Siduhe

+1. If you have a view, please do respond to the consultation. Otherwise, the likely outcome is the scheme will get implemented as currently designed.

I'm personally not convinced by the need for all of these improvements - although some of them seem sensible. The frequency of the lights at the junction with Wood Vale are pretty effective at slowing the traffic down and generally it's a junction that works well for all kinds of road users - unlike the uncontrolled junction with Brenchley Gardens, where traffic regularly pulls out/across Forest Hill Road without much thought, in my experience. The planters/trees could actually reduce visibility for the turn off into/out of Brenchley Gardens - so I've suggested this be kept to low planting rather than trees. I particularly don't understand the need to put in two straight-ahead pedestrian crossings over the same bit of Forest Hill Road either side of the Wood Vale junction (so within about 4 or 5 metres of each other). Worth looking at the diagram for what is proposed. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2988/forest_hill_consultation/

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Regarding the analysis itself as I understand it; > TFL massively underestimated the usage of the Over > Ground line at HOP; didn?t take into account the > problems of commuter parking at the station; > didn?t put any value on the environmental benefits > of improved public transport; didn?t take into > account any other option other than building a new > stand at Brockley Rise and didn?t put any value on > the strategic importance of linking HOP to > Peckham. Even with all that it was still boarder > line. Or perhaps take account of the number of school children who use the 63 - one of the key passenger surveys (which I now understand was related to whether to extend) was done in the summer during school holidays and on the Tuesday following a Bank Holiday...which always seemed a bit disingenuous to me.

I would certainly be in favour of the extension, but have concerns about the impact on the frequency and reliability of the overall service. I've been catching the 63 to/from the FHT stop on and off for five years and the service has definitely a) become much more popular (particularly with school children) at peak times and b) become much less reliable . The bus is often full after the first two or three stops at peak times (although it does clear out around Peckham Rye station). It's also not unusual for buses to be cut off coming the other way in Peckham with no explanation and then a 12-20 minute wait for the next bus with space to get on. If the extension can be achieved without delaying existing services, great. Will the frequency of buses have to increase in order to achieve this? Edited for spelling

With a month to go to the trial, it may be a bit early for your CPS case officer to be in touch, but you should be aware you can claim some of the expenses you will incur, including childcare costs (subject to set limits). Make sure the case officer gives you a claim form with the case reference number already filled in - without it your claim will be rejected. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/v_to_z/witnesses_expenses_and_allowances/

As a witness, you will not be able to sit with your husband if he is in Court, or witness the proceedings in the Court until after you have given evidence - it's to stop your evidence being tainted by what other people say in evidence or the submissions on either side. So come prepared to sit out in the corridor on your own (with baby) for a bit. If the alleged crime involves violence, or you have a concern the family/friends of the defendant may be aggressive, you should ask if a separate room can be available (although not all courts have these available). The CPS should have talked you through the process already and there is info on their website about what you can expect. If they haven't get in touch with them and ask them to sit down with you in advance of the hearing. http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/going_to_court/giving_evidence.html Also, have they given you info about getting your expenses paid?

Since November, Heathrow has been trialling a new system which allows them to move to dual use of runways when a plane is delayed by more than a 10-minute wait to land or take off and/or if 30% of all flights are delayed by more than 15 minutes. There was a diagram I saw which suggested this would increase the number of flights coming over south east London, and you don't necessarily got the few weeks on/few weeks off respite from early morning flights coming in to land. The trial finishes on 29 Feb and apparently complaints about noise from close to Heathrow have risen substantially: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17006619

I work nearby and have been a few times. Food is lovely but portions are tiny...

Yes, there is a thread in the Lounge worth checking out. Am going for my orientation tomorrow - weather permitting! http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,778347,794687

Sad to say, almost certainly foxes. I grew up in the country and it was a permanent arms-race to upgrade the fox proofing of the hen-house - with predictably nasty results when they found a way in and we'd start all over again. They got through wire, wood, even (thin) metal.

Emily Parikh at Haynes Dental - West Dulwich but particularly good with nervous patients. No connection but a happy patient. http://www.haynesdental.co.uk/index.php

I'm totally confused by this analysis - if the consultation results are meaningless because of the low response rate, then presumably you feel the same way about the numbers of people who have complained to the Council about parking issues over the last few years (44 in total) and about the Council's own analysis of parking strains (conducted on a single Thursday, Saturday and Sunday of the same week - yes, a single weekday)? On this basis, there is no justification at all for a CPZ - other than your assertion that "it's not rocket science" that one is needed. Or am I missing something?

There's a great post here with a bunch of interesting theories, but have a look at the screenshot at the very bottom. The figure on the stretcher looks pretty clearly like Mycroft, not Sherlock... http://bloodredorion.tumblr.com/post/16159755295/how-did-sherlock-survive

Here you go: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2877/grove_vale-controlled_parking_zone_study Will send you a pm too.

+1 for leaving the personal stuff to one side. I may not agree with James' position or stated approach on this issue, but he stands up and gets involved for better or for worse. His record on this forum (and in other contexts) shows he's a capable councillor and he commits a lot of time to the role, which most people can't be bothered to do. Easy to take shots from the galleries, much harder to actually do something about it yourself. That said, in my view, the role of a councillor on this sort of local issue is to represent his constituents by taking proper account of their views. Not follow the for/against slavishly as if it were a referendum, not follow a party political or local council line, but to look at what the overall views of his constituents in this area are on whether they want a CPZ. Personally, I think the outcome of the consultation is clear and explicit on this point. A No vote to the CPZ won't be popular with everyone, and the Council should absolutely look at the minor change options to assist those close to the station, but to vote any other way isn't representative. (Again, in my view) it necessarily involves substituting personal views based on other factors for the overall views of constituents.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/100006/environment Environmental protection Tel: 020 7525 2000 [email protected] Hit send too soon - meant to say that the Environment team cover Pollution and Street Cleaning, so would start with them.

There's a really good point of principle to treat the building this way as well (although it's not necessarily pragmatic, which I think is fazer71's point). A potted summary of this building's history is as follows (based on my understanding from public sources): The original concrete building falls into some disrepair, gets listed, is sold and the developer is granted planning permission for the site on strict condition that he restore and maintain the existing building alongside building his new building. Developer doesn't do that. He builds his new building (which also doesn't comply with planning permission) does nothing to the existing concrete building (which wasn't as bad as it is now) in fact just allows it to decay so that he can come back in a few years (which he duly does) to say that the requirement to maintain the building is too onerous so can he just knock it down and build something new. The developer also has a publicly available history (discussed on the old thread on this subject) of doing the same thing on similar sites, as well as knocking down existing structures and building without planning permission and in breach of court orders. When challenged on this by Southwark, the individual developer is said to have pretended in public court proceedings to be "a representative" of the owner/developer using a different name (this is all discussed on one of the old threads on the forum - will see if I can find it after the great thread cull of 2011, so worth having a read) rather than admit in person to being the owner. Someone also posted that he had to unwind all the sales he made of the flats in his new building (White Gothic house) after planning permission was withdrawn, and after he again pretended to be someone different from who he is in court proceedings. Faced with someone who legally owns a property but appears to be willing to flout the laws and agreements he originally signed up to, I can see why Southwark want to hold the line on this - to set a clear precedent to other developers who might think about doing the same thing in the hope that "pragmatic" reasoning allows them to ignore their obligations. If Southwark knocked the building down, that would allow any other developer to use the same line against Southwark in similar circumstances.

I posted about this back in May - http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,674005,674889#msg-674889 Seemed to get better for a bit but has been bad again recently at the weekends (when parking enforcement aren't around).

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a legal point did they really need to consult? Yes, section 138 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (not just limited to health matters as the name suggests) and Chapter 3 of the The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 places a duty on local authorities to involve local representatives when carrying out "any of its functions" by providing information and consulting. There is also statutory guidance about how the duty to involve must be carried out which includes: > Southwark own the roads couldn't they just go > ahead and do what they want ? No, see above.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is the meeting about a Flawed Consultation or > about the merits of the CPZ ? In my view, it should be about both. The CPZ doesn't directly affect me - but Southwark's approach to the consultation and (what appears) to be a pre-made decision to pick and choose from the results absolutely does. If people don't stand up and make clear it's unacceptable and not in line with Southwark's obligations, this kind of flawed consultation will happen again - next time on something that does directly affect me and perhaps you. That's what being part of a community should mean IMO - I can't make the meeting tonight but will be there on the 24th.

Absolutely right, although that doesn't lead to the conclusion seemingly reached by Cllr Hargrove - that Southwark can then come up with some "outcomes out of that". I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but there is a legal obligation to "conscientiously take into account [the outcome of the consultation] in finalising any proposals". I completely accept this gives some discretion to take account of things other than the majority view, but (in my view) it makes it very difficult for Southwark Council to say it should not give substantial weight to the views of the majority (and a very clear majority at that). I have worked with a fair number of local councils outside London on infrastructure projects and been involved in similar consultation processes (not in the transport area though) and am genuinely surprised about the approach which is seemingly being taken here - even though I guess we only see a part of what is going on. Doesn't reflect what I've seen other councils do at all.

As I said at the beginning of this thread - I'm not going to be heavily affected by the CPZ decision one way or the other - so am not commenting on whether it is a good/bad thing. As I said earlier in the thread, I've always had serious questions about the way Southwark went about this consultation - it clearly seemed (at least to me, and I read a lot of this sort of thing as part of my working life) a) designed to promote a specific outcome over and above other possible outcomes and b) to highlight advantages only of a CPZ and not any potential disadvantages such as loss of parking spaces. In my view, it simply did not comply with Southwark's own stated requirement that any public communication must be "objective, balanced, informative and accurate". Lots of people (including James Barber) spent a lot of time teasing out all the relevant information so that people on this forum could make an informed choice. Not something that was offered to those people who don't read the forum. However, what appears to be going on now is quite astounding. In particular, the attempt to reclassify certain respondents as "commuters", apparently in order to assert that in certain streets there was a vote in favour of a CPZ. Those respondents were consulted on the basis of the Councils own design for the consultation, and their views should be taken into account. One of the legal requirements for any outcome from a consultation is that "d) the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any proposals" (emphasis added). Any outcome which conspicuously ignores the clear views expressed by a substantial majority of respondents is unlikely to meet this requirement in my view. No-one involved in this from the local government side is coming out well from these latest developments.

There's another response on your other post - not sure if you've seen it? http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,810224,810224#msg-810224

I would very much second this. About 2 years ago, someone intercepted a set of replacement credit cards which were due to be sent to me. I had arranged to collect them at a bank branch, but they were sent out to an address that had no connection to me. The bank maintained I had phoned them to organise this, but their complaints department ultimately admitted that staff members appeared to have been involved. Anyway, I cancelled the cards before they could be used and thought no more of it - however, over 2 years later, someone is still using that card and the covering letter which had my address and bank details on it, as proof of id for "me" to try and open up mail order and shop accounts. About once every six months I have to phone up Littlewoods or Next or a debt collection agency and explain they've been defrauded, then get my credit report fixed. A CIFAS registration has made absolutely no difference unfortunately. The frustrating thing is they won't even tell me the address these goods are all being delivered to citing "data protection". The last time I pointed out the data is nominally "my" personal data and I'm technically therefore entitled to it. The reply was "we cannot give it to you in case you take inappropriate action which might infringe the human rights of the person who is using your name"....sigh....

I got an offer this morning for a role as part of the Protocol team for the Paralympics. Really excited about. Everyone at work still thinks I'm a bit mad, but my boss actually was really positive about the fact I'm volunteering for something at the Paralympics.