first mate

Here's a link to proposals on free parking...again has consultation passed us all by http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/3654/one_hour_free_parking_in_local_shopping_parades

This is a link to Southwark's forward plan http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgListPlans.aspx?RPId=153&RD=0 But you can also do a bit of a search backwards by putting in key phrases like "speed limits" or "licensing". I can already see that a big meeting on licensing residences is coming up, as well as management of leisure facilities ( thinking of the poo in the pool thread, and many complaints about ED leisure). I wonder if admin could dedicate a tab to this and a few other key links? This link about how S'wark intends to consult on the S'wark plan is also of interest http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11085/consultation_plan

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1725/response_to_reports_concerning_20mph_limit_and_cyclists A search on S'wark website indicates that that cllr barrie Hargrove announced in oct 2013 that 20 mph would go to statutory consultation. The above is a press release in June 2014 which indicates the consultation has been done, it also contains interesting information on enforcement, whereby the limit won't apply to cyclists, only motorised vehicles.....bizarre and a bit of a mess.

Hi James, appreciate the links though I'd add that looking at the second the information on key stuff is overly general and you cannot get into any if the detail as though this is signposted it us not linked to.

ED History. Thank you. Do you know if the Society have a stance on any if the issues under discussion here? Tessemo, yes and if I have my facts right some special interest groups/ activists are also local councillors- someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Hopskip, Nicely put. I think we need a consultation on the consultation process and most likely some kind of reform. It is worrying and while I do not have such a major beef about 20 mph (though feel it may prove ineffective until the council shells out huge sums on cameras- also on the cards btw)I do feel strongly about changing unrestricted parking into restricted under the guise of the council's call for "free parking". I see that Southwark Living Streets are also part if a national drive to challenge free parking and presumably thereby rid the streets of as many cars as possibly. Jeremy Leach was/is Lib Dem councillor for Newington Ward, he is also the main man for Southwark Living Streets and Southwark Cyclists.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is "the Gazette" the London Gazette? An official > UK journal, in which it is required that certain > statutory notices should be published. Yes, ZT it is, though I had not felt it was something I needed to peruse on a very regular basis in order to find out about proposed major changes to my locale. Do others read this often? Perhaps I need to start.

And I meant to add that one of the special interest groups- Southwark Living streets- is a branch of the national charity Living Streets who have been driving 20mph from the start, and have worked in an advisory and partnership role with the Council to make this initiative happen, so they have had the inside track, as it were. Thus to see them mentioned as consultees in some sort of statutory box ticking exercise seems a little rich.

RB, i think you make valid observations but I think the point here is that certain special interest groups were given special notice, their attention was positively sought rather than them having to regularly monitor the Gazette and Council website just in case something relevant came up. I do feel that proposed changes to speed limits could have been given greater profile thereby enabling wider consultation.

Tessmo, Agreed, however if you look at the detail for this particular consultation you will see that local residents are listed as amongst those who would be affected by 20 mph and therefore should be consulted. I believe the council maintains it met this obligation by posting notice in the Gazette( whatever that is), putting it online on its website and in a few papers like the South London Press. I guess we have to decide if this was enough. Were special interest groups given an advantage in being directly approached by S'wark for their views? Was the process unfairly weighted? The only way to challenge this is to look at the process to see if the Council failed in some area.

As James says, consultation does not mean referendum, it seems really to be a technical part of process the Council are obliged to do when seeking to make changes they believe are for the best, but the exact meaning of which is unclear. I am also beginning to think that the process is regularly used in quite a cynical and undemocratic way.

@woodwarde, perhaps we need a clear guide to effective objection? One part of me feels that is what elected Councillors are for but doesn't seem that effective.

I don't feel so strongly about 20mph but I do feel let down by the process and also feel that there was not a clear call and space for public consultation. I am sure that playing the system to advantage is viewed as part and parcel of the political game by those within it,but to those on the receiving end it is a cause of disillusion and anger. In your view re 20 mph on all roads, was there adequate warning and information for the general public to have their say? You cite Townley Rd as an example of people protesting to make a change, but if we don't really know, how can this happen? In your view, in thus case, do you think process was adhered to?

James, okay, I take it that you support the 20 mph throughout and would not therefore be inclined to oppose it. What about changing unrestricted parking to restricted, will you oppose that? What measures can be taken now to ensure this does not happen? Do you also agree that mixing in the proposed change from 30 mins to one hour with unrestricted spaces to one hour is misleading, if so what can be done to unhitch the former from the latter?

@woowarde, Thanks. We know that 20mph is a strategic decision and in his last post on the matter James Barber suggested we email a Cabinet Member expressing objections, but the implication was that there was little he could do, though he was quick to play it for political points. I would like to know if James agrees with 20 mph on main roads in ED (I think most will agree side roads are fine)and if he feels that local residents were adequately consulted and process followed?

Back in 2009 there was a thread by Peckham Rose on here. She had posted a PDF of Southwark Plans for 20 mph, including a reply to her detailed objections at the time. That PDF appears to gave been deleted from S'wark website. I suspect one would have to go back through council meetings and minutes. However, I think the "consultation" will have been done quite purposefully over a number of years, garnering support of sorts for roads on a piecemeal basis until they have enough to join it all together. But yes, perhaps a councillor, any councillor, can explain and reveal the full process and mechanism of consultation with the public in this case, from first notification to grand finale. If S'wark, its officers and councillors are so keen to be seen as the listening borough, then they should be ever so keen to reply.

Please see http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s38770/Lordship%20Lane%2020mph%20zone%20proposal.pdf

Hi blue canary, I think the second link I posted is the one for Lordship Lane, it documents objections too.

Here's an interesting link to a map https://southwarklivingstreets.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/jtp-06nov14.ppt you need to scroll down about 15 sections. This is taken from the Southwark Living Streets map showing state of progress for 20 mph in London boroughs. SLS is one of the bodies consulted and therefore fulfilling Southwark's legal obligation to consult with interested parties. It would be interesting to find out at what point in the "process" they were consulted and how this was done. Here us one example of a consultation between this group and a consultation with Southwark on a variety if issues including 20 mph in Camberwell http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/8813/3d_-_streets_-_living_streets_response Does anyone recall tbese http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s38770/Lordship%20Lane%2020mph%20zone%20proposal.pdf http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=4154

Yes, which is is why when the "free parking" consultation's opening weasel- worded question is "Do you support the principle of free parking, yes or no ?" We see how easily either answer can be used to support changing unrestricted parking to restricted. I really am beginning to feel that councillors of any hue take us for fools. What can be done to stop the various issues listed in this thread?

There is a document that precedes this one, that states that a period of consultation should include interested parties, like cyclist groups and Southwark Living Streets ( the latter is documented in favour of the 20 mph plan) but also local residents. Why has a charity like Southwark Living Streets ( see www.southwarklivingstreets.org.uk) been given a voice when, apparently, local residents have not. I would like to know where is the evidence for consultation with local residents? Has the Council truly followed process or simply stated that it has?

I don't really understand the territory but if certain policies are "strategic and borough wide" is there any way to object to/ overturn them? What is the process? There is a sense in certain posts that because it's "strategic" it is inevitable.

If you actually read my initial posts you will see that I am one of those who adheres to the 20mph but many do not and the experience of being aggressively tailgated is not only unpleasant but dangerous. You will also see that I am not advocating breaking the law or the limit but pointing out the fact that many do and will continue to do so, unless a load if money is spent on enforcement. Southwark states that it expects the scheme to be self enforcing. So next time I labour up Sydenham Hill with a string of irate, hooting drivers right up my number plate, I will think of you Bawdy Nan and your kind advice.

ZT Indeed, especially since the police were dead against it in the first place, so there is an argument to say that instead of making roads safer the council have made them more dangerous, and I, for one do not want to see a load of money spent on traffic calming, speed cameras and pavement widening, to try to enforce it. What a mess.

Is there no CCTV in the area...next to station?