legalalien

That?s because they have. The council?s policy is to consult disability and cycling groups on traffic management orders that affect them. Choosing one at random (I just put CPZ into the search engine and this came up), the description of the consultation process for the Croxted CPZ is: ?12. Notice was also given to non-statutory consultees including: Transport for London, Southwark Disablement Association, Southwark Disability Forum, Southwark Cyclists, Living Streets and London Travel Watch.? Policy at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/traffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/traffic-management-orders?chapter=2. Note that SC also seem to be consulted on relevant experimental orders where no advance public consultation is required eg http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s91051/APPENDIX%201%20PECKHAM%20RYE.pdf first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do find it slightly disconcerting that reps of > Southwark Cycling have such intimate knowledge of > the ins and outs of recently introduced CPZs in > the area. It does give the impression that they > have somehow been party to stuff that mere > residents have not been.

Refresh of the Southwark Council Plan Quick heads up. The council has a four year plan covering 2018-2022 setting out its priorities. They are currently undertaking a ?refresh? exercise. Cabinet has agreed on this document, it goes before the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at a public meeting on 9 November, there was (apparently) a six week period for public consultation which ended on 20 October ? it?s due to go to the Council Assembly for approval on 25 November. Worth a read to get a feel for various Council priorities ? also includes a report on 2019/20 performance. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6738/Public%20reports%20pack%20Monday%2009-Nov-2020%2018.30%20Overview%20Scrutiny%20Committee.pdf?T=10 You can email for details of the online meeting. It will include an interview with the new leader of the council, Cllr Kieron Williams. Edited to add - was intrigued to see a "Local Funds" item on the Oversight and Scrutiny Commission's work plan, referring back to a meeting in October 2019. If you look at the minutes of that meeting it's this: "LOCAL FUNDS The committee discussed this piece of work, which is focussed on assembling a clear picture of the funding programmes available to local people to bid for. Finance officers had drawn up a spreadsheet as a starting point. Committee members agreed that this was a very useful document and could be developed further. One specific suggestion was to add cabinet members areas of responsibility. Cllrs Humaira Ali and Alice Macdonald agreed to take it away for more work and bring back a proposal" At least it's not just us members of the public that find it hard to keep track!

Yes that?s right. The crowdfunding is a red herring. None of us knows how much the decorations cost. My point re Cllr McAsh is that if you think the RA has acted inappropriately, maybe funding them again is a bad idea. Whether or not the RA claimed this year?s funding is irrelevant to that.

I think I?ve been pretty transparent about what I have and haven?t been able to find out and what documents I?m basing it on. I could waste the council?s time by putting in an FOI request (never done that before, always up for a new experience), but life is too short. For anyone who thinks the decorations are offensive, maybe just email the ward councillor, Cllr McAsh, and say you?re concerned, can he think about this when considering the current funding round*. Given how tight things are for the council financially it would be strange to fund a particular residents? assn street party three years running in any case. * I have zero idea whether any application is being made this year.

It implies that they had a pot of money they could spend on the four parties mentioned. We?re clearly not going to agree on this!

I don't agree. And in fact "this", which is singular, sounds more like it applies to the Halloween thing. The previous year's application uses identical wording so sheds little light... Anyway, I'm sure they could confirm that absent any summer parties they'll either be forfeiting the funding or giving it back. nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?The application is clearly for both summer and > Halloween parties as I read it.? > > I read it that the ?Halloween play street booked > for next weekend? is background to their > application for summer street parties in ways they > are keeping their residents ?connected and > engaged?

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?And click on "Funding Awards Decision 2020/21" > you'll see a list which shows that there was an > award of ?500 for application 1316109, which is > the one quoted above (so ?500 of the ?750 applied > for). ? > > This though was for street parties in the summer > which I guess didn?t go ahead, so probably money > not awarded, due to lockdown The application is clearly for both summer and Halloween parties as I read it. In past years I believe that the process has been for the successful applicant to invoice the council shortly after approval and prior to the event (and then provide info about the event once it has happened). Obvs have no idea what the RA did or didn't invoice for.... Anyhow, a useful heads up to people about the existence of the funding and the sorts of things that are awarded funds. On the consultation point, the statutory consultees are who they are, but if Southwark chooses to consult other groups (for example it appears to have built Southwark Cyclists into its consultation process), I agree it would make sense to have a broader range of these.

its' quite hard to know what has happened. The application refers to the summer parties and says "We are a Resident's Association of 3 streets (plus a couple of connected streets) with the aim of connecting our residents and creating a better local environment in which we all can share. This year with the help of funding we held 3 separate street parties over Summer (Melbourne Grove, Derwent Grove & Tintagel Crescent), and have a 3-road Halloween play street booked for next weekend on Derwent Grove for all residents within the VRA to come together and join in. We would like to repeat this in 2020 to help keep our residents connected and engaged, especially as this raises the VRA profile and encourages engagement with the Association which helps us better understand and tackle local issues when they arise." The application process is annual, so the "next week" referred to is Oct 2019 and the aim is to repeat, presumably a similar range of parties (both summer and Halloween) in 2020. The South Wards multiforum page only has the agenda which recommends funding. Then - if you do a "decision" search on South Wards decisions in the general decision finder, you see that the decision from this meeting is "Closed - Reason 3". I have no idea at all what that means. Maybe they couldn't allocate this year's funds due to a global pandemic? (I think I've now used up today's patience in trying to navigate the council website). It seems maybe noone got funds this year....Don't know! PS there was an allocation for street parties for the previous year though:) http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=52262 PPS I think I have got there. If you go to this page https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/empowering-communities/empowering-communities-south And click on "Funding Awards Decision 2020/21" you'll see a list which shows that there was an award of ?500 for application 1316109, which is the one quoted above (so ?500 of the ?750 applied for). Why is this so difficult!! As before, happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong. I am probably a bit of a grinch but I can think of better things for the council to be spending its money on in all honesty!

If I?ve got that wrong I apologise (it would help if they posted minutes)- although generally I think the approve the recommendations? The application refers to Halloween as well as the street party as I read it.

I think they have - see agenda item 8 (?750 vale residents assn) http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6618/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2025-Feb-2020%2019.00%20South%20multi-ward%20forum.pdf?T=10

They certainly applied for it. Will double check.

I?d consider opposing any application to the council for neighbourhood funding for this next year. Have just shown it to someone who hasn?t been following the ltn issue and they thought the Yule one should be reported to the police.

It?s terrible out there. As noted above it?s partly due to a temporary traffic light where repairs are happening - but it does illustrate the point made earlier about the need for some redundancy in the road network - something going wrong on one of the key routes is a frequent occurrence. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well..... EDG this morning...an utter disaster. > Idling traffic from LL all the way up. If you are > waiting for the 42 or 37 bus...live in hope. All > pumping out fumes as they sit in traffic and > children walk past to school.

Lots of traffic on EDG but this is partly due to one Lane being blocked where the water main repair is needed - there?s a temporary traffic light. As a result Carson DV unable to turn right into EDG and because of the new one lane thing cars can?t go straight ahead into red post hill either. I imagine traffic is backing up at the other end of eDG as well. Hard to draw conclusions as to what would happen absent the pavement repairs.

Yes, some people in favour - Southwark Cyclists and Clean Air for Dulwich. KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow that's simply insane. > Anybody here think this change is good - even a DV > resident ?! > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But Ex- the council appears to view the ETROs as > a > > licence for stupidly...take a look at the > > attached...who thought this was going to be a > good > > solution at the DV/EDG junction? You can only > > presume the person who planned this is 1) > really > > stupid or 2) looking for ways to create so much > > congestion that people choose another route. > > > > Who would have had to have signed this off? > There > > appears to have been gridlock in DV today as a > > result - who is being held to account? We keep > > hearing from councillors let it bed in, we need > > time to assess but in my mind if the council > > continues to do things like the attached they > > should lose the power to do this. > > > > Any sane person can look at that photo and > predict > > what will happen - you don't have to be a > planning > > genius to see what will happen. This is why the > > council are under so much pressure and why the > > majority of residents are up in arms about > these > > closures - they're just stupid.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It says ?the post you?ve been looking for has been > removed? Hmm. Works for me but I am logged in. Suspect you have to register with the nextdoor site and select the appropriate neighbourhoods to see stuff. Anyway, mainly complaints about delays in Croxted and Rosendale as you might expect..

Not sure if this link will work but here?s the ?concerned with the closures? link on nextdoor from folk on the other (HH, Rosendale, Gipsy Hill) side of things... https://nextdoor.co.uk/news_feed/?post=17592195198437&comment=17592211247165&is=notification_center A number of them are not thrilled with the knock on effects.

I think it is maybe a function of the structure of councils and the fact that councillors look after the interests of their wards (as they perceive them based on their social group within their wards)rather than looking at the big picture - although presumably that?s the job of the cabinet / the various committees. With so many councillors from one party it feels like some of the checks and balances are missing as it would be human nature for Labour Councillors to trust that other councillors would do the right thing in terms of the big picture. That?s just a suspicion. I think it might be dawning on some people hence the good questions that some councillors from other wards have been asking. May be worth emailing them (Cllrs Burgess and Werner) directly.. have been pondering doing that. But then there might be a ?closing ranks? effect. I?m not sure what to think any more. One thing I have concluded is that it?s important to keep local media healthy and we should maybe all spend more (some!) time reading local news, as they do report on stuff. See https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/ https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/category/south-london-news/southwark/ heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for voicing my concerns, it is unbelievable > that a Labour Council is putting in schemes that > benefit the wealthy streets with fewer schools to > the detriment of the poorest streets with the most > schools.

Another pic

The Lane has bollards so straight ahead traffic does have to wait behind any right indicating traffic that is yet to move out into the middle of the junction. That includes the P4.

I thought that might be it. It?s something the Safe Routes people were asking for a while ago I think. Does it not need a TMO? Anyway, let?s see what happens in practice - I imagine the timing is going to be key, and I expect many cyclists will continue to do what they do currently, ie come up the right hand side of cars to get to the front of the queue. How does the conflict between left turning traffic and the cycle lane get resolved? Is there a left turn arrow?

Hadn?t seen this before but it is interesting reading: a traffic management study of Dulwich commissioned by Southwark, final report in April 2018. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf Lots of interesting info about the profile of trips within / to and from Dulwich, and also info about things like relative air quality, casualty hot spots etc (locally and as against Southwark averages) - basically hot spots are LL and Dulwich Common. Was quite surprised how the number of car trips to schools stacked up - significantly fewer than most places. What is also striking is the very small number of responses given to consultations (scroll to end).

Just saw this post on our local next door forum thing. Is it true? They have been doing some sort of road works along the side of DV. (I think the poster means Dulwich Way/ EDG rather than Half Moon Lane) ? 12 hr ago Dulwich Village and Half Moon Lane Junction. They?ve put in a right filter at last from Dulwich Village onto Half Moon Lane BUT they have put in a cycle lane on Dulwich Village so through traffic can?t go up Red Post Hill. One assumes buses and ambulances can go that way? It?s a fairly main route to the hospital so not sure why they?d close it?

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-02/GLA%20Part%204%20-%20The%20campaign.pdf Here?s the electoral commission stuff which covers the ?imprint? requirement ie the wording you refer to but they do say that they don?t otherwise regulate campaign content and can?t comment on its legality. Don?t think it would be passing off territory as there?s no element of passing off the promoter?s services as tfl goods/ services. Looks like the Electoral Commission are concerned but probably legal? https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/uk-general-elections/report-2019-uk-parliamentary-general-election-was-well-run/depth-campaigning-2019-uk-parliamentary-general-election#misleading-campaign-techniques-risk-undermining-voters?-trust

Don?t like the sound of it. Can you post a pic?