Hare

On the basis of the Agenda that has been published for the Camberwell Community Council tonight, there will be an agenda item called Public Question Time (Item 11, timed for 8.45) after the Deputations have been heard (Item 6, timed for 7.10) but immediately before the CPZ discussion (Item 12, timed for 8.55). It says "This is an apportunity for public questions addressed to the chair. Residents or persons working in the borough may ask questions on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties. Response may be supplied in writing following the meeting". Here's the thing - there is a form on which to put your question and which must be handed in to an officer at the meeting, which implies that they don't take spoken questions from the floor. However, for anyone who wants to do it by the book, here's the form.............

For information: The Breakfast Show, Friday 6th January 2010 @1:13:45 - Part 1 Giles Sirett, local resident, interviewed by Gaby Logan @1:18:07 - Part 2 Cllr Barrie Hargrove, Southwark Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment interviewed by Paul Ross Transcript begins at 1:18:07 Paul Ross (PR): Well, listening to that was Barrie Hargrove, Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment at Southwark Council. Good morning Barrie. Barrie Hargrove (BH): Good morning. PR: So, thousands of signatures, people don?t like this, 70% of people say no, so why aren?t you listening? BH: We are listening, er.. no.. no final decision has been made yet on whether to introduce a CPZ. All we?re doing is.. is.. i.. bringing the results of.. of.. the consultation to local people and out of that the r.. results of those.. that consultation we?re giving them a number of options. PR: Surely though, if they?re saying no thank you, we like the status quo, that?s the only option they want? BH: Well the.. um.. there are a number of people that said no thank you but there?s also a substantial number of people that said yes, we do want a CPZ and er we have looked at this carefully and we?ve come up with a number of different options that th.. er.. people might want to.. to go for. PR: Such as what? I mean, is this two streets [unclear; Hargrove interrupts)? BH: Yeah, yeah, there are two streets?.. PR: Is that the thin end of the wedge, as Giles was kind of implying? BH: Ummm.. I don?t think we?re looking at that in quite that way, we?re looking at responding to a concern that people have .. there clearly is a .. there clearly is a problem with commuter parking and I think Giles is very dismissive when he says there?s only a.. a few people in Derwent Grove and Tintagel Crescent that.. that.. that.. that w.. that want a CPZ PR: Well surely you can?t argue with the figures. I mean, you must know how many people responded. BH: Well .. no.. PR: He said one in four overall wanted it, that still means three quarters didn?t, and in a democracy that means it shouldn?t happen, surely? BH: Er.. er.. I d.. don?t think that the process is er.. is a case of whether people you know, th.. the numbers and exact numbers.. it?s a bit more of a sophisticated process than that.. it?s basically, we?ve got CPZs right across our borough and we.. we give residents the opportunity to.. to respond to a consultation and then what we?ll do is.. is come up with er.. er.. s.. some outcomes out of that and give them the chance to have further say before we.. before we make a decision. PR: And what?s the timescale on this, by the way, what?s the next move? BH: Yeah, er, we?ve got two Community Councils coming up in January where people are invited to come along and I?d urge people to come along to give their views and then at the end of January, beginning of February, we?ll make a final decision. PR: Thank you very much for joining us this morning, that was Barrie Hargrove, Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment at Southwark Council. We also heard from Giles Sirett, a local resident, local to East Dulwich, who objects to any plans to introduce controlled parking zones inside or in streets, the 22 streets around where he lives. Ends You can hear the whole interview on this link for the next six days.

Mynamehere, that is very incisive; thank you! Yes, there?s an awful lot to suggest that Southwark?s ?consultation process? lacks intellectual rigour and is woefully inadequate. From beginning to end, the whole thing looks very much like a ?pick & mix? approach to statistics. For instance, we?re told that ?in recent years, the council have received 44 requests from residents in the study area for a CPZ. This is where a resident has either made either a complaint or a general enquiry to the council, either directly to officers or via their elected members to request resident parking controls or a consultation. The highest number of requests have been received from East Dulwich Road (10) Derwent Grove (8), St Francis Road ( 6 ). It is noted that the broader Grove Vale and Lordship Lane area of Southwark has the highest concentration of these requests of anywhere in the borough? Yes, but what do they mean by ?recent years?? - 2, 3, 4, or maybe even 5? - it makes a difference! And were these 44 ?requests? from 44 different people or were they multiple requests from just a small number of people? - and which were ?complaints? and which were ?general enquiries?? Southwark doesn?t seem to know (I asked one of the officers at the exhibition and he certainly didn?t) and what?s more, of course, one suspects they don?t really care since this dodgy statistic allows them to get over the starting line and justify holding a consultation. Furthermore, think about this: requests from Francis Road are cited as a factor contributing to the case for a Consultation, but when they consulted people in Francis Road, the residents were actually opposed to the CDZ proposal. According to the report, only 20 people out of 57 possible respondents were moved to reply to the consultation and of those 20, 13 were opposed to it (59%) and only 7 (32%) were actually in favour ? and that was in a road where, we?re told, people were actively raising the issue! I could go on about the basis on which the recommendations in the consultation report are being made, but I?ll spare you that. Meantime, on the basis of the above example, I think the case for describing their approach to statistics and data as ?pick and mix? begins to look rather persuasive. In view of this flawed data, I?d really like to hear James Barber?s defence for Southwark?s case for why the consultation was embarked on in the first place. How about it, James?

James ? thank you for confirming my fears about the effect that dropped kerbs will have in reducing available on-road parking spaces. As I mentioned, there are at least three roads included in the proposed CPZ in which residents could create personal parking space; they are Elsie Road, Melbourne Grove and East Dulwich Road. A cursory visual assessment from a Sunday afternoon stroll suggests that, far from being largely paved over, there is still a lot of scope for further frontage parking. Even if it is only these three roads, it has the potential to skew the numbers of available parking spaces on which the CPZ proposal is predicated and undermine its logic. There doesn?t seem to be any mention of the issue in any of the available documentation supporting the proposal: perhaps you could explain how and when this has been taken account of?

Will the introduction of a CPZ result in people trying to pave over their front gardens and install dropped kerbs to create personal parking spaces? Apparently London already loses more than 7,000 acres of greenery a year from its private gardens. I wonder if Southwark has taken that into account. I reckon that there are at least three roads included in the proposed CPZ where the majority of houses could have the capacity to introduce off-street parking. This would mean even fewer parking spaces for those not able to do the same. If this were to happen, it will also affect the water table. One of the side effects is that, in a changing climate which will see less rainfall anyway, the ground dries out which in turn affects the stability of building foundations. So if experience in other areas is any indicator, get ready for an increase in subsidence and all the joys of insurance claims that accompany it.

I saw it too, but the tail shape was very un-kestrel and it was a big bugger. I'd put it as a buzzard, especially since they are the most common and widespread birds of prey in the country. Same sort of size as the red kites we see all over the Chilterns and up the M4 these days. Buzzards, I recognise from the family raised in the trees in the field opposite my parents' Shropshire home last summer. Maybe one followed me back.....

I hear that Southwark Labour party are actually going to support the launch of a local network of Tree Wardens; timely news for National Tree Week. Hurrah!

James, Do you know if the Tree Strategy includes the support of a volunteer Tree Warden network in the borough? They are so successful elsewhere across the UK that it's really a no-brainer, especially if local people are sufficiently motivated to care about what happens to trees in their neighbourhood. It might also lend itself to sharing of information with communities, minimising the chinese whispers effect about what, for example, Gristwood & Toms are up to and what, exactly, pollarding is and does. Look forward to hearing. Oh, and a general point, it's certainly true that trees aren't always planted in the right places but insurance companies do love a good scapegoat so for every tree that is actually threatening a building, about five more are blamed when they don't have anything to do with the problem.

Went this afternoon to the new cafe opp the Rye, The Gardens (lovely, since you ask,) and they seem to have a large space to the rear that is still undergoing renovation, but nearly finished, that will be available for activities from art exhibitions through to rehearsal space and networking groups - at least, that's what the chap working there told us. Worth going to talk to them, maybe? Sue, I'll see your Eddie I. at the EDT and raise it with sitting on the cobbles watching him busking in Covent Garden. You and I are either dead hip or dead old - shall we settle for "ahead of the curve"?

If anyone has a tree that was planted within the last few years and that still has a watering pipe sticking up out of the soil, it will never do any harm to slosh as much water as you can down it. Since the coalition government arrived and announced cuts across the board, many councils have put a moritorium on spending and for the arb sections, that means no tree planting, no watering and no aftercare. Don't know if the same applies in Southwark yet but probably only a matter of time. Oh, and to add insult to injury, one of the coalition manifesto commitments is to launch a national tree planting campaign in urban areas (ie not countryside). It's supposed to be a Big Society initiative. That means you and me doing it and funding it. Also, haven't we already got National Tree Week every year? If anyone from the council is reading, we need a local Tree Warden network in Southwark so at least we can get a start on looking after what we've got throughout the lockdown.

How can it be possible that the co-op are apparently so unaware that their words are at odds with the reality? Here we all are, really willing the revamped shop to be clean and well stocked so that we can do our shopping somewhere that also has the ethical policies we want to support. Is there no-one reading this who, like the Station Manager in another place, is willing to take responsibility? We're on your side, you know!

I was looking forward to the Co-op opening but couldn't have been more disappointed with the reality once it did. Death by a thousand price cuts. Display stands, half empty, boasted items that weren't reflected by the contents. Dislocated items, abandoned by shoppers who had lost their enthusiasm in mid-trawl, remained unrepatriated. The torn flaps off cardboard boxes and the clear wrapping from multiple packs lay discarded alongside the shelves, ignored by staff and scuffed along by bored children. Newspapers, too many to go in the display stand, overflowed in untidy piles on the floor. My assessment - it's gone downhill from when it was Somerfield. Is that possible? It seems so. Anyone remember the Co-op chemists? I used to go there as a point of principle, being an old co-operator, but even that lacked the clarity of vision and the stock to make it attractive to the consumer. And now we've lost it, because apparently it was losing money and the victim of theft. Well, even my kids know that with a counter right at the back and no one to stop the opportunist thief at teh door, stock is going to disappear. I really want to like the Co-op; I truly want to be able to say "yes, I walk up Lordship Lane and go to the Co-op - it has everything I need and it's such a joy to shop there" but I just don't see it happening unless there is at least a manager who believes in what it could be and enthuses all the staff to feel the same. Oooh, it's good to have got that off my chest............