first mate

Great James, glad to see you state parking will be slightly increased by the normalisation of the junction but can you confirm normalisation will NOT change the junction in such a way that greater lengths of yellow lines will then be applied, in effect actually reducing parking overall? You say there are other allocated funds available for fixing pavements. In that case how much money is available to fix and renew the paving on Chesterfield and Melbourne and could you give dates for start and completion? Is it as much as ?15,000? Please note this is a request for proper paving, not the current trend for digging out the old paving and then shoving down a load of tarmac, which soon cracks and disintegrates and is unsightly. Great efforts were made to improve the paving around the entrance and opposite side of road to M&S...It would be great if council funds could be also be used to improve residential streets close by.

Hi James, Good to know our local Councillor will seek to block M&S and Planning reneging on a very clear and hard negotiated condition re the M&S application and operating hours. Didn't take them long to go back on the agreement though did it? Illustrates perfectly the cynical way large organisations seek to manipulate the planning system entirely to their own advantage, ignoring the wellbeing of local residents and holding planning over a barrel as they do so. On the use of ?15,000 to block Iceland lorries. I have not, as you say, brought this to your attention, I read about it in your article in SE22 magazine. Will the proposals for normalisation of this junction reduce parking? If so, not a great idea- there is already too much parking pressure on these streets. It is also my understanding that it was already agreed that M&S will not use Chesterfield to access the servuce entrance; why would they if the service entrance is too small for umloading? That is not going to change unless you are party to some new information we are unaware of? M&S will continue to deliver to the front of the shop. The issue is whether they should be allowed to do so an hour earlier than was a clear condition of agreeing the planning application. Don't think normalisation of the Chestefield/Melbourne junction should be conflated with the M&S issue. It might be politically expedient but is misleading. As stated, I would prefer the ?15,000 normalisation funds be reallocated to mending the pavements on Chesterfield and Melbourne...a much more useful way to spend that money.

James, I see from your article in SE22 magazine that M&S have now applied for 6 am deliveries. The reason, you say, is because they have finally admitted that not even their smallest delivery vehicles can negotiate the delivery yard, so they have to deliver to the front. 1. As I recall, delivery times were a clear condition of planning permission being given for the huge M&S/ flat build. 2. Residents repeatedly said that the massively increased footprint of the M&S building meant the delivery yard would be too small for delivery vehicles, yet we were shown numerous fancy computer generated models telling us we were imagining things. Could we somehow extrapolate an explanation for the above farce from both M&S and Planning who seemed to have colluded in a massive lie in order to get the application through. They must be held to account. On a separate note I see CGS funds to ?15,000 are to be used to 'normalise' Melbourne/ Chesterfield junction. Did you make this decision and, if so, on whose behalf? What exactly does it mean and where was the idea first generated and why? It's a lot of money. Personally I'd rather see those funds spent on 'normalising' the pavement around here. It is uneven and a massive trip hazard. Large areas also collect and hold detritus and rain water/ deep puddles. Fixing that would help everyone not a select few whose shutting off streets agenda will be helped along nicely by this 'normalisation' idea.

Nxjen, Yes it would be a lot of space but if Southwark really has no interest in a total ban in some areas why offer it as an option? Anyway, I think people need to be very careful how they answer the survey as I really do think it is skewed in favour of getting as tough as possible on all dog owners as a means to try to control a few.

nxjen, I really hope you are right and that the council is genuine in simply getting people to be more responsible dog owners but if so, why offer complete exclusion from certain areas? All you need is a few people that hate all dogs ( they do exist)to say yes and it may give the council the ammunition they need for wholesale bans. A total ban is easier to enforce than a variety of controls. Case in point, options already exist to fine etc.. To be clear the survey states 'near' children's play areas. That could mean anywhere children play and remember parks are used by schools for various activities, so how near is near?

DandySandy, The behaviour of the owner of the Lab was inexcusable and I would be the first to say that dogs, especially young OTT dogs, need to be better controlled. I am glad your son was not badly injured ( as you say the dog was not intending to bite but misjudged where its teeth were when it was stealing food, but being allowed to steal the food from a child's hands in the first place was really bad). You would have been entitled to report this to the police under the DDA and action could have been taken where the owner would have been compelled by court order to keep the dog under close control in future. I am not however under the impression that you want all dogs put on a lead in the park all the time or that you want all dogs permanently excluded from public spaces all the time- this seems to be the aim of the council and its survey.

Yes, they could do dangerous cyclists and 20mph motoring violations together. I am soooo sick of being regularly nearly rear ended, simply for keeping to the speed limit.

Hi Lollipop, Perhaps those with knowledge of research methodology can reply, but the way the survey is designed seems to ensure that these DCOS get put through because the only options are to choose greater controls or outright bans. There is no option to use existing legislation. For instance wardens can already issue fines for failing to bag and remove poo. I have never seen or heard of a fine issued though. The only way to avoid the skewing in the survey is to tactically lie and choose the option that says dog poo doesn't bother you etc, etc. The fact is there is already law in place to cover all the issues, but it is not enforced. My hunch the Council would simply prefer the simplicity of outright bans. My other point about dogs offlead on streets is this does present dangers to children, people and other dogs. In this situation most other dogs will be on the lead and being randomly approached by an offlead dog can lead to all sorts of problems. I simply cannot understand why the council with its fleet of community wardens on mopeds does not crack down on this real issue- but they will be too busy policing parking offences, I guess.

Rendel I know that and really was not having a go. It is as you say but and 'tis a small but, I guess that a declaration with DVlA that one is disabled enough to require a class 3 MS, might be used as evidence in some way if for whatever reason the MS was involved in something untoward. I'd imagine a false declaration to DVLA mught carry a heavy penalty...well that's the theory. In regard to cycling canot ever see on the spot fines working..who would do it and how funded?

Gosh, we certainly need another hairdresser.

Rendel, I don't know exact reasons behind requirement to register but would guess it is a means to ensure only disabled folk use them and that they meet certain standards of roadworthiness in terms of safety all round. The latter point is probably pertinent to all road users...I am thinking of my recent near miss at night of a cyclist clad in dark clothing with no lights.

Bobbsy, I think that if there is a requirement for mobility scooters to be registerd then the same should apply to other motorised vehicles.

After today's and other recent reports of attacks on people in parks with perpetrators using bikes to get away, the council should focus on this type of crime. Doubt anyone would suggest a total ban on bikes in parks or that bikes should always be hand wheeled not ridden through parks.

Rendel, I've a feeling that roadworthy mobility scooters, the ones you don't want in cycle lanes because they go too slowly at a max speed of 8mph, have to be registered with DVLA- not trying to pick a fight again, just saying. However, I note how you use disabled and elderly as part rationale for e-bikes. So many disabled would never have that option and I am sure you know that.

I've said it many times but a far greater menace is status dgs walked off lead on street pavements. Why not focus on that? I can see that FPNs delivered to the owner of the family dog mght be easy pickings for an anti dog council. I too would like to see dogs put on leads in certain areas and for poo to be picked up and dog walkers limited to four dogs but this survey offers complete exclusion of dogs from large areas of public space as an option. That makes me suspicious of the real motives behind the consultation. I would be furious if I was barred from walking my dog in many of the borough's public spaces. Dadonabike, as he says a first time poster and new to the area, seems to have been incredibly unlucky in his experience of dogs in the area.

Nxjen, thankyou. Actually, I see that the online consultation refers to children's play areas only and does not say designated, so not sure what that means. I also think it is a shame that the survey asks only if dogs should be kept on leads or totally excluded from areas like Sydenham Woods and One Tree Hill. There is no option to keep things as they are but to utilise existing laws against offenders. A biased and poorly designed survey.

Agree with comments in the online document. I am also interested to know where Southwark's nature reserves are and what constitutes a designated children's play area? I am guessing the latter means a specially fenced off children's playground?

KK I agree. Every single issue already covered in law of some sort snd penalties can be applied...so question is why existing law not being utilised?

Wardens already have powers to fine, so why don't they?

Doubt it has been properly investigated because nothing to be gained politically, but judging by the amount of building dust in the air (only took two days to heavily coat newly washed car in grime) I wonder how much throw em up developers plus the obligatory loft and extension conversions of many residents, add to air pollution and respiratory issues?

These do look broken up in places.

Beyond exasperating.

James in what way is the junction between Melbourne Grove and Chesterfield as you say "designed to maximise speeding"?

Abe, extremely disconcerting. I wonder if former councillor Robin HJ has any info on this?

James, So how is the design, which looks similar to the design of most junctions, to be changed?