legalalien
-
Posts
1,641 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
FAQ
Tradespeople Directory
Jobs Board
Store
Posts posted by legalalien
-
-
Just seen one of the latest tweets with an extract from correspondence between Southwark and TfL, presumably released in response to an FOI request to TfL, in which Dale Foden says local councillors “seem to want blood” as a result of the TfL report about the cause of Croxted congestion,and describes the Turney closure consultation as like “dropping a ten tonne concrete block”.
Interesting thought: after the last couple of years, Mr Foden must be very well aware that a succession of FOI requests are going to be submitted to TfL and that TfL have a history of responding to them thoroughly. Is this a back door way of making a degree of frustration with the councillors public?
Will look for the relevant response on the TfL site.
ETA: link to TfL response here (I haven’t read through it yet)
https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-1820-2223/FOI-1820-2223_Redacted.pdf
Idle thought, I note the various foi requests are limited to emails, which made me wonder if requests could extend to things like text messages and what’s app as well - from a quick google it seems that in principle they can
( from 2017 , would be surprised if it had changed since then)
-
No particular views on this but thought it would be of general interest
https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IssueId=50030768&OptionNum=0
-
Hi all
I’ve previously posted council info about falling primary school rolls in London, reduction in admission numbers at some schools and the difficult financial situation some schools are finding themselves in as a result, in specific threads about St Francesca Cabrini (now closing) and DKH.
The council has now produced an overall strategy paper on the subject which is going to Cabinet on 6 December - its online here:
(Appendix - which has the details of the steps in implementing the strategy - but no information about individual schools - at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s110486/Appendix%201%20Place%20planning%20across%20Southwarks%20Primary%20Schools%20A%20strategy%20for%20future-%20proofing%20quali.pdf)
In short there is a significant oversupply of places across the borough -around 22%- resulting in a need to remove around 19-25 forms of entry. Because school funding follows the pupil, this is sadly going to mean a combination of reduced admissions, amalgamations and some school closures.
Before everyone panics about local schools, it’s important to note that past reports have indicated that schools in this area are generally well-subscribed compared with other parts of the borough, where many of the problems lie. However, there was a reduction in admissions at Dog Kennel Hill last year, and there was also some proposals around Ivydale that I think were reversed following councillor intervention.
The timeline for implementing the new strategy is
“ Cabinet agreement of strategy (December 2022), Schools informed of recommendations (March 2023), Informal consultation (June/July 2023), Statutory consultation (September 2023), Final Cabinet decision (July 2024).”
I’m being longwinded, the point I really wanted to make was that against this background, when considering the primary school you wish to send your child to in Sept 2023 I think it’s worth doing a little due diligence on its financial situation if the school is a council-run school (the situation is different for academies as the council can’t control academy intakes / decide that they should close), and also keep an eye out for any council proposals.
You can find some financial info about schools here:
https://schools-financial-benchmarking.service.gov.uk/
It’s a very difficult situation for the council given they’re supposed to be responsible for the overall picture but seem to have very limited control over the academies. Add to that, there’s a risk, identified in the report, that some schools threatened with closure may opt to become academies to avoid closure.
It sounds as though this is going to be a very stressful time for governors and staff at some schools, hopefully this can all happen as smoothly as possible.
-
For info, the formal decision on closure of the school is to be made at the cabinet meeting on 6 December - more info here
https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?id=65537&LLL=0
For those wondering about the future of the building, the report says
“The councillors made suggestions for the council to keep the building for education purposes. This was explored by the education team, although it is not straightforward as the school building doesn’t belong to the council.”
Southwark’s strategy for the oversupply of places in the borough is also on the agenda for the 6th, I think that deserves its own thread with a separate title.
-
Also on the agenda, report in response to local petition regarding blue badge holder etc access through the Court Lane / Calton junction, and the redesign process
Not sure who all these locals they have consulted with are, I live very local and walk through the junction at least once a day and haven’t heard anything...
-
This document prepared for next month’s cabinet meeting is worth a read. It sets
out the council’s future strategy on use of streets, with particular reference to on street storage of cars and cycles (as previously suggested, borough wide controlled parking, more cycle storage including for hire bikes (hooray!) and e-scooters (not so keen). There’s a specific reference to the south of the borough in this regard so maybe various complaints about badly parked hire bikes have not fallen on deaf ears.)
https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s110560/Report%20Streets%20for%20People.pdf
This bullet point makes me wonder whether removal of on street parking in Croxted might be in the offing:
“ Parking controls that enable the council and TfL to deliver much-
needed comprehensive bus prioritisation schemes that improve the journey times, frequency and ridership of our bus network, through greater confidence in the bus network.”
And this one surely refers to Dulwich:
“29. Creating safer roads and streets for all schools, with improved air quality for those schools on main roads. Tackling local area issues in relation to clusters of schools and the parking and vehicle volumes associated with term time traffic and car use generated by non-catchment schools.” (this is in a list of things to be achieved in the context of greater resident engagement). I think we can all agree on the target but as always the “how, exactly?” is the difficult part.
Parking charges also due for an overhaul. There’s a comment that “Parking is managed on our streets through the implementation of a simple emissions based parking charging structure. The impact of this charging structure on change of vehicle ownership to less polluting vehicles has been minimal.”. Not sure what the implications of that are - removing the discount for EVs and putting parking charges up generally?
Anyway, plenty to digest and speculate about.
-
Thanks for posting that - was wondering about this just last week when I wandered past.
-
So - it seems the decision on Rye Lane has been made and the result is
TFL/bus users 1 Southwark Cyclists 0
i.e. the Council is going for the two way bus option.
The report
“ 4. Recommends that once the bus arrangement has been formalised, further interventions are implemented based on
other feedback received during the consultation. This will include a full review of the restrictions on all Rye Lane side roads. Specific areas to focus on are outlined in Appendix 1 and include consideration of safer cycling infrastructure, increased footway width to ensure pedestrian safety and potential additional space for retail and hospitality, review of side roads for increased public realm and disabled parking, and will support waste management and refuse collection. A further report will be brought should further interventions be proposed on Rye Lane.”
Link to report here
Paragraph 17 is an interesting read, picking out points in Southwark’s policies which justify the decision:
“. The recommendations in this report will support achieving the following objectives of the council’s delivery plan:
24a - Work with local communities to design safer, greener and healthier streets for walking and cycling, prioritising areas with high health inequalities and low car ownership first.
24c - Deliver on our equal pavements pledge, working with older people, those with disabilities and limited mobility to make sure Southwark’s streets are accessible for everyone
25e - Ensure older and younger people, women and our Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities all have a full say, so we design streets and public transport that works for everyone.
25a - Work with TfL to reduce traffic on main roads and and to make bus journeys quicker and more reliable“
(Anyone think the Dulwich scheme ticked these boxes?)
The report on the consultation responses is at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s110311/Appendix%201.pdf
Around 1500 responses, 61% in favour of two way buses. The demographic breakdown of responses is in the Appendix and is pretty much what you would expect.
A lot of responses raised the need for better rubbish clearance and that’s going to be looked at.
-
Melbourne.
What were they thinking scheduling this there so early in the season?
Great that it’s on channel 4.
-
There does seem to be some conflict between the CLP and head office, and potentially a little bending of the rules of Southwark News is to be believed…
As a casual observer, from what I’ve seen of them in past council meetings Evelyn and Peter both seem reasonably well spoken and on top of their briefs. I think it’s better to have local candidates.
Sent from my iPhone
-
Looking at the comments there was a lot of push back on the original proposal, which would have seen West Norwood hived off into Streatham and Herne Hill split up.
(You can see some of the comments given at the oral hearings here. https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/London_PH_Westminster_Transcription-of-day-2.pdf including the reps from the Dulwich Society. The written submissions are on the website linked above. For the technologically challenged like me - when you go to the website and search on postcode, the map will show the proposed new boundaries, if you click on the “boundaries” button you can turn the existing boundaries / boundaries initially proposed on and off.). It looks as though the main change to the D and WN seat is to add the DHFC stadium and Sainsbury’s?
Given how little we hear from / about our local MP other than immediately before elections (and the odd photoshoot relating to the ED sorting office) and how safe the seat seems to be, I find it hard to get too excited about this, even though it is of course important in principle.
-
The decision on it has gone into the Forward Plan this month, with decisions due in December and March
https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50030449&PlanId=739&RPID=6242954
https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50030452&PlanId=739&RPID=6242969
(As well as a decision on the supply of temporary teaching accommodation)
https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50030451&PlanId=739&RPID=6242966
-
They could have paramedics delivering patients to A and E on electric cargo bike instead of an ambulance. Why not.
Like this, you mean?
-
There’s this decision due December, Inthink there is some more background info somewhere
https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50030449&PlanId=739&RPID=6240051
ETA: report as of December last year
Will try and look later and see if any docs since last Dec
-
I think the final phase has ended up being retendered (poss around cost issues)? Will see if I can dig up the link.
-
Yes I move them.
I think we can probably find a workable ebike solution, where hire companies are involved I’d like the council to negotiate sufficient revenue to help fund non hire parking infrastructure. And let’s give escooters a miss 😉
-
Actually went down an internet wormhole earlier and ended up reading an interesting article about the roll out of escooters in Bergen. It was met by a stickering campaign by Norway’s equivalent to the RNIB , who put stickers on scooters found on pavements along the lines of “this scooter has caused difficulties for blind and partially sighted people”.
-
I completely agree, I support the ebike initiative but not the escooter one. But there must be a commercial rationale for offering escooters as well as bikes, so I’m guessing it’s partly cost and partly the fact that there must be some people who would hire an escooter but not a bike. Browsing around the internet this morning it seems like something like 50-60% of escooter journeys are substituting for journeys that would otherwise be walked, I’m not sure the same would be true for ebike use. So maybe a slightly different market. Apart from the safety point, using an escooter instead of walking doesn’t seem particularly beneficial in terms of reduced energy usage or active travel, so I’m still not an escooter fan.
-
There’s an open consultation on proposed improvements to this junction in case anyone wants to comment. Closes on 9 November.
https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/ivanhoe-road-safety-improvements/
-
The deadline for responding to the consultation on the Village junction design seems to have been extended to 20 November
Does anyone else think it odd that the “ before and after” graphics for calton and court have versions of the “before” picture with the “open to traffic” version of the junction that hasn’t existed for years now? Is this to maximise the appeal of the options presented - or have all these side by side pictures - including the Turney Road closure, existed since before the initial “COVID emergency” junction closure, I wonder?
-
Just to confirm, the escooter trial extension and the ebike trial have been approved
https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7739
Hopefully Southwark will be robust in negotiating the MoUs with the ebike operators ( I’d suggest that reimbursement of costs associated with the trial should include a fee to cover internal admin and legal costs but I’ll bet there is a reference to out of pocket costs and some limited categories!)
I am concerned about escooter safety but not in the same way with ebike safety, it would be interesting to understand the degree to which users see one as substitutable for the other. If we have an ebike scheme do we really need an escooter scheme as well? What are the advantages of escooters - are they cheaper / take up less storage space.? Or just more appealing to the younger generation? Does anyone know the thinking on this?
-
In case anyone is interested here is a link to the TfL FOI response that includes the various emails mentioned above (always good to look at the whole thing to see whether any cherry picking is going on!)
It’s here:
https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-1459-2223/FOI-1459%20Redacted.pdf
I found this statement in Cllr Rose’s email to Will Norman quite striking:
“There are various issues and mistakes made in relation to how it was sent out to residents, which I am addressing with officers in Southwark. But the fundamental issue is how TfL approached the piece of work, which was intended to show improvements over time to bus journeys as a result of recent interventions. Instead we have a narrative of TfL being deemed to have passed a guilty verdict on the Dulwich Streetspace scheme. This has set our work back with this community on Croxted Road years in effect.”
In my view TfL should not be approaching its reports with the sort of agenda suggested (“intended to show etc…”, ), rather it should report the situation it observes without an intention to produce a particular conclusion (which it seems is what happened).
Do people think this is illustrative of the councillors’ view more generally of the purpose of the various traffic reports (ie they should be designed to support their positions on policy) or am I reading too much into this?
ETA
There is also this subsequent FOI response with the agenda for the Rose / Norman meeting which indicates some other issues under discussion re various buses, Camberwell station, and (highest priority) resetting the relationship re the Croxted etc discussions
-
Oddly enough I commented to someone earlier today that one person’s “call
for accountability” was another person’s “witch hunt”.
Whatever the policy perspective, bad behaviour is bad behaviour and I really hope that TfL is standing up for its front line employees (sounds like they are) and that any apologies due are delivered.
-
May be something worth emailing the relatively new CEO about - given she is a newcomer she might be prepared to look at the overall process (rather than the detail) with a set of fresh eyes?
Although, looking at the most recent internal audit report, she has a lot to be getting on with (not least the IT department, Major Works, the procurement process and a fair bit of other stuff (including this gem - "We found that there is no regular reporting on risk to the Chief Officer’s Team (COT) or to the departmental senior management teams; the CRR [corporate risk register] is not presented to any further groups for review and the local risk registers are not presented to any of the Council’s committees") - I wish her luck as it looks like a fairly stressful workload).
(for info, some stuff about the Movement Plan going forward at around p 84-86).
Future of Kingswood House
in General ED Issues / Gossip
Posted
The company who are going to run it look interesting
https://www.hartshornhook.com/immersive