legalalien

I haven't quite got my head around whether they generally delete things out of the plan when they become defunct, as it's all online.

I got mine today as well and ordered similarly.

Just browsing through this month's Council Forward Plan. Some upcoming things that might be of interest: Decision on Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (following recent consultation) - due June 2021 Decision on Minor Traffic Schemes 2021/22 Batch 2 due May 2021 (these are usually small things dotted around like removal of parking spaces, yellow lines etc). More interestingly, the future decision on the Nunhead CPZ does not appear in this month's plan, and it also seems to have been retrospectively removed from last month's plan. I took a screenshot of it as I thought that all trace of the firm plans to implement the borough wide CPZ might well disappear!

Just spotted an item on Facebook regarding revised plans for demolition/ redevelopment of buildings at 40-46 Solomons Passage which I believe overlooks Peckham Rye? I don?t have a view, just posting for info. What on earth has gone on here? https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/condemned-blocks-flats-due-demolished-refurbishment/ https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=QJN3F3KBJD700&activeTab=summary Seems as though comments on the application are due in by 10 April.

There seemed to be lots of Cyclists (the lycra clad, male, expensive bike, whizzing noise as they pass you kind) in Calton/ DV last weekend, but not so many this weekend, just regular cyclists. If the "count day" turns out to be last weekend or if there was a spike last weekend it would be interesting. If not I am possibly turning into a conspiracy theorist.

Yes, it was more about the cost. Labour / LDs are responding differently to the announcement that the Bakerloo Extension has been put on hold (see https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/tfl-mothballs-crossrail-2-and-bakerloo-line-extension-because-of-pandemic/5110836.article). The Labour approach seems to be that the Council should keep pushing for it to be funded and not consider alternatives ; the LDs are saying it's not going to be operational until something like the 2040s at best, so it's imperative that the Council looks at cheaper alternatives (may not be cheap, but we need something sooner than then, approach). Hence suggesting an investigation into what would be possible re trams. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Objected or asked how it would be paid for - think > it was the latter before the public lynching > starts. I also think its a good point - if money > is available, then great, but its a good question > upfront before lots of time and therefore cash is > poured into this.

At the moment it?s unclear whether TfL have enough money to finish Crossrail, it seems: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/tfl-admits-london-underground-projects-20199323.amp The tram proposal has been put forward in the context of it looking increasingly unlikely that the Bakerloo line extension will happen any time soon. Which is a problem as the council is relying on the BLE to hit ?more homes? and other commitments.

At the moment it?s unclear whether TfL have enough money to finish Crossrail, it seems: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/tfl-admits-london-underground-projects-20199323.amp The tram proposal has been put forward in the context of it looking increasingly unlikely that the Bakerloo line extension will happen any time soon. Which is a problem as the council is relying on the BLE to hit ?more homes? and other commitments.

Worth watching the discussions on trams at last night?s cabinet meeting in YouTube, it was a bit fractious throughout - key Labour concern seems to be that LD focus on trams doesn?t dilute push for Bakerloo extension. Not at all traffic related , but the discussion about the ?golden goodbye? payment to Cllr Pollak. Watch from 3:26:30 onward to about 3:35 and see what you think...

Worth watching the discussions on trams at last night?s cabinet meeting in YouTube, it was a bit fractious throughout - key Labour concern seems to be that LD focus on trams doesn?t dilute push for Bakerloo extension. Not at all traffic related , but the discussion about the ?golden goodbye? payment to Cllr Pollak. Watch from 3:26:30 onward to about 3:35 and see what you think...

Agree it looks interesting. Amusing to see that the tweet indicates Southwark Labour are supporting a motion about trams - it?s true, but fails to flag that it was an opposition motion brought by the LD councillors :) Did anyone watch the meeting / did the ED businesses get to speak?

The thing is, a borough-wide CPZ is provided for in the Council's signed off Movement Plan and associated documentation from 2019(https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/transport-policy/policy-and-guidance-documents/movement-plan). Which was consulted on (although it passed me by completely). So rightly or wrongly, I think CPZ will be rolled out in some form across the borough - I think the earlier document was probably an accurate indication of the council's thinking/ planning. I don't think I have a particular view on the idea of a CPZ tbh. I suspect the devil is in the detail as regards parking outside retail areas, permits for health workers etc?) One of the politically controversial points seems to be the idea of removing free parking on estates (where they still have it). One of the LD councillors has been making the point for a while now that it seems strange that on some estates residents have to pay for cycle hangar space but not car parking - given the Council's stance on cars. (she said, derailing her own "factual" thread).

Also an interesting summary of cycle hangar roll out and waiting lists on the agenda http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s94701/Cycle%20Hangars%20-%20Feb%202021.pdf

Wasn?t trying to make a point actually just thought people might be interested. I?m quite a fan of school streets as it happens.

Some kind of table of schools which have identified as feasible for /perhaps don?t want school street closures locally http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s94700/School%20Streets%20Schemes%20-%20Feb%202021.pdf Given DCPS (assume they mean DPL) and Kingsdale have been identified, is a school street for Alleyn Park on the cards?

Agenda for Thursday?s Environmental Scrutiny Commission meeting now up with what looks like an entirely different parking briefing... http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6957 ETA: the comparison with the original document looks like it will be telling

Bit behind this week, but here?s the link to info about tomorrow?s Council Assembly meeting http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6775&x=1 Some public questions about LTNs (based on last meeting expect these may be given written answers offline), request by Dulwich area independent high street business to give evidence on the general local economy theme. Other interesting things including an LD member?s motion advocating return of trams to Southwark. At 6.2 on the agenda info about allowances paid to councillors, and LDs asking questions about whether / what ?loss of office? payment may have been made to the outgoing cabinet member for housing (after his Twitter scandal related departure).

Plus I think I saw (not sure where - possibly twitter), that the hard copy leaflets went to residents on Melbourne Grove but not the businesses (who were missed out last time) - similar for closures on Rye Lane. The One Dulwich FoI info is also on their website. Not sure what the base data looked like / how they extracted the positive info, but looks interesting... https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-village-junction

Yes that works for me, where do I need to get to?

Heteromysis hornimani. Love it.

Just to add, although headed Dulwich Healthy Streets this review also includes the experimental measure at Champion Hill, which wasn't part of the original Dulwich OHS discussion I don't think (and I guess is sort of ED/ Denmark Hill border).

Here are the second two pages, including brief description of review process.

Just had a council flyer about review through the letterbox. Pics of first two pages attached.

Just had a flyer with info about the review process through my letterbox. Will take some pics and post on other thread.

I agree Siduhe and I also think that there needs to be a way of ensuring that the voices of those who work in the area, while living outside the area, are heard. I will be forwarding info to tradespeople I have used who work regularly in this area, it would be good if local businesses could make staff and regular customers aware.