legalalien

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.

You made me look at a document that.... . I'll just comment that the scoring system seems very subjective and assumes that all the items on the list of criteria should get equal weighting - which is a pretty big assumption to make. The document states the proposal you mention was made by three specific RAs(not One Dulwich - and then weirdly it's headed Dulwich Alliance proposal). I guess this might be due to cross over of personnel between the three groups? On a positive note, I found something to agree with Friends of Dulwich Square on - if we are to have a big public realm thing, then I would be very much in favour of segregating cyclists from it. As a regular pedestrian I'm confident that segregation won't have a potentially harmful effect on "pedestrian comfort and permeability across the space". Safety over permeability, I say.

I think you're confusing the issue a bit. The OD website says that they are pushing for timed restrictions, details to be determined by a fair and transparent consultation process. So yes, I'd say they have a mandate to push for timed restrictions, and a fair and transparent consultation process. No, they don't have a mandate to enter into some backroom deal with the council on the details of the closures on the basis of some dubious claim that their supporters support residents' permits. If there's evidence that OD are doing this, I'd be interested to see it. Given their biggest gripe seems to be the council's refusal to engage and lack of transparency, that would seem to be conspiracy theory territory. (Also, surely the council have no truck with groups seeking to lobby behind closed doors. Or maybe they do.)

I don't think anyone could sensibly support a part of the existing scheme without knowing what the rest of the scheme would look like, tbh. What the OneDulwich website says is "One Dulwich supports area-wide timed restrictions (after consultation with the local community on hours of restriction, access, and location of entry/exit points) as a more proportionate, and more socially just, solution." - so implicitly One Dulwich recognise that it's not up to them to choose the solution. If some of the people involved remain of the view that their original proposal is the "best" outcome, then that's fine - there will be other, newer OneDulwich supporters who support the part of their campaign that seeks more transparency from the council and who oppose one or more aspects of the current council proposal. As OD isn't a political party, and doesn't have a formal mandate to represent its supporters as regards an alternative proposal, I don't see an issue. If OneDulwich were to come out and represent to the Council that all of its 2000 supporters were in favour of its original proposal with the residents' permits, or whatever, that would be something different - but to my knowledge that hasn't happened.

Yes, that?s right. I imagine class sizes drop slightly but then so does funding, then perhaps a need to formally drop a class and then some people go to nearby schools and top up class sizes there. I assume that given the way funding works (and given schools all indicate that they are underfunded), schools actually want biggish classes to maximise their income?

Bit of an update, the proposed school places planning document is on the agenda for next week?s cabinet meeting / on the website. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102233/Report%20and%20appendices%20Pupil%20place%20planning%202021.pdf There is a major oversupply of primary school places in the borough and sufficient secondary capacity for the foreseeable (with a future oversupply of secondary places predicted) Proposed (currently in the consultation process) reduction in intake at six primaries including DKH which is not going to help its numbers stack up, I guess. No concrete proposals for closures / mergers but a strong hint that options will need to be considered - giving the way school funding works ?it is very likely that in the not too distant future there will be insufficient pupil numbers to justify operating the current number of primary schools the Council currently maintains.? Rolls at Dulwich schools not falling, rather the catchment areas are growing, as less demand from local residents frees up spaces for children living further afield: ?PA5 is a net importer of pupils, gaining around 80 pupils across all age groups. Harris East Dulwich and Judith Kerr Primary Free School take a majority of its pupils from outside PA5, the latter mainly from Lambeth Schools in the Dulwich planning area remain extremely popular with applicants from adjoining planning areas ? this is evidenced by the 15% drop in births outlined above, but a 32% increase in demand for reception places over the same time frame There is a high risk that providing any additional capacity in this area would be abstractive of other planning areas and schools from neighbouring boroughs, and would actually not meet demand from local residents ? indeed, it may reduce the percentage of local children attending schools in Dulwich Around 30% of pupils in this planning area come from outside the planning area, mainly from within Southwark and a small percentage from outside Southwark The net percentage inflow of Southwark children from other planning areas is (+15%) the highest in Southwark  Conversely, around 30% of PA5 resident children attend state primary schools attend a school in another Southwark planning area or a school outside Southwark, about equally divided between the two.  Conversely, Bessemer Grange Primary in PA4 takes around 30% of its pupils from PA5 residents.? (Note these figures don?t take into account the independent schools) As Southwark notes in its report, it doesn?t have the power to prevent academies (including those in the Dulwich area) expanding their capacity and realising the identified risk of sucking children out of schools in surrounding areas and threatening their viability. This seems crazy to me but according to the report that?s how things work. Reasons for overcapacity: some unquantified references to Brexit, possibly people moving out of London due to COVID, GLA forecasts not being accurate, housing affordability for families also an issue. I tend to think the latter is a big one given a lot of the problem seems to be in the North West of the borough where a lot of gentrification has happened / estates replaced with private housing developments..

Appearances can be deceiving.

The meaning changes across the years apparently: https://publish.illinois.edu/iaslibrary/2012/11/03/remember-remember-the-5th-of-november/ I didn?t know that Anonymous had adopted the Guy Fawkes masks as part of an anti Scientology protest. Learn something new every day?

Good lord. Some people have added the junction to google maps as a tourist attraction. On the funny side, The google map picture is of a road junction, and it doesn?t look very touristy. See pic attached.

I think that must be at Dulwich College Sports club, not Dulwich Sports Club, given the hockey pitch reference. Might be worth contacting the school?

Another brilliant TfL streets initiative - not. See https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/5-parts-london-streets-paved-20832137 and then https://www.transportforall.org.uk/campaign/colourful-crossings/.

I?m in favour of that. Although with the potential for a winter of potentially soaring gas prices the timing may not be great?. Are there many wood burning stoves in London do we think? I?m not sure I?ve seen a lot : any when visiting people although I have seen some people unpacking wood from cars ?

Awesome. I didn?t realise it was so big / well attended! Must pop by and have a look.

Ah, I see. I won?t. (Be there or on a cycle, I expect I?ll be wearing clothes). I don?t really equate being opposed to the measures as being anti-cyclist tbh. The only thing that bothers me about cyclists is their riding on the pavement (I) on streets where there is a segregated cycle lane and (ii) in the LTN area when there are no cars on the street. And also when they whizz through the pedestrian crossing on gallery road, overtaking cars that have stopped for pedestrians - that?s quite dangerous and happens quite frequently. I?ve managed to limit myself to a Paddington like hard stare rather than hurling abuse though. I don?t kid myself that they care what I think anyway. I have some sympathy with the cyclists who get frustrated with the random pedestrians they encounter milling around / stepping out into the road on Calton Avenue. Related to that, yesterday I saw some temporary signs at the corner of Calton and Woodwarde - a ?Road Closed? sign indicating that the bit of Calton between Woodwarde and DV was closed, and a yellow diversion sign directing people into Woodwarde. In a very car-centric way I wondered what the point of that was given the road ahead is closed anyway (to stop people parking, including delivery vans which quite often seem to stop there and jump out with deliveries?), but I guess technically that closure would apply to cycles (all of them were ignoring it in any case). Wonder why it was there though, something to do with the trucks coming in and out of the construction site maybe - in which case could last a while. malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks Legal, it is the following Saturday, I'll > have a cycle through. I'll be on a push bike, > wearing clothes.