legalalien

I don?t think they?ll proactively publish the info (Cllr Leeming has said as much on Twitter, citing GDPR). That?s assuming that the application was put in by individuals and FoDS isn?t a separately constituted organisation. You could put in an FoI request. In terms of individual names, there?s not a blanket exclusion on release of personal data in response to an FOI request, you?d need to head off a response relying on GDPR by making some arguments about legitimate interests and necessity (see about page 17 of this ICO document https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1213/personal-information-section-40-regulation-13.pdf, and see what the Council decides. Worth noting that where individuals (as opposed to organisations) apply for funding they have to specify a properly constituted organisation to receive the funding on their behalf, as Southwark won?t pay money into individual bank accounts. So information about the identity of the organisation put forward to receive the funds should be disclosable without any GDPR concerns arising. (Info about this is in the guidance notes for the application https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/10382/Neighbourhoods-Fund-guidance-notes-2021-22.pdf) Depends how much people really want to know! Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so @legalalien do you know if people can ask to > see details of who is behind this project? the > councillors must know so isnt this public > information?also if something depends on whether > or not they get a license, what happens to the > money if the license is refused?

Or, if there?s no road closure and a plan to direct bicycles around the edge in some yet unspecified way, arrange a mass cycling protest on a circuit through the junction... this space is actually supposed to be part of the Quietway after all :)

It's actually part of the Neighbourhoods Fund. (Info here https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/grants-and-funding/neighbourhoods-fund-2021). The decision notice isn't published yet so can't double check which of the other projects may have been partly funded rather than funded in full - the ?3k could possibly have been used to top up other projects. Alternatively, the DV ward could have picked up a bigger share of the Dulwich Festival funding this year, which would have freed up the ?3k for projects who had applied to the Dulwich Hill and Dulwich Wood and Goose Green wards. So I don't buy the "we had no choice but to fund" argument. The bigger point is why there weren't a bigger range of applications for funding in the DV ward and I see this as a failure by the local councillors - as Labour councillors in particular I would expect them to be more active in encouraging a wider range of community groups to apply. Which is a small part of my larger concern about the council's "selective engagement" generally (and the decision, as I understand it,to reduce the mandatory number of ward meetings this year from 6 to 2, and to allow both the "south multiward" meetings, where residents do not get a voice, to count as those 2). While on the subject, just to raise awareness, there is a Democracy Fund of ?20k available to fund events for discussion of local issues. Last year's funding was "repurposed" for a charity Xmas project (as large group meetings weren't possible last year), but applications for this year open on 1 April on a rolling basis. I do wonder whether they might be asked to fund publicity for on online meeting to discuss LTN concerns, or an actual meeting once regulations permit. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s92338/Report%20-%20Repurposing%20Democracy%20Fund.pdf PS : it's now academic but if the Democracy Fund can be repurposed by an executive decision by the Leader, I would imagine the same is true of the Neighbourhood Fund - I don't think it's like CIL funding which has a specific statutory basis. I personally would have been happy to give the Dulwich Festival a miss this year and use the funding for something else - but I guess we all have our own priorities...

I always think of the show "Capital City" when I think of yuppies. Just googled and found/ read this - suggests that whereas 80s yuppies were about conspicuous consumption, it's now all about "inconspicuous" consumption... https://newrepublic.com/article/143609/new-yuppies-how-aspirational-class-expresses-status-age-inequality

Rebecka Martinsson on 4 and I like Great Pottery Throw Down although perhaps not hugh brow enough for this thread :) Watched both series of All the Sins (also on 4)recently but not sure whether I enjoyed them. Watched first one and a half episodes of The Serpent but couldn't get into it. Just seen the Laurel and Hardy film is on BBC, didn't see it on release so may give that ago.

Without knowing the area - seems like linking this to an LTN is a bit meaningless / trying to jump on the bandwagon of the current controversy about LTNs? Hoping that joyriding around quiet streets is not a thing.

Yes i think they said ?300 now but they had a quote of ?40-?50k for the long term? What interests me is communities funding being funnelled into the highways budget. Vaguely recall that quite a bit of the DV CIL funding went the same way. But that aside, some great community projects across the wards.

?3k for that thing in ?dulwich Square?. Cllr Leeming feels the need to point out that neither he nor Cllr Newens have ever called it that and that it will be subject to appropriate licensing and social distancing.

Watching the South multiward meeting . Cllr Charlie Smith explaining demand for cycle hangers in GG ward - some new ones going in. East Dulwich Square is the bit outside East Dulwich station. ?12k for a feasibility study into traffic lights or a ped crossing at EDG/ LL. will post details when they go up on the website.

Apparently sparrows (and probably squirrels) mainly only eat yellow crocuses, something to do with carotenoids to correct vitamin c deficiency. Have learned something new today! https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg23130921-200-crocked-croci/

Can recommend Blythe Hill Fields from our recent walking excursions, also a good walk up to the Peabody Estae above Rosendale Road. We actually walked to the Rookery Garden in Streatham the other day (bit of a hike but got to see something different)!

Just watched the first half of the Education and Local Govt Scrutiny Commission meeting tonight live on YouTube. A Q and A with the cabinet minister for Equalities. Was interesting, discussion about the importance of gathering data from communities; not just paying attention to entrenched interest groups (ie diversifying the consultation base) and some questions about equality / air quality from Cllr Ochere which were pretty much batted away and not answered. I hope he perseveres. ETA: just rewatched the first 40 mins or so of this. I found it pretty uncomfortable viewing in a number of respects. Link here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OYVTKN_5AR8. Will leave people to form their own views. EATA: I found this development in Tower Hamlets quite interesting - residents writing to local councillors to demand that they be heard and ask that councillors not be ?whipped? on Liveable Streets issues https://www.eastendenquirer.org/2021/02/bethnal-green-residents-demand-their-councillors-stand-with-them/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Red Bounty bars or blue ones? In the hope that the debate may split along different lines for a change - I am firmly in camp red.

Many petitions going on at present so am posting the link to the general petitions page. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListDisplay.aspx - ending the DV and MG north and nearby experimental road closures - stopping experimental prohibition on no right turn from Peckham Rye West onto EDR (I think this is the proposal temporarily paused) - permanent pedestrianisation of Rye Lane On the other hand: - reopening of Rye Lane to buses - school street at St John?s and St Clements ETA: and now a new petition to open Rye Lane generally http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=500000061

I managed to make an order on the opening day, and very much enjoyed my dinner! You can pre-order earlier in the day, before the opening time.

I don?t know but oddly enough I was planning to walk up there in the next couple of days. Will make sure I do!

Article in today's Times about a pilot scheme where drivers who scrap their cars receive a "transport credit" in return. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/drivers-to-receive-3-000-credit-for-taking-their-cars-off-the-road-zzzwpj6gb?shareToken=0493214e28adc0456941779825c2147c

Just came across these shortish videos, showing views from high points in the area, and enjoyed them so thought I'd share. Apologies if they've been posted before!

"MPs should allow local government to get on with it, and concentrate on the big picture." Is part of the problem that Councils are also taking it upon themselves to concentrate on the "big picture" rather than focus on the wants and needs of their constituents, and the "populism" you describe is a reaction to that i.e. people expect local councillors to listen to and represent their views in a way that they understand MPs generally cannot - and this expectation is not being met? From what I've seen, some of the councillors in Southwark (i) don't seem to be doing a great job of listening/representing; and/or (ii) might be doing so, but are effectively being whipped/ told to toe the party line; or (iii) because they are so focused on the big picture, are engaging more with policy bodies/ lobby groups than they are with their own residents. And frankly, when you have the cabinet member for housing trolling a local residents' association under a pseudonym (and then, when he is removed from his position, other councillors going on twitter straight away to say what a great guy he is), it doesn't give a very favourable impression. MPs also represent their constituents and I applaud those who are prepared to step in and say something when they feel that local government is not working for them, particularly when they are challenging those in their own party (who else is going to stand up for residents if something is going wrong?). In fact I think all democratically elected politicians should put genuine representation of constituents above loyalty to any cause, party political or otherwise. Perhaps I am a bit populist at heart.

Interesting that you mention Underhill, Raeburn. I was reading about the Southwark Cycling / Will Norman meeting last March that someone had posted on Twitter- the map from his slide deck shows that area of East Dulwich as being some sort of ?liveable neighbourhood? ie up for traffic calming or road closures etc. But I?m not sure I?ve seen anything from Southwark about proposals / the idea of that? https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/the-dr-will-norman-talk/ Am I reading the map correctly?

Funny you should mention gentrification, as the more council things you read or watch the more this comes up as an issue. I was reflecting yesterday on the contrast between the council?s proposals to take away community green space to put more houses on the Priory Court Estate (the one involved in the recent Cabinet member Twitter scandal), and its enthusiasm to create more community space in a wealthy area already well-endowed with parks, sports fields and gardens. Perhaps some infill housing on ?Dulwich Square? might be appropriate if the closure stays in? I doubt that has crossed anyone?s mind.

I personally have no problem at all with through commuters but I seem to recall it was one of the key arguments being used to drive the original OHS plans. Happy to be wrong.

Interesting that Cllr Rose concludes that because many of the addresses of those ticketed are outside Dulwich, it?s being used as a commuter through route. Surely some of these will be eg tradespeople working in Dulwich, delivery drivers, people working locally but living out of area (eg teachers at local schools), people working at local shops, people going to medical appointments - all kinds of things without being ?through? commuters? I hope we?re not going back to the narrative that all the traffic locally is traffic that shouldn?t / has no need to be there.

Did anyone catch Ella?s mum and Little Ninja on TalkRadio last night (think they were discussing LTNs and the Simon Still/ LCC Twitter thing? I missed it. Can?t seem to find it online, just wondered how it went.

Maybe we could just classify posters into tribes, D&D alignment style, rather than try and find potential duplicate accounts? There is a bigger issue here about local democracy and the relationship between councillors and constituents, the role of political parties in local government, the amount of whipping that goes on, whether councillors' loyalty / focus is with their ward constituents, their LA political party organisation or their national party organisation. Voters expect them to represent constituency interests, and with the way the system works this is perhaps naive? Is there a "councillor culture" that doesn't sit well with the formal rules, that happens because every other councillor is acting in a similar manner, so it all seems OK?