legalalien

Confused now. The only main report I can see online is September data and not October. Maybe I am missing something. The updated EqIA is here in case anyone is interested. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77418/Equality-Impact-Assessment-Final-_CAE_Dulwich-Streetspace_Nov-2021.pdf Loving this caveat: ?Note: CAE are not legal experts and, as such, this review is not a definitive legal view but rather an interpretation of whether the Streetspace measures impact on any of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act.? It?s an interesting read. Many things ?have the potential? to be positive/ the ?intended impact? will do x versus a number of things actually reported to be negative. Selective (!) quote: ?Negative impact: ? Poor public transport: All expressed need for better public transport services. ? Older residents are more likely to favour outright removal of the scheme rather than modification of the measures or a different measure. The data indicates support for the ?Streets for People? aims and filter at Dulwich Village broadly declines with the age of the respondent. ? Older people and people with disabilities were moderately more interested in changing the overall scheme ? with permit access or reducing timed closures ? than in improving kerbs and crossings. ? People of Black and Asian and Minority Ethnic backgrounds tended to be more strongly against the measures and disagree with the ?Streets for People? aims. It is unclear from the data what the cause of this trend is ? it could relate to the location, age profile or employment profile of respondents ? this should be further investigated. ? The majority of young people (aged 16-24 years) report negative impact of the schemes. ? School survey of 196 school children indicated majority opposition to the scheme, many more (46%) did not like the changes compared to 29% who do. Positive impact ? The majority of pregnant women and those with new babies felt they were positively impacted by the changes. ? The majority of children and young people aged 16 years or under report positive impact. ? Results from the school survey of 196 school children: some reported they found it easier to walk and cycle to school, with levels of walking and cycling going up 26% and use of car to travel to school dropping by 19%, and easier to cross the road,?

Isn?t that September data? I?ll have to read again properly. Sorry for any inappropriate aspersion - I thought the monitoring report was a September one. Is Is the October data referenced in the decision report and council haven?t released the underlying data yet? (Not expecting you to check - I?ll have a look when I get a chance!)

Out of interest Goldilocks how is it that you have the October data? Are you involved with the council, is the council making it available to a select group, or is it publicly available and you could send us all a link? I say that as I?ve been keen all along for the council to make raw data available to all at the same time and without curation. I?m as much concerned about process as outcome as process issues apply to a much wider range of things.

I am just going to repeat that I think everything would be much clearer and we (me) would get a much better view of what is going on if all the data was presented in numbers rather than percentages. I have just emailed my Streetspace comments to the council, explaining that I understand that a consultation isn't a referendum, but that it has a point viz enabling officers to take advantage of the significant resource that is local knowledge, to supplement the desk-based studies being done at Tooley Street or some outsourced location elsewhere. I think it's the council that's mistakenly characterising it as a popularity poll, that they can then justify ignoring on the "not a referendum" basis. Of course they won't take any notice, but at least responding helps avert the "not so many objections, people must have come around to our view" narrative. Saw a sign on a lamppost today suggesting that parking etc in Gilkes Place (between DV and the closure point) is being suspended to enable construction work on the Aquinna thing until (I think) October 2022. Will go and re-read it properly later.

Latest summary from council https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review Link to monitoring info at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review?chapter=4

Mine only came on Sat pm so maybe delivery delay?

Two final pages attached

Here are some pics of the hard copy letter. Haven?t had an email so not sure about the link, the latest newsletter doesn?t seem to be on the online page yet.

Mine, like last time, was in a plain sealed envelope with nothing on the outside to indicate it was from the council. Pretty much identical to the junk mail I received from a local real estate agent on the same day. Almost went into the recycling unopened - although tbh I?m not sure opening it made any difference given the predictability of the content.

Interesting though that as I understand it from the report linked above the Labour council chose to freeze council tax from 2010 to 2018 and subtly suggest that they?d now prefer CPI increases to the central govt imposed cap. (I may be wrong - this is a subject I?ve only just starting paying much attention to so am relying on the docs that the council put out.) I?d like some proper and better-communicated-to-the-public clarity about who is responsible for what and the basis on which they are expected to fund it. I suspect most people have no idea, and really they should,to enable democracy to function properly. Politicians, local and central, blaming each other without going into detail is unhelpful.

Brilliant - so I received the hard copy newsletter in an unmarked envelope this afternoon (Sat 11th) showing a deadline of today. And haven?t had a message about the extension to the 15th. Along with loads of others presumably. Excellent engagement, as always. Not.

If I understand this recent council funding strategy paper correctly, the current policy is to change the balance between central and local funding with more emphasis on local taxation. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103542/Report%20Policy%20and%20Resources%20Strategy%202022-23%20to%202024-25%20update.pdfibthiught this paragraph was interesting given ongoing debates about gentrification: ?The ongoing move to self-sufficient local government demonstrates the importance of Southwark?s capital investment programme within the borough, either as the lead authority or with partners. Regeneration is one of the key routes to ensuring sustainable budget sources as we move closer to reliance on local taxation, either through business rates or through council tax as well as increasing opportunities across the borough for quality of life, jobs and environmental improvements.? The report isn?t exciting but quite an interesting read to see where the council?s finances are at. Links to the Appendixes are at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7017, you can see where they are looking at making efficiency savings, source additional income (LTN fines!), and proposed changes to various fees and charges for 2022/23.

Indeed, here?s the final report for those who haven?t seen it https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103597/Report%20Determination%20of%20Objections%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20Review.pdf Melbourne South closure being retained under a temporary traffic order ( under officer delegated power), apparently due to a concern that reopening would dump more traffic on East Dulwich Grove. ( I assume that?s an order under section 14 of the Act, can?t really see how that?s justified under the statutory wording but let?s wait and see the order. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/14). Not letting regulatory requirements get in the way of a good scheme seems to have been something of a theme so far. Apparently Sept data shows a continued reduction in traffic on boundary roads? Updated equalities assessment suggests ?that the groups who are car dependent because of their protected characteristic should be assisted by the Council to mitigate any disadvantages they may suffer. Officers are cognisant of these groups, however on balance the benefits of the Dulwich Streetspace schemes outweigh the harm that these may cause.? First time I?ve seen rain gardens mentioned - I reckon susdrains are coming our way. eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I received an update on plans from the council > today, and I opened it with some trepidation, > thinking they might decide to just scrap the whole > LTN based on the noisy objections like those we > see here, reversing the gains we've made in ease > of walking and cycling on Melbourne Grove/Calton > Avenue, but apparently it's even better news than > that, they've decided not to proceed with the > Melbourne Grove south reopening. If I understood > correctly, that's great news. Reopening that route > as a LL to EDG rat-run would have reversed some of > the fantastic gains that we've made due to the LTN > - in particular the ability to go from ED station > to the library along a largely traffic-free route.

Or more likely to service debt as the council is going to have to borrow a lot to meet its house building ( and climate change) commitments.

I meant that the current system of working out banding is complex. I think it is. Whether or not council tax ought to be a wealth tax, or to reflect what services people receive from the council is a different question.

I think Constituency Labour Party ie local members of the party.

Thanks. It?s a 1991 value approximation as I read it. Very complex area. Interesting to contemplate situations where changes to the area ought to affect banding. Read article from Which? https://www.which.co.uk/money/tax/council-tax/council-tax-bands-apxvz5j37h67, mentions this example: ?For example, if nearby long-term roadworks have affected the rateable value of your property, you can submit one challenge for works that started on 31 December 2020, and a new challenge for roadworks starting on a different date.? One wonders whether changing traffic patterns in the area might warrant re-banding (up for those on quiet roads, down for those on congested roads) if they persist? Similarly houses on estates affected by infill. I wonder if that?s been considered.

That makes sense, but how are new builds allocated to bands? At actual value or at an adjusted 1991 type rate?

Latest on primary school roll numbers- council consulting on closure of Townsend Primary in Walworth(near the Elephant): "We have seen a fall of 2,161 primary pupils (9%) over the last five years. Approximately 5,184 primary places - 20% of the total are currently unfilled. This is despite the Council also removing 500 Year R to 6 places since 2019 (2%). The spare capacity represents 12 empty 2FE schools. 7. Surplus capacity is particularly acute in the Council?s school place planning area 1 (PA1), which covers the Borough, Bankside and Walworth areas and has seen the biggest growth in surplus places in the borough. Presently, there are 196 reception places surplus in this area - 25% of all available reception places, some way above the borough average of 17%. Overall, Year R to 6 vacancies total 1,507 places, also around 25% of available places in schools." And this general statement around risk: "There is a much greater risk that, without further action, there would not be sufficient funding to provide an appropriate curriculum if we are unable to close loss-making schools. This makes taking decisive and timely action all the more important. The closure would mean that staff would potentially need to be made redundant, and that this could create costs for this in the short term. However, every year that the Council fails to address these issues adds to the debt burden that Southwark risks, which then limits our scope for further action. Running out of money to fund schools, or school closing due to lack of viability poses an enormous reputational risk to Southwark, which, up till now, has been seen as an efficient and effective local authority with schools scoring above the national average, and with over 94% ranked as Ofsted "good" or "outstanding"." There seems to be some concern about the risk that the SoS for Education might try and reallocate the site to a new free school, thereby negating the effect of the closure (not sure why that would happen - assume this suggests a strategy to get rid of LA schools and replace them with free schools? Is that part of what has happened here ie academy schools sucking pupils out of LA schools?) Link to report here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103606/Report.pdf. Interesting read. I guess if there are other schools being lined up for closure we will hear about it soon, as there's a statutory process to go through and the report suggests it needs to start now to enable closure before September 2022. On the bright side,the report does note that less pupils has a small positive climate change benefit: "As explained above, the falling numbers of pupils is likely, if anything, to have a net positive effect (albeit small) on climate change, as less pupils attend school and are therefore transported by car or other forms of transport."

Proposed new boundaries https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-06-08-London-Initial-Proposals-53.-Peckham-BC.pdf (Peckham) https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-06-08-London-Initial-Proposals-20.-Dulwich-and-Sydenham-BC.pdf (Dulwich and Sydenham Hill) They?ve done an initial consultation and I think they publish results early next year and then do further consultation.

I think Rocks means that the e-scooter companies are paying TfL and the local authorities for the right to participate in the trials/ be authorised to allow the escooters on the roads? Which looks right, although no indication of the amounts involved. https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2021/W19/750649356 ?This was a zero-value procurement where no fees will be paid to the operators by the Authority. Operators are not entitled to receive payment under this agreement from the administrator or any of the participating boroughs. Operators have agreed to pay the charges set out in the agreement for the opportunity to operate in the participating boroughs. Charges comprise the full service charge, the ride-through charge and the per-vehicle charge (as per spec). The structure of the charges is as set out in the Specification.? ETA also https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/members-area/member-briefings/transport/e-scooter-trials-london ?Numerous prospective operators have indicated that they would expect to pay fees to participate in a trial, as they do to operate in other cities around the world. London Councils? officers are working together with TfL and all borough officers to understand funding requirements and to develop a fair mechanism for distributing income from fees across participating boroughs. Fees from operators could enable boroughs to fund the creation of parking areas and other infrastructure requirements, and cover associated administrative costs. Further discussions with borough officers are scheduled to take place as the proposal and commercial documents are finalised. Neither boroughs nor TfL will be paying operators to provide e-scooters for a trial.?

Any idea how the proposed boundary changes affect anything?

Vaguely remembered something about this in relation to the London Assembly elections - google brought up these https://www.theredroar.com/2020/01/long-baileys-campaign-chief-accused-of-selection-stitch-up/ https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/gla-elections-senior-labour-figures-claim-lambeth-southwark-candidate-shortlist-is-a-stitch-up/

For info, the council are asking for input on their digital engagement strategy - https://ideas.southwark.gov.uk/how-would-you-prefer-to-engage-online-with-southwark-council You can add ideas to their online site and then there is a face to face workshop in January. I?m sure plenty on here will have thoughts and ideas!

Ok maybe replace significant by ?meaningful?. you?re right it?s not the U.K., which is good as it?s surely best to be looking at data from places where escooters have been in place for longer? I?m not particularly in favour of a ban but do think we should properly consider available evidence around accidents etc and regulate if and as appropriate. A number of countries are considering or require helmets, for example. The types of injuries are different from bikes and I?ve seen in various places that travelling across different road surfaces (road to pavement for example) is a particular issue. If nothing else we should be making sure scooter riders are properly informed about risk and how to minimise risk?