legalalien

For info, just gone into the Forward Plan for decision in September - doesn’t indicate which school it is. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50032995&PlanId=783&RPID=9150254

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-orders-review-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-and-says-hes-on-the-side-of-motorists-12930344 Apparently there’s an interview with the PM touching on LTNs in today’s Telegraph, I assume behind a paywall.

I agree, that is quite interesting particularly given the push to build on brownfields sites. I know nothing at all about this but out of interest just had a read of this blog post which I found quite helpful and links to the industry guidance. It does seem as though further testing and risk assessment is something that the employers of those on site need to carry out as the project proceeds, rather than something expected to be done up front as part of the grant of planning permission. https://www.oracleasbestos.com/blog/contaminated-land/asbestos-in-soil-guide/. The industry guidance to construction companies about what they need to do on the investigations front is from about para 164 onward https://www.claire.co.uk/projects-and-initiatives/asbestos-in-soil There seems to be quite a lot of detail, and as the protection of workers extends well beyond just issuing them with protective equipment (eg controlled wetting, low intensity work methods, possibly ventilation) that would presumably provide appropriate protection for neighbouring properties?

No I think the two councillors who voted against were Labour councillors. I have at the back of my mind that there are special rules around planning decisions on that front, but I don’t know on what basis I think that. Time to google! ETA here’s the local government association advice. https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/34.2_Probity_in_Planning_04.pdf

The planning application was approved at a meeting earlier in the week, quite a controversial decision I’d suggest in that the majority of councillors (it was a split decision) overruled the planning officer’s recommendation and approved such a large new building on Metropolitan Open Land due to “special circumstances” that seemed to focus on the gallery’s need for a new revenue source to plug an ongoing hole in its finances (as one councillor pointed out no actual evidence of this had been provided other than statements made in the meeting), a desire for the gallery to expand its outreach programme to local state schools (who seem to have indicated they don’t want to come in the absence of a decent sized classroom space and toilets that better allow supervision from a safeguarding perspective) and the desirability of opening up the meadow next to the art gallery to the public. As I understand it the council are going to try and negotiate an agreement with the gallery about free state school visits as a condition of finalising the approval, but I don’t think anything was said about mandating open access to the meadow, which felt like a bit of an oversight given the councillors voting in favour clearly put a lot of weight on that. In terms of design, also a bit of a strange one, the chair commented that someone had suggested to him that it looked a bit like a public toilet and some of the other councillors also thought it needed a rethink, and there was mention of the need to have further discussion with officers about materials ( I think I heard that the current design reflected input already given from officers on that front and there was some debate about whether approval could be given in principle to a theoretically different design). The official statement of reasons at the end seemed to include some details that weren’t actually discussed which was also odd - I suspect it was designed to make sure as many as possible regulatory boxes were ticked. There was also some suggestion that planning dept had thought the proposal was so “not possible because MoL” that it shouldn’t have made it to the committee in the first place. I’m guessing the local councillor who spoke in favour of the proposal may have had a hand in getting it on the agenda. All in all a bit of a strange one / interesting precedent - you can watch on YouTube.

For info Southwark is planning to update its Parking Enforcement Protocol, principally to reduce / in some cases remove the 5 min observation time before a ticket can be issued, for various types of contravention https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50032081

This paper from think tank Centre for London is worth a read in particular the suggestions of various ways councils could use controlled parking to achieve their policy aims (eg capping numbers of residents permits , not giving new residents an automatic right to a permit as a means of reducing car ownership) https://centreforlondon.org/reader/parking-kerbside-mangement/ The report was part funded by various councils ( not Southwark) so imagine these are options that will be given serious consideration.

Just for info there’s a fairly clear statement of the council’s position in the response to public questions submitted to last night’s Council Assembly https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s115573/Public questions report with responses.pdf As well as the car owners v non car owners fairness point, there’s also the point that it’s not fair for car owners in some parts of the borough to have to pay for parking permits, while others don’t. That was mentioned in the cabinet meeting as a reason for why the council believe the borough-wide roll out has a popular mandate ie it is likely to be supported not just by non car owners but also by car owners living in areas that currently have CPZs. Haven’t watched last night’s meeting but video is here Streets for People promo video here

Officer proposals on various double yellow lines, moving bays, cycle hangars etc in Southwark including local area https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IssueId=50031878&OptionNum=0

Whole subject of borough wide CPZ discussed at yesterday’s cabinet meeting. Documents here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7677 YouTube here (sound quality very poor at start but improves later on.) watch from start, includes deputations from Living Streets and Nunhead CPZ objectors. Cllr McAsh acknowledges change of CPZ approach and says it’s required as a matter of justice - non car owners should not subsididise use of public space by car owners etc. Haven’t watched it all yet but worth a watch if this is an issue you are interested in.

I see there are a lot of public questions on this issue tabled for tomorrow’s council assembly meeting https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s115428/Public question report.pdf

From what I read the new building would be some sort of interactive space, not a space to display children’s art as there are glass walls/ no hanging space - but I stand to be corrected! I like the idea of more child friendly activities (I thought there were some spaces in the existing building for this, plus the renovated cottage is intended as a reception area for school groups - but really don’t like the proposed design of the new building.

I know it’s not strictly speaking in East Dulwich but still relevant to ED residents I think. I noticed on the Southwark website that the planning committee is due to hear an application to renovate/ extend the cottage next to the gallery, to open up and landscape the meadow south of the gallery, and to build a new children’s picture gallery close to the current entrance on Gallery Road. Was surprised that this was the first I’d heard of it - I would have thought it was something that loads of people locally would have been aware of /discussing given the proposed size of the development. Seems I may not be alone in this given there seem to have been only 36 public comments, 34 of which were in support. Officer’s report here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s115298/Report Dulwich Picture Gallery Gallery Road London Southwark SE21 7AD.pdf Seems likely that they will approve the cottage extension and landscaping but not the new building given it’s quite large and this is Metropolitan Open Land - given the way MOL works It seems to me quite difficult to argue the new building is permissible (I also think it’s quite ugly/ unsympathetic to the existing buildings - but that is of course a matter of personal opinion). There’s some suggestion that if the new build doesn’t go ahead then the other changes won’t either, as the funding comes from the new building at least in part (ticketed entry). The planning meeting is on 18 July https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7742

Just following on from the bit about the Movement Plan, don't forget that Southwark did an additional consultation last year on a refreshed Sustainable Transport Strategy - which is quite high level - and I don't know where it has got to - it doesn't look as if it has been signed off yet as I can't see it on the Southwark website (will have a quick look at the Forward Plan and see whether I can spot it). That strategy is to be accompanied by an action plan: "Each objective will be delivered through several actions, which will be included in an action plan. While the strategy has set objectives to be reached by 2030, the action plan will be a working live document and will be used internally to define specific deliverables and projects to keep us on track for the delivery." https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/sustainable-transport-strategy-draft-consultation/. On the specific question of CPZs, I think it's pretty clear from Cllr McAsh's recent approval of the decision on the Old Kent Road CPZ that the council will be pushing ahead with the borough wide roll-out regardless of responses to the consultation, perhaps with some specific tweaks to particular parking bays etc. Seems to be a very hot issue in the OKR area because (i) there is still quite a bit of commercial/ light industry who rely on there being charge-free parking and (ii) there is a lot of new build housing that has been built without associated parking, in part on the assumption of better public transport (Bakerloo extension) that isn't happening. The report and associated appendices are here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7910 Notably (given 87% objections, on not a particularly high number of responses): "Although there were greater number of objections than support for the scheme, officers recommend progressing with the proposals to implement a controlled parking zone in the Old Kent Road area because a CPZ offers an opportunity to rebalance the road space in an area where the majority of people (60.3%) in the borough do not own cars. While there are not necessarily parking issues in all roads at the moment, this proposal protects against the impact of upcoming developments and prioritises space for residents and businesses, as well as supporting our Streets for People approach and Council Delivery Plan to make this a borough for people and not their cars." Worth having a look to see the approach taken to blue badge holders, social workers and carers and (in the Appendices) concerns raised by specific businesses, in case people want to flag up these sort of specific issues in the current consultation.

Admittedly off topic on LTNs, but since we’re in the Lounge now - did anyone see this article in the Times about this less than brilliant expenditure on improving active travel? I mean, I guess it worked well from a bovine travel perspective… Cambridge’s bike-friendly cattle grids fail to stop cows seeking pastures new.https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6739f324-0bbf-11ee-997e-7710367054a0?shareToken=976c0cb18b196c5a23ea5a044af1be69

Here’s the latest report on Southwark’s plans to deal with falling school rolls - on the agenda for the next cabinet meeting https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s114705/Report Keeping Education Strong.pdf Locally, seems as though they are looking at a reduction in the PAN (published admission number) at Goose Green and Bessemer Grange. ETA specific recommendations on these two schools on p19-20 of accompanying report https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s114694/Appendix 2 Keeping Education Strong - Isos Partnership Southwark Primary Place Planning.pdf

So- Denmark Hill made the final but seem to be trailing Wemyss Bay near Glasgow on the Twitter vote. You can vote here: https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/component/rsform/form/49

Denmark Hill now 1% ahead of Okehampton so keep the votes coming in- I have a suspicion that the DHFC massive may be behind the uptick in votes…

I actually wondered if the decision had something to do with DfT not funding LTNs in its latest active travel funding round https://www.localgov.co.uk/LTNs-blocked-from-200m-active-travel-cash/56193 I saw a more detailed article about this a couple of days ago, will see if I can find it.

Am sitting on the platform at Denmark Hill and the announcer has just urged us all to get online and vote for DH in the semifinal of the World Cup of stations. Okehampton seems to be way out in the lead at present… https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/component/rsform/form/46

There’s a really interesting discussion of Southwark’s strategy for dealing with this issue at last week’s Local Economy and Scrutiny Commission, Posting link. ED is in planning area 5, it looks like the next round of proposed changes only involves a PAN (pupil admission number) reduction at one academy in the Goose Green area (not sure that they can force PAN reductions on academies, they did also note that some of the schools where they were suggesting reductions were already below their permitted PAN.). It’s the first agenda item.

Most recent batch of minor traffic schemes here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7845&LLL=0 Various DYLs locally, and blips on the DYL on the corner of Calton and Townley, where parents have been stopping to do school drop offs.

Update on plans for building works at Charter ED, two stage tender process for the remaining part of the site , with actual construction contract to be awarded towards end of this year and works completed by August 2024 as I read it. Southwark stumping up an additional £6.5 million (including £1.5 million for a specialist 20 place ASD resource) and negotiating with DfE to get the rest of the additional funding needed (about £4 million more) out of them. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IssueId=50031696&OptionNum=0 Pics of temp layout and final design are in the Appendices.

For info, council proposals for experimental traffic orders to out in place parking areas for e-bikes and escooters , proposed locations in the Appendix https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50031189

Info online for next week’s south multi ward forum with (v limited) info about grant applicants. Interesting to speculate what the various CGS ones are for, particularly “Save our pedestrians from attack”. “Herne Hill Shady Streets” has a ring to it (assume is about trees rather than something more sinister). Am sure there will be divergent views on the application for neighbourhood funding and the devolved highways budget. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7511&x=1