first mate

nununoolio Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Probably 9-10 years ago, I vaguely remember a lady > training dogs (and owners?)on that triangle of > grass near Barry Rd. We were all for it and I took > some of her cards to pass to dog walkers I thought > might need her services. No idea why she stopped, > but it certainly wasn't to do with the council. I understand it was the Council.

nununoolio Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And who stopped the dog training? Was it the > Council? News to me if it was. I believe so, yes.

nununoolio Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although I do have to ask First Mate this. In what > way is pointing out the council can't afford to > take on several court cases 'scaremongering'. They > would be criticised for wasting public money. If there is a such a problem in the borough with so many wanting action then I doubt the council would be criticised for taking perpetrators to court and winning. Councils regularly have bulk days at Magistrates Court for non payment of council tax. I believe the costs for the application etc.. for summary charges do not exceed ?100 per individual. Why would this be different? You did not say whether you think the council would have to contract PSPO enforcement out to a private enforcement company? This is what has happened elsewhere.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nunoolio, > > That may be the situation now but find out a > little more about how these new powers are being > used elsewhere. Will do. > I am not sure of costs of summary conviction at a > magistrates court but surely the purpose is to > deter repeat offences not raise money? Under > existing Bylaws offenders can be fined on summary > conviction and they can also be removed from the > park. The DDA section 3 is devoted to dogs > dangerously out of control- and yes that could be > a matter of perception. The point I was making about the byelaws is that it would cost the council thousands to take people to court. Nothing to do with making money but to do with not having the budget or resources for so many legal actions. You only have to take a few people to court and win before word gets round. Yes, there'll be the odd repeat offender but most will desist and we are talking about a magistrates court not full judge and jury. Think you are scaremongering there Nunoolio. > Tell me who will enforce the new PSPOs, if we get > them? I imagine it would be wardens/enforcement officers. Oh really, there are very few park wardens. Do you think the job of enforcement might have to be contracted out to a private company? > Of course, one quite simple solution to some of > this would be for the council to allow some dog > training sessions within the parks, a great way to > educate and remind the public about how their dogs > should behave in the real world, but the council > stopped any use of the park for training long > ago. Not sure that is the case. There is a dog training group in the north of the borough. I don't think the council would be able to fund you to do it but you should apply for a licence and see what happens. As I am sure you know, there used to be someone who did it on Peckham Rye. The council did not have to fund it, those attending paid a nominal fee direct but then, for no apparent reason, it was stopped. Clearly you are very pro PSPOs and determined these should go through. I do not share your apparent faith that they will only be applied for the common good. We will have to agree to disagree. > The council seems not the least bit concerned > about dogs walked offlead on the public streets. This is a criminal matter. "Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 it is a criminal offence for a dog to be on a designated road (ie. a public road) without being held on a lead." Not something the Council has powers to deal with. This may change with the introduction of a PSPO. The council has powers to make an order under section 27 of that Act- has Southwark ever done so? An awful lot of people have complained about dogs off lead on streets but you seem to be saying that only now, using PSPOs, would the council suddenly take an interest? > > See [manifestoclub.info]

Nunoolio, That may be the situation now but find out a little more about how these new powers are being used elsewhere. I am not sure of costs of summary conviction at a magistrates court but surely the purpose is to deter repeat offences not raise money? Under existing Bylaws offenders can be fined on summary conviction and they can also be removed from the park. The DDA section 3 is devoted to dogs dangerously out of control- and yes that could be a matter of perception. Tell me who will enforce the new PSPOs, if we get them? Of course, one quite simple solution to some of this would be for the council to allow some dog training sessions within the parks, a great way to educate and remind the public about how their dogs should behave in the real world, but the council stopped any use of the park for training long ago. The council seems not the least bit concerned about dogs walked offlead on the public streets. See http://manifestoclub.info/psposreport/

Katy, Good spot. One take woukd be deferred until after the election.

Actually, thinking on I wonder what the legal position is for a council warden (presumably under instruction from those higher up) to refuse to assist a local in terms of existing powers on littering, and instead advise them to fill out a consultation form online as a solution? James, wouldn't the council have a legal duty to reasonably carry out its role to to keep streets clean under existing powers?

Additionally, these new powers are being blatantly abused by councils elsewhere to make money. Powers to fine are contracted out to private companies. A documentary on Monday evening ( Panorama?) showed people being fined for not picking up dog poo, after they had done so and for myriad spurious littering offences- all leading to heavy fines and a potential criminal record. Proceeds from fines are split between company and council for the first four fines a day. Anything after that goes to the company. Company employees could earn a bonus by issuing more fines a day and each had minimum targets. Secret filming showed one of the in house trainers saying the purpose was to make money. As others say, the council already have the power to fine for littering, including dog poo. The purpose of this whole exercice is to try to find other ways to extract money from locals...much the same for totally unnecessary double yellow lines I suspect. Locals should resist with all their might.

James, please fight this as hard as you can and it is hoped it can be called in. The process of arriving at this decision is undemocratic. It is clear most people don't want them.

Careful what you wish for https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/sep/08/pspos-new-control-orders-public-spaces-asbos-freedoms

Presumably that must apply to cyclists too ( edited to say in response to comment on dangers of 50cc uphill). As an aside, roadworthy mobility scooters (max speed 12 mph) are disbarred from using bus lanes or cycle lanes and cannot go more than 4 mph on pavement (no argument with the latter, obviously).

Abe, you may need to request that info under FOI, seems like it is being very well hidden or does not exist.

James, what further actions will you be taking as local rep to ensure M&S adhere to planning conditions? Edited to say meant servicing conditions re time of delivery etc...

John L, The Council already has a range of enforcement measures available which it chooses not to use. Some think the real reason for DCOS is it gives the council opportunity to completely ban dogs from more areas of public park space than would currently be possible. It has been said that there are some extremely anti dog folk at Southwark Council HQ.

James, I know of many, many cases where planning have chosen not to enforce clear breaches of policy for fear of legals etc, both residential and commercial cases. Therefore, little point in planning, it is a complete farce and paid for by the taxpayer. Glad M&S will be pursued and hoping, this time, for a result after 5 years of stating what was wrong with the development seemingly falling on deaf ears.

edhistory, So are you saying that the developer/M&S or both, have managed to avoid paying tax?

edhistory, Can you explain?

Thanks James and I do have to agree with you that the mighty M&S have behaved very badly indeed and, like many, I am really beginning to wonder if there is any role for council planning.

James, Do we know how much CIL was raised from this development and what" strategic issues" it has been spent on? What are strategic issues, it would be good to have a few examples and useful to know how funds like this are spent by the council? Do local residents benefit in any way whatsoever, given they carry the burden of the impositions from the development?

bargee99, Exactly. James, Could any of the CIL on the M&S build be used to improve paving on the residential streets close by?

I dug around and remembered this. Does this have any bearing on the M&S desire to open earlier? Perhaps James Barber would know? James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Marks and Sparks have also made a licensing > application. > they wish to sell alcohol 6am-midnight 7 days a > week. > > BUT the site only has planing permission to > operate as a shop Mon-Sat 7am-10pm & 10am-6pm > Sundays and Bank holidays. > > You can see the application here - > http://app.southwark.gov.uk/licensing/LicPremisesA > ppliedDetails.asp?systemkey=851512 > > You can tell council licensing officers by 31 > March 2016 whether you support or oppose such > opening hours via -licensing@southwark.gov.uk and > please copy me so I can see how things are going.

James, I see no evidence of Robin asking for personal favours. You do seem to go after her quite a bit. If Lordship pavements cannot be easily fixed then why not use the money to do residential streets? There always seems to be some byzantine issue of process that stops the obviously necessary from happening but little problem with installing things like bike hangars on the basis of one or two requests in a street. How crazy is that? Everyone uses the pavement. Can we please call planning, the developer and M&S to account on how the bloomin' obvious was weazled around for so long? You were closely involved with the gamut of applications from day one, so how come resident objections, oracle like in their accuracy, were not heeded by anyone in a decision making or influencing capacity?

Hi rch, You may well be right. The only thing is that if the shop is, as it were, up and running at 6 am I just don't see how the noise won't permeate to the back. Don't forget the back is where deliveries are stored and no doubt there would be much clashing of steel trollies etc.. they use to move items around. I am not convinced yet. And once permission is given I would not be surprised if things slide around to the back too. After all who will police it and M&S have already shown how they have asked for a bit more and a bit more over time. The other thing is are they also asking to extend closing hours? I had thought that was also on the agenda. Ages ago they wanted to extend hours in line with licensing, but may be irrelevent here.

Hi James, I guess a few of us might be wondering why you have not answered Abe_froeman's request. Is this because you genuinely do not know?

Sidhue, Many thanks for finding this and explaining. It does look as though planning are caught out nearly every time and I think many have very little faith in their ability to get a fair result. The Developer and M&S have behaved badly and you are right the long fought planning process, where they cycnically played the system with a long game will have cost us.