There would have been specific conditions attached to their licence. If, when faced with breaches of the licence, the attitude is "Why complain? People were having fun. You're a load of moaning gits", what is the point of having a licence in the first place if its provisions are not going to be monitored/enforced? Surely people can "enjoy themselves" without disrupting other people's sleep? How would the same people (or indeed Mick Mac or Georgia) like it if, say, they had an important interview or meeting the following day but had their sleep disrupted by other people "enjoying themselves"? I bet that they wouldn't then take such a tolerant attitude towards the revellers.

Matt Hill was the guy at the Community Council meeting in March who told us that there would be further consultation on the Townley Road scheme, which didn't in fact take place. So be wary.

Mike Dodd, unlike you I actually live in ED and not far from Alleyn's so the subject matter of this thread is of some interest to me. End of (another clich? which you probably use). And what exactly is embarrassing, Barred? Mike Dodd's posting record?

Perhaps somebody who was adversely affected by the licence breaches could notify Southwark Council, if they haven't already done so.

This was not a one off party held by a local resident. It was a commercial venture run by an organisation for a profit. There would have been specific conditions attached to their licence. If, when faced with breaches of the licence, the attitude is "Why complain? People were having fun. You're a load of moaning gits", what is the point of having a licence in the first place if its provisions are not going to be monitored/enforced?

"Get a life". One of the most overused clich?s along with "national treasure", "the rest is history" and "what's not to like?" If you're going to criticise other posters, please find a more original phrase. And from your posting history I see (a) that you no longer live in ED, so any noisy ED events won't disrupt your sleep, and (b) you have used the phrase "get a life" in at least one previous post; it's obviously one of your favourites.

And what exactly do you mean by "bitched", Barred? That doesn't sound very nice to me.Are you trying to get down wiv da kidz, bruv?

Yes, such a distinguished school with the future leaders of society. I thought that they would want to set a good example to the great unwashed.

Our postman often leaves post sticking out of the letter box even though it's easy to push post through it. Potentially an indication to burglars that we might be out or on holiday.

Article 2 of the Order provides "This general effect of the order will be to consolidate the provisions of the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012 with all subsequent Orders that have amended or applied the provisions of that Order." I agree that without seeing all the previous Orders it would not be possible to establish that the Consolidation Order does not make any changes to what has been in force up to now and has not added any new restrictions. I suppose that Southwark could asked to confirm that this is the case. Whether it would be worth a lot of extra work to establish this is another matter. So perhaps people might wish to check those parts of the Order that affect roads near them to see whether there have been any changes under the new Order (not a reference to a popular beat combo). If it subsequently turned out that there HAD been unauthorised changes/restrictions on which consultation had not taken place, then this would be a cause for concern, if not potential legal challenge. Article 4 of the Order provides that anyone wishing to question the validity of the Order or of any provision contained in it on the grounds that it is not within the relevant powers of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or that any of the relevant requirements of the RTRA or of any relevant regulations made under the RTRA has not been complied with in relation to the Order may, within six weeks of the date on which the Order was made, make an application for the purpose to the High Court.

On the face of it the Order appears to be simply a Consolidation Order. However, if first mate is right and Southwark have sneakily slipped in some new traffic restrictions, the Order could be challengeable.

All Southwark have done is to consolidate a mass of existing traffic restriction Orders into one Order presumably in order to make things clearer. In other words there are no new traffic restrictions being brought into force. The commencement date is 31 July 2015. However, with their usual efficiency Southwark's website gives the date of the Order as 30 July 2013, not 2015

Yes, I've now searched extensively online and can find no announcement to the effect that there will be an greatly enhanced Thameslink service from Denmark Hill next year.

Is this correct? Every five minutes from Denmark Hill on Thameslink? I hope that you are right. A Bakerloo extension to Camberwell was first approved in 1931 but held up by WW2. After WW2 the extension to Camberwell even appeared on a 1949 edition of the Underground map, but no further work was done and the proposal faded away. Train indication signs showing Camberwell as a destination were created in anticipation of the southern extension and erected in some Tube stations; these signs were still visible at Warwick Avenue Station until the 1990s.

"Morally limited"? That's an interesting phrase, though I don't think I know what it means. It would be interesting to see someone using the phrase as a plea in mitigation if they were being prosecuted. Perhaps I am being na?ve but if the DCC made a controversial decision relating to the East Dulwich Ward and its members were told that they would be consulted further, I would expect Village Ward Councillors to get "stuck in" if necessary. In any case what happens at the Townley Road junction could have an impact on your Ward, so you're perfectly entitled to get involved if there is a possibility of the Townley scheme being fouled up.

I am well aware that James Barber is a East Dulwich Ward Councillor. But he is a member of the DCC and as such was part of the decision to go ahead with the scheme at the March meeting. He has also been copied into numerous emails to Southwark officers and the Cabinet Member complaining about the recent lack of consultation on the scheme. But from Cllr Barber, there has been not a whisper .... at least not as far as I am aware (and I have been copied into those numerous emails). Perhaps Mr Barber would like to comment. I used to work as a local government officer in a senior position. If I had failed to consult local Councillors in the way that this has happened in the Townley Road case, I would have been hung, drawn and quartered (metaphorically at least).

I don't really accept this. There are at least three Opposition Councillors on the DCC, including your former political colleague James Barber. So far we have heard SFA from them. So far as the ward boundaries are concerned, ALL the Dulwich Councillors not just from Village Ward but from the other Dulwich Wards (as well as the local residents who pay the wages of Council officers, whether by Council Tax or general taxation, but who don't seem to matter in between elections) were promised further consultation on the scheme. What is the point of having a Community Council if the DCC members don't show a greater interest in the implementation of decisions that they have taken? Why don't we just abolish democracy and appoint a bureaucrat to run the Borough according to his or her wishes? That would seem to be no less effective as the present set up? (I am making the final point only half seriously).

It may be a more complicated issue. However, the fact remains that the officers at the Community Council meeting in March promised to inform and consult residents and Councillors further regarding changes to the scheme, but they didn't. Apart from the local MP (also Ward Councillor) who has expressed her concern about this failure to consult, other Councillors on the DCC don't appear to have given a damn - unless they are prepared to demonstrate that I'm wrong by going on the record and saying otherwise. It's lucky for them that the next local election is three years away and the next General Election five years away.

This isn't the only recent case where local councillors have been bypassed. It has happened also re late and dubious "amendments" to the Townley Road junction scheme. If this had happened when I worked in local government, the officers involved would have been hung out to dry. Clearly Southwark officers believe that they are above criticism.

Davidk, as the lawyers say, for the avoidance of doubt my comment above about there being generally far too much selfishness and "sod you" attitude around these days was directed at representatives from all sections of the community, including not only cyclists but careless motorists, people texting while travelling at 70 mph on motorways, jaywalking, kiddie cyclists, parents with children out of control, people playing loud rap music from their mobile phones in buses etc etc. So I wouldn't get too paranoid as far as I am concerned - I'm not picking on cyclists.