legalalien

I tend to agree. I do a weekly online grocery shop. But have tried to cut down / avoid deliveries for small bits and pieces, takeaways etc. I don?t think the move to small on demand grocery deliveries is a good thing..(excluding cycle deliveries etc obvs). If push came to shove I could probably do a few pedestrian shopping trips instead of having a delivery though. As I used to, with a giant backpack, in my 20s. DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not certain online grocery ordering increases > congestion. If the routes are planned properly, I > would have though the opposite would happen. > > I would support a change in legislation to make it > compulsory to charge delivery at cost (minimum) on > orders less than ?100. It's far too easy to order > small, low-value on Amazon Prime knowing they'll > be delivered the next day with no charge.

It wouldn?t be increasingly difficult for those undercut by online options if we all did the right thing and tried to reduce our online shopping and deliveries. I personally think a tax on online deliveries would achieve a lot more than the LTNs (which I suspect encourage more online deliveries). Not something the council can legislate for, but they could encourage behavioural change as part of their remit to support local business?

I did indeed http://isj.org.uk/slam-on-the-brakes/

This book review by Prof Alfred back in 2008 is an interesting read and perhaps gives some insight into the Marxist perspective on car dominance (a partial driver of some current policy?) I?ll leave people to form their own views.

checks Southwark website for the two thousandth time to see whether a decision might have been posted. Not yet, for the record... ETA my first posting had the text in triangular brackets, which rendered it invisible...

Yep.

sounds right. So technically cyclists probably do have right of way. Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From memory, the pedestrian priority sign was > added by the council at the request of local > people who felt that cyclists were speeding > through the junction and causing risk for > pedestrians by not slowing or stopping. Don't > think it was a formally approved signage process > but something added to remind people to take care.

"The Junction" perhaps? This just gave me a flashback to being about 12 or 13 years old and furtively reading a (totally age-inappropriate) copy of "Up the Junction" that I managed to borrow from the local library. Have just googled it and realised that the junction in question is Clapham Junction. Going to find a copy and re-read it as an adult. Looking at the movie poster makes me realise just how much times have changed. https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/I90AAOSwzgRWzJ5-/s-l1600.jpg Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is not called the square.

I wonder who put the pedestrian priority sign there, and does anyone know what its status is? from a quick google, creating a formal pedestrian or pedestrian and cycle zone looks like it requires an application under the Town and Country Planning Act. I'm certainly not going to rely on it as a pedestrian, given the speed at which cycles come down Calton Avenue. Just wondering idly where liability would lie if I was hit by one of them.

Interesting that there are different views on the ?shared space? v ?filtered road? status of the closed junction. I thought the latter as that?s how the road traffic order works - it?s a prohibition of certain types of traffic isn?t it? (Need to re-read). I assumed that cyclists would have right of way.

It?s a two way argument though, isn?t it? The contra argument is that those concerned for young lungs might want to consider whether campaigning to channel all traffic onto main roads, so that less fortunate children who have to walk to schools on those main roads, is smart. Phrasing the argument in that kind of tone helps no one. We need proper data, and then a grown up debate that admits that any policy decision has winners and losers, and ideally some consensus on how much ?loss? for individuals is or isn?t acceptable, with suitable mitigation strategies. And so to bed...

There is no ?square? separate from the road as far as I am aware? What?s wrong with trying to get drivers to honk support? Or having placards that face the road? Their ?disingenuousness? is a matter of opinion? I?m not involved with this protest but I feel as though the culture wars / cancel culture has come to town, and it worries me.

Ok so the photo doesn?t show what you said it did. And you disagree with people?s views, and think they are absurd - you?re perfectly entitled to have an opinion and so are they. The recent closures for events and demonstrations in favour of the closure have caused just the same issues for right turning traffic, assuming you are correct about bags / blockages - I have no idea if you are factually correct or live locally. As a regular pedestrian I am fed up with the shemozzle caused by the current configuration, so I sympathise.

Seriously? Presumably I?m in the dishonest camp. Not really sure what to say, other than that the concrete blocks in the photo don?t mark the edge of the pavement, for any non-locals tuning in. This is getting out of hand.

RRR maybe pick your battles on this? I saw the protest while walking the dog and there was no major issue re blocking right turning traffic into Calton - people were mostly on the pavement, more so than the usual overspill from cyclists visiting Au Ciel. The whole area is messy and confusing at present given the combo of street furniture / random cultural events / cyclists, pedestrians, ill phased lights, construction traffic - anyone visually impaired or with hearing difficulties would be well advised to stay well away, and everyone else should keep their wits about them. Do you know something everyone else doesn?t when you suggest the junction will soon be full of cars again?

Hi all, Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere, but wanted to make as many people as possible aware of the following opportunities to apply for Council funding. Historically some wards have had much less variety/ volume of applications than others (and my personal suspicion is that lots of groups just aren't aware of them): Cleaner Greener Safer Fund 2022/23 If you have an idea that could make your area cleaner, greener or safer ? please visit https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/grants-and-funding/cleaner-greener-safer/applications The deadline to submit an application/idea is 30 September 2021. The 2022/23 Neighbourhoods Fund The fund is part of the council?s Empowering Communities Programme team to support activities run by local groups, for local people, across the borough. A total of ?630,000 is available to be shared between groups across the borough. The funding will provide financial support for local community led projects that enhance inclusion, improve neighbourhoods and develop stronger communities. We are encouraging applications from new and emerging groups; Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic groups; as well as established community and voluntary sector groups. Applicants can apply online at https://southwarkgrants.co.uk/ .The fund closes at 12 noon, Monday 11 October 2021.

For the curious out there, there?s a fascinating government tool online where you can do a financial benchmarking of specific schools and see how much local schools receive and spend, broken down into detailed categories, and either on a total, per pupil etc basis. https://schools-financial-benchmarking.service.gov.uk/BenchmarkCharts I found it interesting.

Yep they are planning to bring it back in house - on the agenda for next week?s cabinet https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101258/Report%20Gateway%201%20-%20Procurement%20strategy%20approval%20insourcing%20the%20leisure%20service.pdf There?s a draft project plan with a June 2023 end date but no interim milestones https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101262/Appendix%201%20Leisure%20insourcing%20phased%20project%20plan%20-%20Sept%2021.pdf

I?ll confess that I?ve never given much thought to what happens with an insolvent academy and who is/ becomes responsible for what. I?ll google it but if anyone has a summary do post it.

Seems to be an anti LTN protest at he closed junction this morning.

My interpretation is that Southwark (and possibly other councils in London) got the forecasts a bit wrong, no idea of the whys and hows but all the councillors seem very coy when the issue comes up in council meetings. Of course it?s possible that demand is rising in some parts of the borough and falling in others due to changing demographics / development in some areas (for example where estates have been replaced by new developments with a higher proportion of investment properties/ air B and B etc. Or maybe more people are escaping to the country?

Yes there are various references to falling rolls scattered through documents. This months capital monitoring report says this: ?The overall context is that there is spare capacity in the primary sector (spread unequally across the borough) because of falling rolls relating to a reduced birth rate, exasperated by Covid-19 and a slowdown in growth in the secondary sector. Opportunities are being explored for rationalisation of buildings to make the best use of existing assets to reduce running costs for schools. There is also pressure to increase pupil places for children with special needs, which is a national issue for all education authorities. The school expansion projects have now been successfully handed over with Charter School East Dulwich being the only key remaining project currently onsite. This includes the sixth form centre and resource base with a targeted completion date of September 2022. 54. The main works on Rotherhithe School are progressing well, and target completion and decant into the new school is scheduled for December 2021, with demolition of the existing school and landscape works to follow, completing in June 2022. In addition, design work on Riverside Primary School is underway to re-provide defective early years classrooms, dining and safe access into the school, with work anticipated to start on site in 2022. Both Riverside and Beormund may need additional capital investment to complete the projects. These projects are being evaluated and will be brought forward if recommended by officers. 55. Any proposals to rationalise the supply of school places to ensure schools can operate their buildings economically may require capital investment from 2022-23. The potential need for any future investment will be brought to a future Cabinet assembly as appropriate.? There is a general point about central funding, no doubt, but this specific audit reports deals with specific problems at the two River Hill Federation schools, including the lack of proper budgets and no full time bursar for a 15 month period, as I read it there are some problems separate from overall funding formula.

Just flicking through documents on the Southwark website and cam across this Appendix to the internal audit report on the agenda for an upcoming audit committee meeting. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101348/Internal%20Audit%20and%20Anti%20Fraud%20Progress%20Report%20September%202021%20-%20Appendix%202.pdf Audits of schools happen in the normal course but ?Due to the number of schools facing financial difficulties, which present a significant risk to the school and local authority, for a temporary period, BDO LLP as the Council?s internal auditors, were asked to refocus attention onto the schools budget and school financial strategy.? The report deals with six schools selected by the director for education because of concerns about financial management, including Dog Kennel Hill, slightly worrying it has an overall deficit of around ?570k (and is amber /red on all its ratings). St Francesca Cabrini is also on the list but fares better, problem there seems to be a falling roll. The report goes on to say that ?We are conducting a separate review regarding the Council?s departmental response to schools in financial difficulties. This will directly address the findings and issues raised in the six reports and determine the appropriate processes by which the Council can support these schools.? I don?t think I?ve seen much about this in news / general council reports, thought it worth flagging up as very few members of the public are going to bother looking at Appendix 2 of a Council internal report which doesn?t mention the word ?schools? on the website link...

Heartblock it seems like you can add the Council?s inability to interpret demand for school places to your list, I suspect this is going to be the next big drama - the council seems to have predicted massive demand and built new schools at a time when demand is falling and now some schools will close due to financial unsustainability. See eg https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/exclusive-st-johns-walworth-could-close-by-september/. Whenever the subject comes up in council meetings everyone tries to close it down ASAP with a statement about birth rates falling across London. Features in this months? capital report to Cabinet - ?The overall context is that there is spare capacity in the primary sector (spread unequally across the borough) because of falling rolls relating to a reduced birth rate, exasperated by Covid-19 and a slowdown in growth in the secondary sector. Opportunities are being explored for rationalisation of buildings to make the best use of existing assets to reduce running costs for schools.? Loving the inadvertent use of exasperated instead of exacerbated. I?m sure someone there is probably exasperated!

At a guess some of it is traffic trying to get out of the LTN area and head west or north west? As they can?t exit via Court Lane into DV or Turney or via Townley onto edg during restrictions? I?m thinking the traffic turns right into the 205 from LL? northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry Alice - you are saying that the Dulwich LTN > hasn't worked because cars are turning right out > of Townley Road onto Lordship in the direction of > Forest Hill is showing that the LTN's haven't > worked? > > I'm interested because there are no southbound > restrictions on Dulwich Village or Burbage Road so > its unlikely to be displaced traffic travelling > from the west to go south east. Traffic coming > from the East would always have gone down Lordship > or somewhere east of that where there are no LTNs, > so what is the effect you're commenting on here > please?