legalalien

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?

Northernmonkey - I guess because in order to be able to attribute an increase to the LTN (rather than other factors) you need to have a baseline as close as possible to before the date that the LTN goes in? I had another question about cycle counts. The LTNs move motor traffic from some streets to others; and similarly move cycles from some streets to others ie existing cyclists presumably, where they can, move from busy streets to now quiet streets. So you?d expect some of the increase on eg Calton to be cycles that previously used say Gilkes or EDG (and a corresponding decrease in cycles on those roads depending where the counter is), so presumably discerning whether there?s an overall increase or decrease in cyclists(rather than an increase or decrease on a particular route) would, in circumstances where there are only a small number of counters, be better done by something like a survey of residents rather than a count?

Reading through some of the papers for next Tuesday?s Cabinet meeting, noted this in the revenue monitoring report. ?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.? Full report at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101231/Report%20Revenue%20monitor.pdf Reading the report as a whole it?s definitely the case that the Council is in need of additional income. Interesting read as to where the problem areas are. ETA for anyone interested in the state of council finances the capital report is also interesting. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101232/Report%20Capital%20Monitor.pdf. There?s a section on transport etc, looks like they have some TfL funding for cycle parking and have a plan for 50 lamp OST chargers. How to fund necessary housing improvements and new homes promised without unsustainable external borrowing looks like the big challenge.

Ironically, I imagine that by withholding the data the Council is increasing the likelihood of court action by One Dulwich and an associated disclosure exercise, which would likely require disclosure of a lot more than just the raw data. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is pointing out key data that was promised is > missing really "straining every sinew"?

I think that the more people use the available mechanisms to raise awareness with councillors and council officers the better, whatever they may be. So up to all of us to spread the world about how those mechanisms operate.

A new document has been added to the Southwark website explaining the petition process, see https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD1052&ID=1052&sch=doc. Explains what happens based on number of signatories and things you can petition about (for example you can ask for a senior officer to come to a meeting and be held to account, which I didn?t know). Worth a read, for anyone interesting in campaigning on any local issues.

The question is though, whether the reduction in the number of journeys / people using cars is offset or more than offset by the increase in the time and distance of the remaining journeys, plus any increases in deliveries etc where the former car user elects to have something delivered rather than switch to an ?active? journey. And that?s the data we just don?t seem to have. This paper is interesting re lack of data/ studies. https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/OutputFile/7520718

There was a lot of extra traffic northbound on Dulwich Village yesterday (stationary along the stretch between the two traffic lights) so I guess a fair bit of the traffic was diverted that way. Fortunately school holidays so the schools were closed.

Interesting 2019 presentation from the project team at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/11530/alpha-report.pdf. These guys don?t seem to be the problem. What concerns me is that there is a big problem (in Southwark and elsewhere) in tracking this stuff, while councils use developers? potentially unfulfilled promises as firm evidence of achievement of social housing goals.

I think it?s when the occupier has shared ownership with the housing association and they pay to have a bigger percentage, kind of like buying more shares in a company?

As some people will be aware there has been some discussion in various council meetings about the council?s seeming inability to keep track of whether developers are complying with their contracted obligations to provide social and affordable housing, and for how long the housing stays affordable. The council paid a couple of hundred thousand for an IT system to do this several years ago but there?s no sign of a working system Campaign group https://www.35percent.org/ seem to have been digging on this and I?ve just seen an FOI response online that people might be interested in - at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_about_the_monitoring#incoming-1849828 Not the initial response (where the council failed to provide the relevant info), but the one given after a request for review - scroll down to the 6 August response. Here?s a summary by a council officer as at Jan 2020 ?Following our call on Friday afternoon, below is a summary of the situation with the AH monitoring project. 2016 - Southwark made several promises after the Ombudsman found that were had failed to properly monitor AH. 2017 - An audit of 11,999 properties found that it was not possible to link the newly created addresses of properties held by housing associations and the council, with the reference on historic planning applications and legal agreements. 2018 ? Planning department agreed to procure the services of an agency to help design and develop an AH monitoring service. This was delayed for 12 months following the award of contract. 1 2019 - The research outlined why it will never be possible to link existing properties with historic planning records - there is a disconnect between the planning and the physical / build world. Dxw and I designed and developed a service to resolve this issue and handed it over to the council in December 2019. 2021 - This service still has not been used by the planning department. 2016 - 2021 - Five years on, we are still not monitoring AH, as promised. This delay has now been picked up by the 35% campaign, councillors and the housing scrutiny committee. .... Further delay is likely to result in increased interest from the 35% campaign and the media (local news and journals such as Inside Housing), and most likely a second complaint to the ombudsman (we would be in no position to justify the five year delay and I understand that a repeat offence carries a harsher penalty). Last year we won a number awards and good press for this work, to not be using the service that we paid ?230kof public money for would be embarrassing for both the department and council. Additional embarrassment will come from spending further public money, persisting to try and do this in a way that we have proved, categorically, doesn?t work. ? There are subsequent emails regarding potential ways forward, which involve a trade off between inadequate historical data, risk of human error and much more cost, as far as I can tell. What a mess.

So... moving to cars as a service would presumably reduce the number of cars in existence, as each car would be used more each day. Which would free up on road space currently used for parking. But in the absence of improved public transport, would it reduce miles driven, or increase them ( with eg Uber the number of miles increases presumably as the vehicle has to drive to the pick up destination - the journey is no longer a door to door journey, there are extra miles). Similarly in areas with poor public transport does banning private car ownership lead to an increase in reliance on home delivery services? Once consumers become more used to requesting home deliveries, do they start to use them for increasingly local deliveries / to purchase items that they would previously have walked to collect? I have a suspicion that the answer to the latter is yes, given increased availability of deliveries of small grocery items during lockdowns etc.)p - and look how successful deliveroo and just eat are. I am guessing we don?t know the answer to this yet and it?s a question of trying to predict behavioural change?

I?m happy for the council to stop funding other things that most people would consider ?nice to have? rather than necessary at a time when by their own admission things are tight financially. I don?t think expressing a preference for money to be put into food banks and schools rather than spent on relatively high brow concerts in the leafy part of the borough has any ?chip on shoulder? overtones at all. Perhaps your sneering at Daily Mail readers says more about you, together with earlier comments about they type of people who live in Bromley...

Just walked past the ?square?. There are nearly as many people with hi vis jackets (I assume volunteers preventing cycle/ pedestrian collisions) as there are other attendees, and I?m including patrons of au ciel and those heading into the bookshop. Complete and utter waste of council funds at at time when they?re not exactly flush with money.