legalalien

I can see it - hopefully attachment works

The Dulwich Society has compiled a list of candidates in Dulwich wards https://www.dulwichsociety.com/news/local-elections-may-2022

As a I read it the key reason for the vagueness is that they?re trying to get an ?in perpetuity? license so that they can avoid the cost - and probably much more importantly the hassle / delay/ uncertainty of having to make an annual licence application. (I wouldn?t want to be organising an event this big with a risk my licence could be turned down or restricted, particularly given the ?rise of the local resident? as this page on their website puts it https://wearethefair.com/event-licensing/) At least they seem aware and trying to deal with the cable tie issue. https://wearethefair.com/projects/gala-jam-on-rye-festival/

Info and details of objections / statements in support now up on the Southwark website https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7359, licensing sub-committee to consider the licensing application on Thursday 14 April. Note that the committee can only consider quite limited grounds for refusing the licence. Presumably a different part of the council has/ has to approve the operator being there at all/ closing off particular areas - and the council demands a decent chunk of money for the privilege? Friends of Peckham Rye, Dulwich Society and three local councillors among the objectors to the change in scope from previous years.

Looks like a franchise of this place? https://dropwine.co.uk/what-we-do

So - if nothing else but to solve the mystery of the toilet, here are the minutes of the licensing committee meeting approving sale of wine at the coffee bar place opposite Hi-Vibe https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g7289/Printed%20minutes%20Thursday%2010-Mar-2022%2010.00%20Licensing%20Sub-Committee.pdf?T=1 The new unknown is ?what happened to Cllr Smith?s representation? - I guess we?ll never know. Outcome in a nutshell - they can serve wine on Friday and Sat evenings 5pm to 10pm and number of patrons ltd to 25. Patrons not to take alcohol outside.

Is it just me or do others sometimes wonder whether others on this and similar threads are actually people from various political parties who are well aware who each other are irl? On the TH thing I feel like the casual references to ?tax avoidance?, ?oligarchs?, salary levels etc are trying to paint a picture (surprised someone hasn?t mentioned the reference to Russian language skills that appears on Linked In given the tone). I only picked up on the pro bono thing because someone raised it flippantly - and it reality junior lawyers do get loads of this stuff dumped in them in addition to their billable workload. I really don?t miss a life denominated in six minute units.

Agree re the signage. If Living/ Healthy Streets folk are allowed to put up "road open to.." signage, then perhaps we could crowdfund for some emergency services access signs and put them up? I agree that the council should do it, but TBH I think getting some signs up (and making things clear to emergency services drivers) asap is more important than having a prolonged argument about who should pay for it?

It might have something to do with Cycle Hangars https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4029532 Will see if I can find the decision notice. (for anyone interested the above looks like a list of cycle hangars approved to go in)

I can?t see time frames offered to the public but there do seem to be some in the Service Level Agreement with Southwark Building Services, see page 7 of this scrutiny commission report from Feb 2020 https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88147/Appendix%201%20Housing%20Repairs%20Service%20Scrutiny%20Report%202020.pdf Looks as though the repair service has been problematic for some time, hence bringing it in house in 2018. An improvement plan was published in March 2020 with a proposed way forward https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88291/Appendix%201%20-%20Priorities%20for%20Improvement.pdf Recent report on performance at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s106084/Report%20Repairs%20Performance%20Report%20to%20Housing%20and%20Community%20Engagement%20Scrutiny%20Commission.pdf ETA there?s a further improvement plan due for approval in June this year https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50028373&PlanId=727&RPID=3596800

Looking at Linked In, TH qualified 18 months ago and is in the private client department of a city law firm. He?s probably is having a fair amount of pro bono work given to him, based on my experience - partners in loads of other departments looking for free help for charities that they and their clients are involved in ?as a favour?. Junior lawyers always end up doing this stuff! But yep, he?s probably giving some tax planning advice to some rich people. And charities by the look of it. Hardly sinister. No need for what comes across as a smear campaign. (After googling read his brief article about stranded assets which was food for thought).

Even if you assume that the principle of induced road demand is correct in studied cases, it doesn?t follow that some kind of symmetric (or even lesser) traffic evaporation happens if you close roads. And of course it all depends on specific context.

Herne Hill forum arranging some sort of election hustings Not sure which candidates have said they?ll attend, just says candidates have been invited from Lambeth/ Southwark. I assume Village Ward but given HHF proposals for changes to the junction at HH have potential knock on effects for East Dulwich I think relevant? Guess I might get deleted again if admin thinks otherwise!

There is a new takeaway related to Heritage and it is very good, as an aside. Expensive but worth it for a special treat. The Dal Makhani is amazing.

It?s up there with those ? frivolous bicycle ways? innit. https://daily.jstor.org/the-moral-threat-of-bicycles-in-the-1890s/ Also found this article about jaywalking an interesting read https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DO you think that having 2 Tories in a borough of > Labour would 'do something to break the > stranglehold' - having to form alliances rather > than having Lib Dems who could join their natural > grouping of Lib Dems on the council? I?m in two minds about this. I get the ?larger group, more bodies on committees? thing, but also conscious that LDs would be subject to a LD whipping operation so that local councillors? ability to speak out for their own particular ward might be compromised more. It would be interesting to understand what degree of control conservative HQ has in practical terms over individual councillors in councils where they are in a tiny minority. PS as a qualified solicitor who runs sometimes I think that?s absolutely a ringing endorsement!! 😆

Much as I support the "Vote them Out" sentiment, I'm not keen on this initiative either. Doubtless supporters will say that various of the groups who have campaigned for the LTNs aren't entirely transparent either - but it would be better to take the moral high ground and stick to principles of openness etc. The job of comparing parties' policies locally would be better done by local newspapers. Although I'm not sure anyone reads local newspapers much, so there may be a gap in the market. I'm intrigued to know about the local notorious characters. I've only been here 15 years (about ten minutes by Dulwich standards) and haven't come across them yet as far as I know - obviously I don't move in the right circles!

I'm slightly confused. The update says that "The largest overall traffic reduction has been monitored in both the Dulwich (-14%) and Walworth (-18%) areas as of September 2021". and then "In November 2021, we again collected traffic data from nine of the roads surrounding the Dulwich Streetspace scheme. The monitoring showed a further 7% reduction in all motor vehicles compared to pre-scheme levels This is a sustained reduction from monitoring carried out on the same roads in September 2021". If pre-scheme is 100% of traffic, and September is down to 86%, then is November down a further 7% of the original (so now 79% of pre-scheme), or is it down by a further 7% of the 86% figure, or has it gone up slightly from September so is now 93% of the original figure? Given it says "further" reduction then it must be one of the first two interpretations? Or is it the case that there's two separate measurements, one of the Dulwich area generally, and one of the nine roads? I'm also not sure what "overall net traffic" is - what is it "net" of? Is something deducted? Or do they mean aggregate traffic or perhaps average traffic levels?

I don't think the Devolved Highways funding (which I think this is) works in quite the same way as the Neighbourhoods Fund funding. Whereas the latter is essentially ?10 per councillor, there seems to be more of a pooled approach o the former. See https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105533/DHB%20South%20Decision%20Making%2022-23%20FINAL.pdf.

Thought I was imagining things for a minute there! Anyway, posted it in the Lounge now.

Am (with some trepidation) venturing into the Lounge as I think the admin might be unhappy that some of the posts on the LTN in ED thread might be too generic for that section of the forum. Those who have been following the council?s transport policy might be interested in reading this report by Cllr Rose and officers in response to the Environment Scrutiny Commission?s recommendations in its Air Quality Report, prepared for a meeting next week. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105848/Air%20Quality%20report%20briefing%20note.pdf. Note this against the background of a review of the council?s Movement Plan (setting out its transport policy) currently being carried out with a view to aligning it with the council?s climate change strategy. Some interesting points around - the target for traffic reduction: the committee asked for a viability assessment of the target to reduce traffic by 90% by 2030. The response refers to a current target of 50% of pre- pandemic levels and says that ?As part of the review of the Movement Plan targets will be reviewed considering applicability (all traffic, local traffic), deliverability, and ability to monitor and ensure delivering of the ambition, coordination with other work areas.? I?m not quite sure what this means in concrete terms. Also not quite sure where the 90% figure came from. The 2019 Movement Plan says ?our aim is to reduce trips made by car/motorbike to 13% by 2041?. Might be a new target suggested by the committee itself? - looks like some more detailed consideration has been given to the viability of switching the entire council fleet to electric. Relatively simple for light vehicles, more difficult for heavy and specialist vehicles (for example, currently no such thing as an electric gully sucker).Also ?Whilst it is certainly feasible to acquire electric vehicles for many of the fleet replacement requirements, detailed consideration needs to be given to the required charging infrastructure, its location and the expected associated costs. The scale of the requirement and the task of installing charging infrastructure on such a large scale should not be under-estimated.? - cycle hangar roll out has increased, but still a waitlist of 9000. ?There are no plans to increase the current hangar space charge to users (currently ?40 per annum) or reduce the current level of council subsidy (currently ?20 per annum). However, this may be required to be reviewed dependent on the costs to the council of future cycle hangar provision, maintenance and management.? ( this in response to a recommendation that cycle parking should be kept cheaper than car parking ?by space?). I?m not sure how many cycles fit into a cycle hangar and whether that?s currently the case? - it would be difficult to implement variable parking charges based on size and weight of vehicles as it isn?t easy to get the info from DVLA (as it is for emissions based charging, currently in place. ? There are other potentially more effective means of managing kerb space in relation to varying permit pricing which will be given consideration in the short to medium term.? (Not sure what they are). Always interesting to see what happens when high level aspiration targets bump up against practical considerations and (in the climate space particularly) the hard reality of limited financial resources. For anyone interested the report on the upcoming review of the Movement Plan, prepared for cabinet last month, is here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s104619/Report%20Movement%20Plan%20update.pdf

Did my post earlier this morning about the council report on the environmental t scrutiny commission recommendations get deleted by admin? It was specifically relevant to the LTNS as it deals with the Movement Plan and the council targets for traffic reduction. And the summer consultation on the Movement Plan. In case it did get censored I?ll start another thread in the Lounge. It def was posted, as I went back in to edit it.

Interesting read- report prepared by Cllr Rose/ officers for next week?s Environment Scrutiny Committee?s meeting, responding to some of the committee?s recommendations in its most recent Air Quality Report. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105848/Air%20Quality%20report%20briefing%20note.pdf Looks as though the revised Movement Plan, which has all the traffic policy including low traffic neighbourhoods etc is going to be consulted on in summer this year. More detail on the Movement Plan and upcoming consultation in this report delivered to Cabinet last month https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s104619/Report%20Movement%20Plan%20update.pdf - one recommendation was for a review of the viability of the Council target to reduce traffic by 90% by 2030. The reponse refers to a target of 50% of pre- pandemic levels in the Streetspace plan and says that ?As part of the review of the Movement Plan targets will be reviewed considering applicability (all traffic, local traffic), deliverability, and ability to monitor and ensure delivering of the ambition, coordination with other work areas.? I?m not quite sure what that means in concrete terms. (Also not sure where the committee?s 90% target comes from. The Movement Plan report refers to the most recent Climate Change Strategy as saying car journeys should be kept ?to a minimum?, but given the intention to move to SMART targets in that strategy I suspect a figure will be put on it.) - on the recommendation around switching the entire council fleet to electric, it looks as though some proper analysis has been done (good) and while some of the lighter vehicles are easy to switch, that?s not the case for the heavy/ specialist ones (there are for example no electric gulley suckers). Also ? Whilst it is certainly feasible to acquire electric vehicles for many of the fleet replacement requirements, detailed consideration needs to be given to the required charging infrastructure, its location and the expected associated costs. The scale of the requirement and the task of installing charging infrastructure on such a large scale should not be under-estimated.? - cycle hangars - speed of roll out increasing, but waiting list around 9000. ?There are no plans to increase the current hangar space charge to users (currently ?40 per annum) or reduce the current level of council subsidy (currently ?20 per annum). However, this may be required to be reviewed dependent on the costs to the council of future cycle hangar provision, maintenance and management.? - variable parking permit pricing - current system based on fuel type more practical than charging based on size and weight because the relevant vehicle info isn?t easily available from DVLA. ?There are other potentially more effective means of managing kerb space in relation to varying permit pricing which will be given consideration in the short to medium term.? ETA I think the 90% might come from the target in the 2019 Movement Plan to ?reduce trips made by car/motorbike to 13% by 2041?.

I've just seen the video for another "reimagined" junction at Herne Hill, the design of which seems to have been commissioned by the Herne Hill Forum - does anyone have any idea by who exactly, or who funded this? It looks like a recipe for absolute disaster. Where is the motor traffic coming from West Dulwich and heading towards, say the hospital or East Dulwich going to go when the Dulwich closures are in place? Either South Circular/ Lordship Lane or.. Dulwich Road towards Brixton and then ...somehow through the various LTN closures there? Am I missing something? I gather that the HHF plan to consult (not sure who or on what basis?) AFTER the May elections so it doesn't become a political football? I can't see how Southwark, Lambeth or TfL could agree to this, given their statutory duties to manage the network.

I?ve attached a screenshot of the twitter post. Kissthisguy that?s true, you could probably add Safe Routes to Schools to the potential overlap list as well. I?m not sure what the legalities are as opposed to the ?right thing to do? considerations. Something to idly ponder. CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LA, does that mean that they admit that they > applied for funding and that they were awarded > funding and then decided they didn't want it after > all, but only once t was too late for someone else > to be granted that money, or possibly that they > never applied for it but the council embarrassed > them by awarding them some money anyway? > > It doesn't make much sense or seem equitable > whichever way it is looked at tbh