legalalien

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?

Mr Bennet I believe. Brideshead Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who says ?delighted us long enough? > > Lol?

interesting recent review of literature here https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/27/5/490 Injuries mostly falling off type injuries rather than collisions with other road users. Significant cost/ burden on A&E/ health services....

Speaking of consultations, the deputation from the Southwark residents and tenants association is giving a speech fairly critical of Southwark's consultation processes at the Cabinet meeting this morning (streaming on youtube, can be watched back later). "Residents should not be treated as obstacles to be overcome."

People drive and floss it seems. Not to be recommended - bad things can happen https://jmedicalcasereports.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1752-1947-2-78

I suspect Ruffers is correct. Apparently it has been a thing in the US for a while. https://www.instagram.com/pickuppicks/?hl=en-gb

Thought people might be interested in seeing the plans for the (currently derelict) East Lodge at the cemetery. It?s on the agenda for the planning subcommittee today https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103322/Report.pdf If like me you wondered what it looked like originally, pic here https://www.rmears.co.uk/2020/11/12/rma-have-started-work-on-phase-ii-of-the-restoration-of-the-east-lodge-of-the-nunhead-cemetery-chapel-southwark/

Haven?t read it yet but at least looks like an incremental approach of building an in house skills base and focusing first on reducing consultancy, maintenance etc rather than setting up a full bells and whistles company to compete with the private sector. Deserves its own thread, but link here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103374/Report%20Southwark%20Construction%20Company%20report.pdf

Few things to flag: Link to video of scrutiny committee meeting on Weds is at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7003, with Cllr Rose?s presentation about an hour and a bit in. No particularly incisive questions, a transcript of Cllr Newens commentary is doing the rounds on Twitter - apparently the Croxted Road situation is down to Lambeth and TfL! Peckham Lane / Peckham Rye cycle scheme being made permanent: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50027998. Report notes that traffic filters initially included in plan weren?t installed, and that ? The Council are proposing a wider scheme in the area, which will aim to reduce traffic volumes and complement the highway measures proposed in this report. This scheme is currently in outline design with further consultation planned for mid-2022.? Existing measures have decent level of support. School streets for Rye Oak and Comber primaries made permanent https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7504. A decision on a new batch of school streets has been added into the Forward Plan for decision in Feb but no indication which schools yet. Next cabinet meeting is on Tuesday 7th. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7017. The new Southwark Plan (which dictates planning policy) is due to be adopted ( note it will be subject to ?early review? to beef up climate strategy commitments). To see the long, complex plan you can click on the link at the bottom of the report document listed in the agenda. P48 to P54 of the document deal with transport issues related to new developments including levels of car and cycle parks and charging points related to new developments. Proposed bid for TfL funding also on cabinet agenda here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103397/Report%20and%20appendix%20Approval%20of%20TfL%20grant%20submission.pdf appendix gives a vague idea of upcoming priorities. ( unrelated to traffic, also on the agenda is for Southwark to set up its own in house construction company to build council housing).

thanks that's really useful. When I was a child our school trips were always to places like food processing factories (and farms). Do you know whether Veolia do school trips to their recycling centre? I imagine that might be quite educational.

I found this blog quite an interesting read. Some parallels with the LTN situation. https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/2021/09/01/filling-you-in-local-resistance-to-southwark-council-infill-development-on-estates/ ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yet another example of how Southwark council > ignores people > > https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/anti-infill-p > rotesters-march-on-southwark-councils-tooley-stree > t-offices-again/?fbclid=IwAR2GyPQaZR5hE0m_OkrMpypD > fJEQFkbkPNbmKvSs750FDB9qErMPiQl5cTA

Well, the scary Southwark Cyclists lady did say that it was imperative that Southwark adopt the five mandated policies before the May 2022 elections. Perhaps she?s realised that there will be an electoral backlash, even if the councillors haven?t... Or is it that Labour see their biggest threat in Southwark as the Greens?

Found video of Council assembly meeting. You can hear Cllr McAsh telling everyone how brave they?ve been in not buckling to constituent pressure over LTNS. Just before 38 minutes. Similarly Cllr Caldwell at around 50 mins talks about the council ?holding its nerve? on the Walworth LTN. Special congrats to Cllr Rose for leading by example...with her bold and brave leadership on the issue.. Cllr Rose also gets a shout out from Cllr Dennis for her hard work and resilience (around 1:04). The Living Streets and Southwark Cyclists bit starts at 1:06. Link on this page https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7043.

I would rather the council did nothing rather than both making things worse overall and creating inequalities. I also have well-rehearsed concerns about the way they go about things and I don?t apologise for criticising on that front as I think the proper workings of democracy are very important. Does anyone have a proper working knowledge of TfL?s charging powers under Schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act? Does TfL / to what extent do boroughs have powers to implement road charging (eg for home deliveries)? I will try and read it properly at some stage but I?m sure someone will know. Malumbu (if you?re still reading)?