legalalien

Not sure. There's a report on the St Johns school closure earlier this year that seems to set out the process https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s99896/Report%20St.%20Johns%20Walworth%20Church%20of%20England%20primary%20school

Just to update on this, licensing proposals were approved at Cabinet on Tuesday, details are here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50013639/Appendices%20-%20Part%201%20Tuesday%2019-Oct-2021%2011.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=9 If you are a local landlord worth checking / keeping an eye out for council communications - for those requiring one of the new licences there is an early bird discount on the fee that applies for the first three months. If renting to a single household (rather than multiple occupation) the selective licensing scheme only applies in some areas, these include Champion Hill and Goose Green.

Just watching cabinet meeting from Tuesday where they discuss the pupil planning report. From about 1:12 onward. Very sober discussion, including the fact that the council?s accounts haven?t provisioned for bailing out/ costs of closing failing schools. Costs like this reduce the fund available to remaining schools - the longer (economically) failing schools are allowed to continue the worse the picture overall. Some mention about how this relates to planning / regeneration - KW suggesting that it?s all down to benefit caps forcing families out of London. (Nothing to do with the fact that the problem is around devt like Elephant. Hmm. Other cabinet members didn?t seem very convinced tbh). Watch the video?. ETA the minutes have now been posted and include a resolution that ?a report be brought back to cabinet within six months on the extent to which changes in the benefit system have led to a reduction in the number of school-aged children in the borough; working if possible with other boroughs and the regional schools officer.? There was nothing in the underlying report about the benefit system. Why wouldn?t they ask for a report on something neutral like ?the reasons why there has been a reduction??? These cabinet meetings really are a piece of political theatre.

Meanwhile over in Lambeth there's a petition running to replace the "Cabinet" system of government there with a committee system (which some councils have) with a view to individual ward councillors having a greater voice: https://lambethref.co.uk/petition. Looks interesting.

In case it helps, here?s the slide pack from the meeting with the council?s map of the Spine route https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50013666/Supplemental%20Agenda%20No.3%20Wednesday%2013-Oct-2021%2019.00%20Overview%20Scrutiny%20Committee.pdf?T=9 Also has the figures about station usage.

The timed restrictions aren?t in place on the weekend but the Court/ Calton closure is, and many believe that to be the root of the problem.

Yeah, right.

And the point of that post is what? To suggest that the protestors have something in common with national socialists or to suggest that the proponents of DS are setting it up as a memorial to national socialists? Either is inappropriate / pointless / a bit juvenile.

one of the Charter North parents mentioned to me last week that their Oct holidays have changed to match the independent schools - not sure if true or not. DVIS still seem to be in this week. Galileo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn?t it only the start of half term for private > schools - I think most state schools are still in > this week.

I suspect Helen (and Cllr Simmonds) will have spent a big chunk of this summer (and will have to spend quite a bit of time going forward) on the electoral boundary review process and who stands in the new seats if the current dissection of her existing seat goes ahead ( more info at https://www.helenhayes.org.uk/helen_s_response_to_the_boundary_commission_for_england_consultation_on_new_parliamentary_constituency_boundaries and https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/guide-to-the-2023-review-now-published/). Interested to see that Helen?s ability to address traffic problems in Croxted Road are included (in her August submission) as a reason not to change boundaries there: ?As the local MP, I am currently convening a working group officers and councillors from Lambeth and Southwark and Transport for London to explore potential solutions to this issue.? Has this working group happened yet?I I think I heard that Lambeth councillors are keen to engage?

Yes Penguin, I?m sensing a theme. Motorbird so DfE approve schools opening but after that don?t control their intake? Or do they technically have the power but just don?t exercise it in practice? I?m getting boring now but I can?t get my head around LAs having to try and manage pupil places without having any control over academy intakes. Is this because the initial Labour policy was that failing schools could academise and it would only be a small proportion that probably weren?t super-attractive? And then (I have been googling), the coalition govt introduced converter academies so better schools / everyone could convert, and this current problem is an unintended consequence?

I really hadn?t realised quite how much academies privatise the education system until now - I was all in favour of some aspects eg more freedom around curriculum / style but hadn?t appreciated how little governmental control there was over admissions and numbers. They seem almost like state-funded private schools in a sense, I can imagine how those in wealthier catchments can top up funds from parent contributions / well off PTAs / economies of scale and more savvy executives - I guess that?s great if everyone gets to go to one but they don?t. Motorbird83 if you can point me in the direction of any further reading I?d be interested (otherwise Mr Google will doubtless help me).

?The job of an elected official is to cater to the needs of ALL their citizens, and I don't mean those who live in leafy mansions on Calton Avenue, I refer to those who are disadvantaged, disabled, young etc. Governance is not a question of who shouts the loudest on an internet forum or go marching around the streets on a Saturday. That means that sometimes they have to go against what is "democratic", to do what is *right*. In the case of creating safer streets for local children and poorer residents without cars, to walk and cycle on, is clearly the right thing to do. ? I 100% agree with the first two sentences but not the last one. As regards the first I think they?ve failed spectacularly to do so. I would add to the second sentence, nor should it be a question of who has the most well organised lobby groups, given more information and able to influence councillors behind closed doors, or those who councillors instinctively feel are ?people like them?. I agree that sometimes the Council has to go against what the majority want, but I also think (and this is the purpose of consultation), that if the majority are telling you that something isn?t working (rather than just that they don?t like it), you need to take another long hard look at the data and see whether you might be missing something - particularly when the data is as flimsy - and as heavily modelled - as it is here. At least you could fulfil your promise to release raw data so that people can test it and see for themselves. In other words, the correct response is not ?this is not a referendum?, it?s ?why do so many of our constituents think that things haven?t improved for them in the way we intended / so many think that we have made things worse?? Otherwise it just comes across as treating constituents with contempt / as ?deplorables? whose views shouldn?t count. And history tells us that doesn?t end well. To put it a slightly different way - the issue here is not (in most cases anyway) LTN opponents agreeing with the data but saying they?d prefer not to have closures, it?s people trusting their own eyes and, given the way data has been created and presented, not being convinced that the council?s analysis is correct - same applies to things like the Aldred hypotheses. That?s what I think anyway. Ps to head off the inevitable response, the reason I don?t agree with the last sentence is because of the words ?clearly right? - an aim may be clearly a good one viewed in isolation, but in reality that ?good? needs to be offset against the ?bads? that result from the means that you use to achieve it. Life is complicated.

There is a small Thames Water hole in the road with a barrier around it on EDG eastbound and temporary lights at the nearby eDG/ Townley intersection and it?s causing significant tail backs from that intersection.

Thanks motorbird83, interesting background and that standard article in particular confirms my thinking, particularly around a potential scrabble for pupils and LAs not having sufficient powers to control the situation. I wonder if there?s enough public awareness particularly among parents applying to schools. It?s a difficult one as if you tell people some schools have problems there?s potential for a sort of ?run on the bank? situation that speeds up decline. But I always think transparency and lots of advance planning is best.

Given it seems likely to be built on eventually, is any thought being given to finding a long term alternative location on the large amount of metropolitan open land that there is locally? There must be a suitable spot somewhere around here.

I gather the council refused the LD?s call in request on the Dulwich decision (not sure why, the first six minutes of the overview and scrutiny commission video of last night?s meeting has no audio so not sure if mentioned there) Does anyone know? There?s a lengthy discussion about the Rye Lane decision and the reasons for refusing to call that in later in the meeting (have described it on the Rye Lane thread - it was an interesting watch). They run out of time to discuss Streetspace schemes other than Rye Lane so postpone for future discussion.

YouTube video of last night?s overview and scrutiny committee has appalling sound quality, but for those who would like to watch the Rye Lane bus bit starts around 2:27. Guts of Cllr Rose?s presentation - Peckham rye is a really busy station / interchange and links into lots of bus routes, in particular buses from the south of the borough where PTAL is poor. Various improvements planned for parallel Spine route (?imminent? says Councillor Rose, per Dale Foden orders have just been sorted and still have to go through formal order and network management process - later on he says that while resurfacing around (Bellenden?) will be soon, other pavement stuff etc has to go through consultation etc / not quite yet although they?ll see if we can bring forward. Extensive consultation to continue, including on various public realm projects. A few members of the public were allowed to speak along with Jasmine Ali as ward councillor, describing the ward forum that was held. Eileen Conn as always, has words of wisdom - here about the need to get the data collection and consultation / evaluation right. One resident asks whether permanent closure is still on the agenda. Impassioned plea on behalf of the traders (who acknowledge need for a clean up). Will work with passenger rep groups. Will be preregistration for the consultation - not much other detail. I don?t think she answered the question about whether closure to buses was still on the table. Cllr Ali mentioned ideas around shuttle buses or timed closures so seems to me hard to tell. (Cllr Werner also mentions the possibility of electric shuttle buses for those unable to walk, for climate change reasons. Someone else mentions the night time economy and Cllr Rose does say that the scope of a trial might lead to eg night time closure or closure for particular events as in Hackney (Church Street / Church Road?). Cllr Rose re-emphasises that this is the third busiest station in the borough and there are loads of buses, and also that diverting buses down other routes causes problems / congestion on the adjacent road network. Someone asks about the fact that there?s no baseline data against which to measure the scheme, and also mentions the government guidance saying schemes shouldn?t be removed without data (the premature removal argument used to justify keeping ltns in place). Cllr Rose says something about nearby schemes and other historic transport interventions and how they can use that to model a baseline of active travel etc to use... Cllr Chamberlain at 3:03 expresses concern at the lack of call in and the council shying away from public scrutiny and inconsistency around the borough (consultation in Dulwich, no consultation in Rye Lane) there?s an argument around the non-acceptance of the call in of the Rye Lane decision (LDs had asserted a lack of due consultation on reopening Rye Lane, and lack of consideration of climate change issues. But their call in request was rejected) Note LDs seem to be in favour of pedestrianisation of RL but that isn?t really the point - the concerns are about failure to get an adequate baseline to measure the increase in active travel that has happened in the area. Also concern about the process by which a few residents were chosen to speak (the chair insists that they weren?t invited, they put themselves forward - Cllr Chamberlain presumably cross that no one pro-closure had an opportunity to speak - yet again council being selective about who gets a voice and who doesn?t..) Lack of an adequate data baseline looks to be a common concern across both schemes, despite complaints in Dulwich being about roads being closed, and the reverse in Peckham Rye! About 3:32 Cllr mcCullum asks where the climate emergency analysis is, apparently that will be done as part of the trial. Cllr Rose makes a point about how important a working bus network is.

There is more detail about the underlying policy rationale here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/article-4-directions?chapter=5 I don't have time to read it all but from a quick look at the main report, the rationale could well be this: "The availability of permitted development rights can create a fallback position for developers. This is a particular risk for site allocations where the requirements of policy are watered down due to the fallback position of demolishing or converting a commercial building to residential use. If the permitted development right was implemented, this would also restrict the requirements of the site allocation policy being met, and could result in a poorer quality development which may not make optimal use of the site. This could result in less homes being provided overall, and would not result in any affordable housing being provided, of which there is an acute need. 225. The permitted development changes could also have an effect on the benchmark land value of the property when it comes to viability appraisals and this gives an alternative use value. Application of the permitted development right would undermine the council?s ability to maximise affordable housing 45 contributions. Firstly, any change of use to residential made under the permitted development right would not be required to provide any affordable housing. Secondly, any change of use to residential will potentially increase the land value of the site. This would reduce the viability of any subsequent comprehensive redevelopment and would result in affordable housing obligations being reduced or unviable which would therefore affect Southwark?s ability to meet its affordable housing targets." ie if it is developed for housing, Southwark want to be able to make sure it's used to its full potential and includes an affordable housing component. Do others think that sounds right?

Disclaimer up front - I don't know anything about planning and it is a very complicated area. But if you look at the Southwark website, it seems like the Article 4 order is restrictive rather than permissive: "Article 4 Consultation Following the amendment of the Use Classes Order in September 2020, former uses classes including Class A1, A2, A3 (retail), Class B1 (business) and parts of Class D1 (Non residential institutions) and D2 (Community and Leisure) were combined into a new Class E, which covers various commercial business and leisure uses. From 1 August 2021, a permitted development right (Class MA) allows for the change of use from Class E (commercial, business and service) to Class C3 (Residential). The council has introduced Article 4 Directions to remove this permitted development right in certain parts of the borough. In August 2020, a permitted development rights (Class ZA) was introduced which, subject to prior approval, permits the demolition of commercial or residential buildings and replacement with a single dwelling housing or block of flats. The council has introduced an Article 4 Direction to remove this permitted development right in certain parts of the borough. Consultation is open from 29 July 2021 to 16 September 2021" (taken from https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/article-4-directions) So, in the absence of the Article 4 order, it sounds as though the site could have been subject to a new general right to change the use from commercial to residential, and also to permit demolition of commercial buildings and replacement with residential. The council seems to be saying that those new rights don't apply to this site. It says on the website that the article 4 order was open for consultation until mid Sept, but not what happened after that (the most recent update to the site was 31 July) - the order must, I guess, have come into force following the consultation which would explain why the notice has only recently gone up. Let's see if my google skills can find the order before someone else who knows what they are doing comes along. ETA: the draft order on the website covers loads of sites across Southwark and not this site specifically, which is probably helpful.

As a reminder here?s the link to the online consultation which closes on 17 October https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/goodrichreview/

Meanwhile in Bermondsey, objections to a CPZ extension are bing overruled. No idea of the rights and wrongs but yet again the EquiA, climate change and socioeconomic analysis seems pretty flimsy. Link would help of course. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102335/Report.pdf

Two new disabled bays going on on Eynella Road near the park. There was one objection, reviewed and rejected. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50027629

I think Southwark?s asking it to reduce entry by 30 kids at entry level to address overcapacity generally, rather than its roll falling naturally - I don?t know whether that?s the case or not. I think DKH is a ?Community School? meaning Southwark can control its intake- it can?t do that with academies. So the ability to control coupled with financial problems may have suggested it to Southwark? If I have this right, the significant oversupply coupled with the control issue would seem to make a reduction in the number of non-academy schools inevitable. Am I wrong?

Rockets, they're not really independent assessors at all - as I understand it Southwark has outsourced its highways design stuff to Metis and NRP, so they're effectively part of Southwark's operation and I wouldn't be surprised if there were dedicated staff embedded at Southwark. I vaguely recall seeing the contract decision being not too long ago, and having googled the OJEU notice it's here: https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2020/W53/741802073. There's nothing sinister about that,just need to understand that the report authors are probably a bit more akin to Southwark staff than third party auditors.