legalalien

For anyone interested, here is the decision / description of traffic calming measures going in on Brenchley Gardens. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7445 The cost has increased from an original estimate of ?150k to around ?730k! Road works ain?t cheap.

Quite an interesting report prepared by housing development officers for the upcoming housing and community engagement commission, case study of resident engagement re proposed rooftop devt and infill housing at Brenchley Gardens. Another example of the inadequacy of Commonplace as an engagement tool (too much generic spin in the questions asked), and there seems to be some friction between officers and ward councillors about who said what to the tenants. This is a case study but doubtless similar issues on lots of other estates (here it seems that the inclusion of an infill building in the plans - needed to finance the whole scheme - wasn?t sufficiently flagged up). I think there?s a systemic problem around community engagement. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101819/Report%20New%20council%20homes%20on%20existing%20estates%20-%20Case%20Study%201%20-%20Brenchley%20Gardens.pdf

Raeburn I think there is some doubt as to whether the statement in the Southwark FAQs is actually accurate, I seem to recall that the fortnightly meetings referred to weren?t happening (can someone confirm)? I?d be very cautious about relying on statements on the Southwark website as a source of fact. They failed to comply with their statutory duties to advise TfL in advance as well, if the FoI responses from TfL are correct. I?d be keen on Southwark not posting statements that are untrue, as people are likely to believe them. Am less worried about Rockets ;)

is the deadline midnight today or has it passed? was planning to respond but got busy.. could do it tonight if responses still open.

Saw something about that it was a rally of some sort?see atttached

This. Artemis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What the LTNs do not address is the massive (and > ever increasing) number of online deliveries. Are > we surprised that roads are clogged when several > billion parcels are despatched every year? When > the expectation is that you can order your > groceries, clothing, household goods etc. and they > will turn up at your front door the next day, > traffic is not going away. I would hazard to > guess that a significantly high proportion of > traffic clogging the roads is made up of delivery > drivers, rather than local drivers doing short > journeys (which seems to be the assumption of many > people). And that traffic is not going to > ?evaporate? - it is irrelevant to the consumer > sitting at home whether the delivery driver has > sat in traffic for three hours or not -they just > have an expectation that their consumer goods will > arrive. The narrative ?you need to get out of > your car and walk/cycle and we won?t have a > problem? is failing to address one of the most > significant reasons for increasing traffic, in my > view.

I think it says ?could drop? rather than ?has dropped?, but wouldn?t be surprised. I guess the census results will tell us all. Think they come out next March? ahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Population of London has dropped for the first > time in 30 years, driven by Brexit and the > pandemic: > https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jan/07/lo > ndon-population-decline-first-time-since-1988-repo > rt-covid-home-working

I'd favour a more general thread about the way Southwark engages with its residents - this is one example of that, but there seems to be a pattern across a variety of areas (see the current issues with Peckham Green/ Jocelyn Park or as Southwark call it, the Flaxyards site). I'm sure there are other examples but given the breadth it would probably go in the Lounge? I have more of an issue with the "process" issues around the LTNs than I do about the LTN policy itself, so I get your point in that sense.

Confirmation of falling pupil numbers in this report for the upcoming education scrutiny committee meeting, more detail to be produced for Cabinet meeting in October. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101594/Report_Pupil%20Places%20Southwark.pdf. There are falls across most parts of the borough apparently. Interesting that council can?t require academies to reduce their pupil admission numbers, which must make planning / trying to even out numbers across schools more difficult.

Various new minor road changes - think the only local one is some additional double yellows in Melbourne Grove. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50027372

I suspect we?re in for another uptick in fines as I?ve come across two people so far who have been forwarded the map associated with the decision making process and were under the impression that the revised time restrictions would come into force this coming Monday. Chinese whispers! If you?re speaking to anyone maybe emphasise to them that nothing has changed yet.

I think much of the problem, particularly early on, was the positioning of the signs as much as the legality of the signage itself - thinking in particular of the one at the Burbage Road roundabout, when approaching from Gallery Road, the one on Burbage Road which you can't really see until you've already turned left off Turney, coming from Croxted (the approach sign has been fixed slightly now I think to try and clarify - the problem is for drivers who see the blue sign ahead and swing left to avoid it and are practically through the bus gate before they can do anything), and the one on Townley which is easily lost among other signs, trees, watching out for traffic etc coming off Croxted. I just hope we don't get more signs instead of clearer substitute signs - there are way too many signs about the place already. must be about time for another "superfluous sign" audit. I'm happy to make suggestions of signs that could be removed.

Dulwichrunners I think Southwark have a figure of around ?3million in this year's budget. I'll dig out the link and add it in. ETA: link here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101231/Report%20Revenue%20monitor.pdf. Note the figure covers the Walworth LTN as well as the Dulwich one so the Dulwich figure is slightly lower, I think there's been an FOI request indicating that the Dulwich amount makes up most of that figure though. Extract: "Since the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in some parts of the borough, and based on the financial information available to date, the department is projecting a net additional income of ?3m at this time and this is reflected in table 1. The final net additional income from LTNs will be transferred to an earmarked reserve for reinvestment in locally important schemes including highways, transport, school streets, healthy streets and with the aim of tackling the climate emergency. Recognising the new nature of this income stream, the position will be need to be closely monitored throughout the remainder of the year. " "New nature of this income stream" ... says it all, really, particularly in light of the LTN report's tacit acknowledgement of the poor signage.

I'm still in favour of lobbying the Lib Dems to ask for the decision to be called in to the Oversight and Scrutiny committee for explanation once it is made. That wouldn't stop the decision ultimately (Labour majority on the committee), but it would give the issue more airtime / make more people aware of what is going on. Any LD or potential LD councillors or members out there? The Southwark constitution seems to permit call in to be requested by three members of the committee, https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s100483/Overview%20and%20Scrutiny%20Procedure%20Rules%20May%202019.pdf and there are exactly three LDs on the committee: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=308 The procedure states that "Requests for call-in should normally only be made if there is evidence that the decision maker did not take the decision in accordance with the principles of decision making as set out in Article 1.3 of the constitution." Article 1.3 says this: "All decisions of the council will be made in accordance with the following principles: a) the link between strategy and implementation must be maintained b) decision making generally, whether by individual officers, individual cabinet members or the cabinet collectively, should have reference to the policy framework c) respect for human rights, law and probity d) due consultation and the taking of professional advice from officers e) proportionality (i.e. the action must be proportionate to the desired outcome) f) a presumption in favour of openness g) clarity of aims and desired outcomes h) consideration of the likely climate consequences and the likely equality (including socio-economic disadvantage and health inequality) consequences of the relevant decision and therefore reports for decision should include advice from officers of the likely climate and equality impacts of that decision." I reckon there's a pretty good argument that at least one of those grounds is engaged...

That's true, Rockets, but also possibly true that some of the older/ longer term residents had some degree of (what has turned out to be) misplaced trust in the system, based on previous experience of Dulwich interest groups (eg the Estate, Dulwich Society) having some sway in protecting the interests of Village residents, and ward councillors representing the ward (as opposed to the party line - and their own particular interests / the views of those in their echo chambers)? OD and DA have done well in getting locals to express their views: but in a situation where the council's response is essentially "meh" .. then what? I had hoped TfL might intervene to fix the Croxted problem (maybe they still will), but maybe a "sack the 49" movement borough wide is the way forward. I can't believe that Southwark Labour would be foolish enough to put the current Village incumbents up as candidates for the next election, would be interested to see what they come up with. Incidentally I see on the website that "Your locally elected councillors will be holding a mobile (roving) surgery programme at different locations across the Dulwich Village ward area to enable residents to raise any local issues. Residents will be notified of the date, time and specific streets/roads where the surgery will take place by letter in advance." I'll await a letter - not expecting one any time soon.

I agree with that P3girl and I think there is a common cause with those opposing some of the council?s other ill thought out and ill-consulted plans on the housing front. I actually helped organise a ?party? in a brewery once, for its centenary, as part of my student work experience. Best thing on my CV probably.

I would just say that loads of people have great ideas about how local people can sort these sites out and run stuff, but when push comes to shove it?s only a very, very small minority of folk who are willing to put in the hard yards rather than suggest what could / should be done. If anyone out there has an interest in volunteering to help with any of a variety of community sports grounds out there, by all means message me and I can put you in touch with relevant people. Advance warning - these things are largely a thankless task. bodsier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > shame local people couldnt have purchased it and > kept it and either run a neighbourhood social > club.. good for the neighbourhood....could even > have run a neighbourhood hire scheme.....or better > still a youth centre....for the teenagers that > have nowhere to go....I'm not going to look at > this after writing.....I can only imagine the > backlash....

Does anyone know / has anyone heard any rumours as to whether independent candidates of any flavour are likely to come forward in May? I'd potentially vote for a local independent or local party, in the hope they might be - well, representative in some sense.

I've just had a multi-page hard copy review update through the door. One thing that strikes me is that pretty much all of the measures have been able to be compromised in some way, EXCEPT the Court/ Calton closure, where it's about emergency services only. That's what I don't understand. Why can't that junction have timed restrictions like everywhere else? There's a real fixation with closure, I'm not sure why. My money is on refusal to acknowledge the poor design last time it was remodelled (a sort of "it's an impossible junction to make safe for cars, cycles and pedestrians", rather than catering to some narrow local interests (surely not?). I don't want to believe the latter.

I'm not horrified at the prospect of the council making a decision that goes against the wishes of local residents - sometimes governments have to make unpopular decisions where they believe that it's in the best interest of their constituency - and if people don't like it, their remedy is the ballot box. I am, though, still concerned by the things that heartblock mentions, in particular the lack of data, the treatment of data that is available, and the overall lack of transparency throughout the process. Do people have views on how much improvement the proposed amendments will make e.g. moving the North Melbourne closure to the other end, reducing the times of closures, making Melbourne South timed? The latter two must help a bit with EDG/LL/ Croxted (it would be good if they could restrict them to term time as well, and exclude bank holidays?). I'm not sure what a timed school street in Townley would do in terms of traffic that currently heads south along that route - it presumably gets shunted to LL and DV - I don't know how much traffic we're talking about there? Presumably "Parallel work with TfL to make improvements to junction safety for cyclists and improve the flow of traffic at the junction of Village Way, Dulwich Village and Red Post Hill." means "putting in that cycle lane and restricting straight ahead and right turning traffic to one lane has been a complete disaster in terms of creating traffic congestion through the village". will watch that one with interest.

Here?s the link to the decision notices and the full set of documents. Lots to read. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50027352

On a marginally related note, if anyone is interested in Brenchley Gardens there?s an upcoming decision on traffic calming measures there. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50027350. Not that I was checking recent additions to the website, or anything.

That?s right heartblock - it has always been in the forward plan as a delegated decision to be made by the cabinet member. See https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50026429&PlanId=674 ETA according to the Southwark website, the report giving background/ recommendations needs to be published 5 working days before the decision is made, and once the decision is made it is subject to a further five working day call in period during which the overview and scrutiny committee can look at/ demand the cabinet member turn up and explain the decision. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/how-we-work/how-individual-decision-making-works. No idea how/ whether this works in practice. Membership of overview and scrutiny committee here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=308 Wonder if any of the LD members might be persuaded to raise the issue of failure to properly consult/ release data etc. Although not sure how useful this would be with a Labour majority on the committee.

I don?t think there have even been online ward meetings, though? I guess because they think they?d be difficult to run/ control? But other wards in the borough seem to have had online ward meetings, according to the official calendar.

I think the village ward councillors may only exist online. I've never seen them in the flesh - not even out canvassing. I'm not aware of a ward meeting in the last couple of years, the council webpage seems to have been updated in July to say that a date for one would be added shortly. They're supposed to have six per year (including the two South multi-ward meetings), although I think the council decided it would be reduced to two during COVID (ie only the multi ward meetings which have a very limited remit - surprising, that,at a time when constituents were likely to be vocal were a ward meeting held).