legalalien

To be fair to CAD I think I saw on their Twitter feed that they turned down the ?500 funding awarded. The core problem here is not CAD - the problem is the councillors have (in my opinion- not everyone shares it) given their views too much weight, and that there is insufficient transparency (and also possibly too much apathy / not paying enough attention by constituents until it is too late). Is there a register of local councillors having free lunches / coffees with lobby groups like there is in central government? If not, why not? It?s the principle of councillors representing all constituents, and a big improvement in engagement that needs attention as I see it.

Ps - gotta love google - looks as though ?500 was awarded in 2020/21 round. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/12226/South-NsF-Decision-Award-Tables-2020-21.pdf

Sorry, by using the ?Real..? I was trying to distinguish between the original ?Clean Air for Dulwich? group which applied for funding in 2020 and which I think are the ones associated with the Clean Air Dulwich Twitter account, and the bogus?or- otherwise ?Clean Air for Dulwich? making the 2022 application. I don?t think anyone is out there calling themselves RCAFD! From past experience groups do seem to get funding without having been at the presentation evening, I guess that may be in cases where they?re applying for funding from multiple wards, whose break out sessions are held simultaneously. Not sure what happens if the group is unable to attend altogether.

If you look back at the 2020 funding application for "Real Clean Air Dulwich" it seems to have been in the name of "Clean Air for Dulwich" https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s87448/Appendix%201.pdf So you can see why there might be confusion. From memory the council isn't keen on paying money into individuals' bank accounts for this sort of thing. slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CPR Dave Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > I think "Clean Air Dulwich" also sometimes call > themselves "Clean Air for Dulwich" > Do they? As far as I can see they are a Twitter > group with a web site (well, actually a web page) > both of which call themselves "Clean Air > Dulwich". > > As far as I can see, CAD are not an incorporated > organisation of any kind. They look to be a small > anonymous group of local activists who overlap > heavily with groups such as Mums for Lungs and > Friends of Dulwich Village Junction (sorry > square). But I guess the main point is they are > chums with and support local councillors Newens > and Leeming, which presumably is why Newens and > Leeming were happy to pay them ?6k of taxpayers > money without carrying out the due diligence they > were meant to do.

One more point for the timeline - there was a "Funding Workshop" (online zoom call) on 8 December, at which applicants were invited to give a 2-3 minute pitch to relevant ward councillors. I was actually on that call. My memory is a little hazy, I definitely recall some of the applicants that were there, but I don't remember anyone from Clean Air For Dulwich giving a presentation.

Link here

We don't actually know if they are yet - I think the announcement is tonight? The list I linked to earlier is the potential list of applicants. So let's see.

I?m not quite sure what the issue here is. The crowdfunder said it was for things like leaflets and pamphlets and legal advice and any residue would go to the stated charity and it seems like that is what has happened as regards the first bit, I?d expect them to decide whether there?s any other action to take before distributing the funds to the charity? You seem to be hinting that it?s being spent on Mr Rates? campaign or something - which is heading towards libel territory, I would suggest. If you?re just saying that you think getting a legal opinion was a waste of time - we?ll, that?s your opinion but it was an express reason for soliciting donations in the first place. Getting proper advice and deciding not to launch expensive legal proceedings is more sensible than launching proceedings that aren?t going to go anywhere and ending up having to pay the other side?s legal costs?

Speaking of funding, the south multiward meeting to allocate local funding is tonight. You can see the projects that local councillors will be choosing between here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7277

I would be interested to know whether it's just the LD councillors in the Village Ward or whether it extends to other wards eg Goose Green as well. I thought the leaflet that I received was quite well written.

Presumably the size of SUVs is only an issue if they are overused (for short journeys) and under occupied. One of the big criticisms of local traffic has been that there is only eg one person in a car. If you want people to carpool for, say, the school run, for people coming in to the area to private schools (or, close to my heart, to get children and their equipment to sports fixtures in far flung places inaccesssible by public transport) then they?d need bigger vehicles? Otherwise you?d get more smaller vehicles which is worse? I don?t think it?s always as simple as ?big vehicle equals bad?, although sometimes it doubtless is. But the tyre attackers have no way of knowing.

I like "the incumbent Labour councillors, ******, back their continued use." Why have their names been blanked out in the article :) . Probably they were going to mention the names of the candidates in the upcoming election - not sure if the Labour candidates have been selected yet? I don't think judicial review was ever really going to be the solution, it's very process focused and the outcome is usually that the council has to make the decision again - which doesn't get you very far. But pointing out the flaws in the process does increase political pressure, if enough people become aware of them. In terms of the moneys - just looked at the GoFundMe page and it said that "Any residual funds will be donated to the Ella Roberta Family Foundation to improve the lives of children affected by asthma in South East London."

I was interested to see how a citizens? jury worked.

Interesting read - the report of the Southwark Citizen?s jury on Climate Change. Lots of recommendations along the lines of the council?s existing policies, but despite being lectured by Prof Aldred, Jeremy Leach and consultancy Possible, the recommendation around LTNs is that ?f) Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) should only be implemented if extensive engagement with broader potentially impacted areas as well as the specific area is carried out thoroughly and shows support?. And this to say about parking: ?Parking policies can and should be used as a tool to reduce private car ownership and usage. Specific policies to achieve this are sensitive and need careful local engagement, including car owners and non-car owners proportionately.? Some of the questions asked were good questions and I wonder what the answers were. Not sure about the sculptures and the accompanying explanations though. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105769/Appendix%20A%20Southwark%20Citizens%20Jury%20Report.pdf

I see on Twitter that Cllr Burgess is not standing this time around, may explain the honesty. Have tonight?s overview and scrutiny committee meeting on in the background and Cllr Buck seems to be being quite critical of council in the discussion on the climate strategy. Just googled and it seems he is either standing down or not selected for his ward. (Although I guess he could still). be selected for another one I do wish councillors had more freedom / felt they had more freedom to say what they really think throughout their term and not just at the end. Worth watching these committee meetings with an election approaches, both sides seem much more vocal than usual. Councillor Kieron Williams on to be interviewed shortly I think.

For anyone interested, there?s a progress report on the project to insource leisure services on the agenda for next week?s cabinet meeting. In short, it?s a big and complex task. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105591/Report%20Progress%20on%20insourcing%20of%20leisure%20services.pdf

Good point. The application mentions that there?s a link to hi-vibe across the road and that the opening hours will coincide, so maybe the plan is to use facilities there? The wording?s a bit confusing but given the mention of protein shakes and responsible drinking it sounds like it might be aiming to be a sort of drinks / coffee stop for pre and post gym sessions.

Just flicking through the most recent forward plan and I now have some suspicions as to why my thoughts above received a bit of a hostile response and suggestions that I had some sort of agenda. There is actually a live licensing application for an alcohol license for one of the premises at the closed end of Melbourne Grove, I think for that small coffee place? Info here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?id=63526&LLL=0 Looks as though the applicants aren?t terribly au fait with licence applications and there has been some to and fro to clarify what they are asking in terms of the licence terms - see Appendix B. I can see that this would be less than ideal if you lived right next door (there are some objections), but with a restriction on numbers and times I think this is quite a sensible use of the area / empty shops, and as noted above consistent with stated policy objectives on the night time economy / promotion of small business. It also attempts to gain a benefit from the street closure.

Decision on Brunswick Park scheme and associated documentation (no EqIA as they seem to have mistakenly uploaded one of the other documents rather than the EqIA which has been done) https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7597&LLL=0 What struck me was the express recognition that displacement does in fact exist, it ?takes time? for schemes to have an impact on traffic levels. I believe this scheme is in part in Cllr Burgess? ward, guess it may have had some influence on the views she expressed on Monday.

Thanks, will look into it and try and work out if there is a venue suitable for middle aged ladies :)

Thanks for that - has been a difficult week for various reasons - good to reconnect with something you love. Are there any good jazz venues locally? (I know, should start a different thread. But just in case anyone knows).

To clarify- the night time market comment wasn?t specifically directed at you, it was a train of thought I was following, apologies if you are confused. ?Demand? I meant in the ?supply and demand? sense rather than a ?people are demanding it? sense, as you had indicated that you didn?t think people would be interested in a Friday night thing due to reduced commuters etc. There is always a slight element of ?build it and they will come? around this sort of thing. When I lived in Melbourne there was a street market near the tram stop on my way home and it was very popular with takeaway noodles, vegan stall etc so not beyond the realms of possibility. It feels a bit like you are trying to close down discussion to be honest, I hope that?s not the intention as I think it?s helpful for everyone to knock around ideas for the use of the space. I?m trying to be as clear as I can but I feel like every word is being jumped on - and I have English as a first language! Must try harder. On a lighter note I?d prioritise jazz over punk or the Stones.

Jen - I'm actually a bit confused by the way you are interpreting my posts. Does it help to explain/ clarify that the Southwark Plan is not a list of things that Southwark plans to do, it's more focused on outlining the approach that Southwark takes in considering applications by third parties to do things? So no, Southwark doesn't have a positive "lets put in some bars" plan (as I actually said further up), but when considering any proposal by anyone to start a bar they'll be doing the balancing exercise mentioned. The plan talks about maintaining a balance - but that doesn't have to be exactly the same balance as there is now. And what I'm suggesting is that against the background of the Labour mayoral policy to encourage more nighttime economy activity, particularly in unused premises, in my opinion the local council might well look favourably on applications of that type, subject to appropriate safeguards to protect the interests of local residents. I know you'll disagree. On the demand for a night-time market, what about the idea of something that operated on days that DHFC had home games, after the games? Something that occurred to me walking along that strip this afternoon. Seems to me that if the road is closed, there's an opportunity to take advantage of some outdoor, pedestrianised space, away from traffic (unlike places on LL), and that could make that area quite popular? Just trying to think of ideas. Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That?s fair enough, it is after all your opinion > but it?s not backed up by the Southwark Plan as > you implied.

We?ll have to agree to differ as I don?t interpret the balancing act that needs to be done as a restriction in expansion of night time economy stuff like bars. Things would need to be looked at in the round, and encouraging some night time economy uses at the potentially pedestrianised end of a street where there are vacant commercial premises, near a station, doesn?t seem to me like a crazy idea with sensible limits on noise and opening hours.

I?m not suggesting there?s some plan for it to happen but rather that it would be an idea worth consideration and consistent with the overarching policy framework. I put in the bit about the Southwark Plan precisely to give readers some comfort as you complained that I was scaremongering last time. Some people are never happy! Why wouldn?t eg a Friday evening market be a good thing? It would avoid the clash with NCR and would be good for commuters? I do agree with your point that policies that work in some areas don?t work in other areas because of local conditions; though.