first mate

Hi James, on this issue, for this ward, I think the attempts to change unrestricted parking into areas of restricted parking is totally wrong and as the councillor representing ED And its voters I would hope you will resist those changes as hard as you can, even if it is Borough wide and strategic.

James, thanks. Think it is vital to stop this nonsense before real damage is done. In regard to the 20mph, this seems to be yet another example of undemocratic imposition by councillors; unless we regularly tap into Southwark website how would we have known these changes were on the horizon Why were special interest groups like that for cyclists alerted in good time but not the general public? We are all affected by these changes. As it is, in my experience the new limit is making the roads riskier not safer because many drivers are flouting 20 mph. If you haven't already, try taking a spin up to Crystal Palace at 20 mph and see what happens. And as for the issue of enforcement, the Council's own records show the police were/are totally against 20mph on main routes. This smacks of undemocratic control freakery at its worst.

Wow, when is a consultation not a consultation. I see that police put in a major objection to 20mph, but the Council just forged ahead. Unbelievable.

Don't want to derail discussion but just to say that dog attacks on humans are more likely in the home/ private property than out in parks or other public places. At least, that is my understanding, so not sure of relevance of that point.

For those that have them, what are Sat navs reporting as speed limit on the new 20mph roads? Thanks ZT for asking if these new 20mph stretches are binding in law or advisory. It is taking councillors a long time to respond to questions about new speed limits and restricted parking.

James, can I draw your attention to the thread on one hour parking. As a matter of urgency what can be done to halt the council's measures to introduce restricted parking across hitherto unrestricted areas of ED, under the guise of one hour free parking? Do you agree that the consultation form is not fit for purpose? Do you also agree that the council are being disingenuous in mixing a proposed change to already restricted parking slots from 30 mins to 1 hr free, with introduction of 1 hr slots to other areas that are already unrestricted and therefore already free? Do you agree that the council, far from freeing up parking us seeking to restrict it?

The first question, "do you support the principle of 1 hour free parking, yes or no" made me wary of filling out the form. I just don't trust the council to use the info honestly. If you start to look at all the various pages detailing plans in the area it is clear that they are attempting to introduce restricted parking all over the place. What can be done to intervene and stop this happening? The consultation form is worded in such a way that it could easily be skewed.

ZT, that is a really good question? Would James Barber, or Renata Hamvas, or any other Councillor, know?

dhjs, Yes, it is clear that you are fulfilling your brief in adhering to health and safety, that is not the issue. The point, I feel, is more one of poor communication. It would have been so simple to say something like the following from the outset, "regrettably, since these trees are highly toxic, we are obliged, for health and safety reasons to remove them". If you refer back to the late communications with Lucy Snow, the lady who has tended the trees over many years, it seems that the Capital projects Southwark person was not clear about reasons for removal either. I am not suggesting this failure of communication was your personal responsibility. I looked at the planning application and could not see mention of poisonous trees anywhere- perhaps it is buried in the detail? Let us hope that a home can be found for the trees and that there is a positive end to this saga. I am sure the school will be very successful and look forward to seeing the final result.

dhjs, I actually do think it is a waste to take out healthy trees, in prime condition, and then replace them with more shrubs. I also do wonder why the word poisonous was not mentioned right at the outset?

Thank you for your explanation, at least the reason is now clear. One does wonder though why the poison issue was not flagged up right away? Anyway, at least we now have clarity. I am also guessing that Southwark will not want to plant these trees anywhere that is frequented by children, including public parks? Still think it a great shame, a waste of public money planting trees that are considered to be such a hazard to children within a space that has been used as a nursery, not to mention the time and care devoted by a member of the community to their upkeep. I am sorry Lucy that you were not given this simplest of explanations from the outset.

Louisa, the fox is a member of the family canidae, so closer to a dog/wolf, but it is also described as cat-like in some respects, most notably its eyes- slitty pupils for nocturnal hunting, long thin canines with which it can deliver a killer bite, the habit of arching it back and hissing in a defensive display of aggression and its incredible climbing ability. Aside from all that they slink around like cats.... Forgot to add, unlike most cats which are obligate carnivores, foxes are carnivorous by choice but also scavengers, which means they can subsist on a wide range of foods- part of the reason for their immense ability to adapt.

The photo is perfectly charming and anyone who says otherwise...Roberto...shall feel the sharp end of my clettering stick!

Perhaps a topiary garden....? With some Niwaki too?

Aaaaaaaaah!

Overall there seems much to be learned about the yew tree. Do hope there might be a rethink.

P68, yes agreed I had also pondered the poison aspect, but if this is the reasoning then it should be stated. I think many children would be fascinated by topiary- just think Edward Scissorhands..on second thoughts perhaps not.

Well the 'magical forest' is darn sight more intersting and creative than the proposed replacement. I also feel the reply you got from the Capital woman was somewhat misleading, even disingenuous- just my opinion. RCH has said, though obviously not in his gift, that perhaps the architects/Southwark/Mr John might be persuaded to keep the trees. I guess, from their perspective the only problem might be protecting them whilst building is ongoing. I do hope a way can be found to keep them in situ. Do you also do Niwaki, Lucy?

This is from the current application: Growing area The strip of land along Bellenden road will be connected with both the main and the Reception playground. A new planter with instant hedging set behind a new vertical bar metal fence will separate this space from the street, safeguarding pupils. It will enhance the street setting of the school and provide a learning resource through proving planting space for all the Years of the school.

Perhaps the real reason is the nature of the trees- yew, and upkeep, given they are topiary. Nonetheless, I don't feel they should just be ripped out, especially not if they are to be replaced with more trees. And, Jeremy, I share your reservations about quite how this space is to be used...cannot see anything in the current plans that details this or mentions external learning/play areas on a narrow strip next to the road.

I note part of the rationale is that they will be removed to make way for an external learning space/garden. I wonder what will actually be put in their place? Does the presence of these trees totally inhibit learning/use of the space? It is hard to see from the photos how much space they take up. I'd have thought that the children might enjoy learning about how the trees are trimmed and tended and perhaps, at key festival periods, the trees could be carefully decorated with items made by the children. In summer the trees might give valuable shade, also something children can hide behind and play hide and seek. A cursory reading of the plans implies, though it is not clear, that the topiary trees are to be removed and then four new trees planted!?

They really are a magnificent labour of love- how awful that developers can just wade in and destroy with full support of the council, or so it would seem.

A tip if the hat to Reynard.

As I said, I'm interested to hear from councillors across the various parties. I guess those that frequent the forum most, and who have already commented on the above, might be expected to do so again.

My point is not one of grand conspiracy, but I do feel it suits various agendas to somehow fail to grasp the bigger picture. I would be interested to hear what councillors have to say about the likely sum impact of the various schemes? James Barber has been on the forum this morning but is not commenting. For instance, He certainly gave the impression that the Picturehouse would not impact parking.