Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I totally agree with you guys.


I was dismayed to hear ED councillors allocating ?30,000 in CGS underspend funds to bike hangars at Monday night's DCC meeting.


I can't tell from the disjointed public reports whether this is in addition to the approx ?25,000 allocated to bike hangars at the last DCC meeting or whether the ?25,000 was upped to ?30,000.


But this is definitely in addition to the approx ?50,000 of CGS, in total, which has been allocated to Melbourne Grove "traffic calming measures" in the southern part of the road which has an average speed of 19mph. BTW, the conversion of the existing speed cushions into speed humps has now been approved so an engineer is now being paid to work on the detailed design.


So I think we may be looking at almost ?100,000 of devolved public money in East Dulwich being spent on speed humps and bike hangars?


This is why I just want to scream when I hear the excuse of "budget cuts" being used to block works and services that the community is continuously campaigning for...

It wasn't specified at the meeting who had decided on the underspend allocations.


Normally, all three ward councillors have to agree on how the devolved CGS/ Neighbourhood Fund allocations are made. Otherwise, a majority agreement can be made if two councillors outvote one councillor on a decision - this is one reason why there are supposedly three ward councillors in each ward, so that there can't be a deadlock (although this will change next year when the ward boundaries change and some wards will only have two cllrs).


Back when I was a Village ward councillor, we had such a difficult time agreeing to devolved expenditure decisions, that we would often split the devolved funding three ways so that each councillor could at least implement some of the community projects that they felt strongly about.


What worries me now is that it appears that a lot of the community bids are disapproved, but councillors appear to be approving funding for their own bids. I've queried this and apparently this is acceptable, although I seem to remember that councillors couldn't make their own bids in the past, so the constitution must have changed.


Having said that, I always worked with a ward resident or a community group on funding projects as I believed this to be more inclusive. On the third hand, Village ward has more active and vocal community groups and RAs than East Dulwich, presumably because residents in East Dulwich have gotten so fed up...

I am reluctant to get drawn back into this debate having expressed my opinion before. However, Jeremy Corbyn in today's PMQ's blames all of the recent tragedies on cuts to council grants. When we see such a gross waste of public money as these kind of schemes, when there are many more urgent priorities, simply because they are councillor's pet projects makes me mad. Council oversight of all building projects around the area have been complained about on this forum forever. Do we actually think more money would make them do their jobs any better or simply waste even more?

Totally agree with you, Barg.


My experience as a company director, used to dealing with "budget cuts" and priorities, made me horrified at what I witnessed in local government management. I could go on about this for hours, and could give many shocking examples if it wasn't for ex-councillor confidentiality issues.


Identifying council employees doesn't help... I challenged many senior officers in my time (leading to actually the worsening of some issues), but the one overriding factor in local government is "employee rights"... gathering evidence to prove incompetence is extremely difficult and then an officer can't be sacked for doing a bad job - they have to be given second and third chances and an "opportunity" to be "retrained". This then becomes dis-incentivising for the better officers, who inevitably get fed up and leave.


One thing that would help is if the councillor position was reviewed and designated as a full time position with a salary that a human being can live on, as this would attract more competent and experienced candidates. It really is almost impossible for someone with a fulltime job and a family to be an effective councillor. The workload is meant to be shared between the three ward members, but this almost never happens.


In the meantime, we residents in East Dulwich need to figure out a way to be able to stick together... probably a discussion for another thread.

It's a looong, complicated and patchy process, edhistory.


If you start with this link to all the recent DCC minutes and agenda reports, start by working your way through the March 25 and June 26th reports:-


http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=176


Bear in mind, though, that the various ward recent underspend decisions were only made verbally so the written confirmation will only be buried in a public document a week before the next DCC meeting in Sept...


I can explain some of the references if needed (although there are other layers that are more cryptic unless one has been privy to background discussion), but I don't have much time to type at the moment.

Hi bargee99,

With regards to the recent tragedy of Grenfell Tower I think the public inquiry will attribute many many causes to this. Changes in fire measures in 2005. It is hard to contemplate how a renovation of the tower spending ?8.6M or ?72,000 per flat was too little.

Added to that the vandalism of dry and wet risers, vandalised fire doors making the only fire escape stair case impassable to so many, not reporting the original fire for 35mins after it took hold, large quantities of combustible materials placed in hallway lobbies. As well as the now obvious cladding system.


Local bugets. All three East Dulwich councillors agreed to reallocate funds to a study of a proposed new zebra crossing on Whatelely Road, planning enforcement along Lordship lane, new BikeHangars.

On the last point. If we help encourage more people to cycle and drive a little less then our road surfaces will last a little longer.

With regards to those pavement and road surfaces. We have ?33,333 of devolved budget to fix these locally. We've been waiting since March to allowed to allocate these funds - the administration is dragging its feet letting us do this. But I'd welcome everyone's suggestions. Lordship Lane - but in a way where businesses don't have to close for any time losing revenue as they're struggling to cope with the new business rates.

Another completely wasteful visit by Conway this morning. Huge trucks and plant came down to Crawthew Grove to fix two potholes. Why didn't they fix the 21 other potholes at the same time? Presumably so they can charge more money to the council for inevitably having to return to do the rest of the work. What a total a complete waste of everyone's time and money.

I haven't seen this myself but, from past experience, it's sounds like these were emergency "interim" repairs.


Basically, Highway Legislation specifies that potholes of a certain depth are "Health and Safety" hazards and must be addressed immediately, even if just as a temporary measure. I can't remember the depth offhand (been awhile since I've done this)... I think footpaths are 2 inches, roads might be 4 inches?


So a schedule will be made for temporary repairs (usually a plug of tarmac) to be done in severals roads in an area, which is why the truck is so big as it will be driving up and down roads in an entire area bunging in tarmac plugs all day. It's actually more cost-effective to do emergency repairs like this and then schedule more formal repairs for an area later on, as they are different crews using different materials.


If you haven't been given tarmac plugs, but had squares cut in and backfilled, then tarmaced, then it will be a proper H&S permanent repair with the smaller potholes scheduled to be done later.


The next stage will be for the proper permanent repairs to be done on all the potholes in the road... there will be a schedule somewhere of where the repairs are to be done. Bear in mind that permanent works can be delayed if another area is deemed to have greater issues developing (Dulwich is often bounced out of the queue).


So, the easiest thing to do is to track down the relevant council highway officer and explain what has happened and ask him for the date when the permanent repairs are due to be done on the whole road, then keep bugging him if the works get delayed.


It used to be possible to call the department directly, but now everything has gone online, so you may have to email [email protected] or there may be a direct address for [email protected]


Otherwise call 020 7525 2000 and hang on until you can talk to a customer service person who can explain the best way to proceed.


Because I'm a geek, I'll have a look next time I'm down there...

Hi James,

It was the comments about Grenfell Tower by Corbyn and McDonnell that made me revisit this thread. As you point out the changes to fire measures were started in 2005 under a large majority Labour Government now conveniently forgotten. Again I agree with you that an expenditure of ?72,000 per flat is a large expenditure and hardly scrimping. The terrible results are possibly caused by mismanagement or simply by incompetence but most definitely not austerity. The behaviour of K & C council now is simply beyond belief.

Back to the topic of local budgets. Many of us think that the cost of the bike hangers is simply too high. ?50,000 to hang up 60 bikes in the street! As a sole carer for a 94 year old parent I simply want her to be able to walk on the pavements safely. Come on mate, to suggest that these bikes will make any difference to the wear and tear of the roads is a stretch by anyone?s imagination.

I feel your pain about local budgets and their restrictions. I worked for 40 years in Medical Research in a London University before retiring a few years ago. Many years back we wanted to purchase an expensive piece of equipment. We offered to manage our budget for a couple of years to be able to afford it the same as any good household would. We were told very firmly that was not an option and if we underspent this year our budget the following year would be cut because we obviously didn?t need it all. For the equipment we needed we would have to apply for a special grant and hope for the best. The spend it or lose it policy still seems dominant in all walks of public finance even now. How can that encourage responsible spending? Surely this needs a massive shakeup?

About 10 or 12 years ago, time gets a bit distorted once you retire, the University decided that all departments needed a business manager. The business manager then decided they needed an accounts manager. The accounts manager decided they needed a grant manager. Most higher echelons of promotion in the public sector require a person to be managing other people as part of the job description. Hence the creation of this pyramid scheme of employing people. This I also believe to be endemic to all walks of the public sector. Maybe this explains my cynicism of public services actually being run for the benefit of the public and not the staff. Not much encouragement either when the very top staff of universities, health services, government departments, MP?s and councils all seem to have found the money tree for pay rises of 20% or more over recent years.

My understanding is that all the devolved underspend is gone now, Barge. Allocations voted for by cllrs and formally confirmed at the June 26th DCC meeting.


Spare resources are being spent and locked down because the ward boundary changes are due to formally be implemented by next May 2018, with the phasing process starting in October.


We're not even going to be called East Dulwich ward anymore, we'll be designated as Goose Green ward, yuck.


I totally share your view of local government protocol... one sees so much money being wasted on "infrastructure" and internal "priorities" that the actual public only gets leftover breadcrumbs.


This is why I keep talking about us leaving the union and becoming the Peoples Republic of Dulwich... Dexit?


In the interim, it's worth exploring how much we can circumvent obstacles via the Dulwich Society, as per the other thread.

bargee99 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Back to the topic of local budgets. Many of us

> think that the cost of the bike hangers is simply

> too high. ?50,000 to hang up 60 bikes in the

> street!


But have you seen the "I Love West Dulwich" banners soon to be replicated (with different designs) in North Cross Road?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Where did I say he did a good job? Yup and Corbyn was very close to Len McCluskey and funded by Unite wasn't he...they're all as bad as each other... Labour have to purge their party of the far-left - they're a disaster. Allan Johnson summed it up so well on election night in 2019....  
    • Thank you for the detailed advise @trinidad It is definitely damage we are concerned about. I don’t think Evri would agree to pay the bill to fix our gate or letter box if they were to be damaged as a result of their delivery drivers helper. Our doorbell can be heard from outside when rung so we don’t quite believe the aggressive simultaneous door/letter box banging is necessary. It can be quite a shock it is done very aggressively.  I’ll definitely action the steps you’ve kindly provided along with a phone call tomorrow. I do sympathise with the role drivers have and how busy they are, which is why we tried communicating directly with her but sadly we haven’t succeeded 
    • What outcome would you like? Disciplinary action? Not to have the driver back? Retraining? I know there is alot of pressure on drivers to deliver within a set day. if he slams the gate, is it evidence he is causing damage, or is the noise a irritant to yourself? You could put a sign up or buy a signing asking to close the gate gentle???? can you hear the door bell from the door? he might be ringing, not hearing and therefore knocking. In trhe notes section of the be livery page, there is a note section, although there is not 100 per cent these notes would be read as these drivers are constantly rushing.  I did a google search for you, i found this and you can try the envri website Contact Us | Evri   To complain to Evri, you can follow these steps: Contact Customer Service: Call Evri's customer service at 0330 808 5456 for assistance with your complaint.    1 Write a Letter: Address your complaint to Capitol House, 1 Capitol Close, Morley, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS27 0WH.    1 Use the Official Website: Visit the Evri complaints page on their official website for detailed instructions on how to submit a complaint.    2 Email or Call for Specific Issues: For issues like missing or damaged parcels, you can email or call 0800 988 8888, which is free to call.    1 These methods will help you effectively communicate your concerns to Evri.   My driver is called anthony, he is brilliant to be honest. I cant fault him.
    • When I have more time and energy, I will look up the actual number of votes cast for each party in that election, rather than the number of seats won. I'm interested to see that you apparently  think that  Boris Johnson did a good job of "leading the country through Covid." Is your memory really that short? I won't stoop to calling Johnson and his cronies names in the way that you seem to think is appropriate for left wing politicians. At least the left wing politicians have some semblance of morals and a concern for people who aren't in some over privileged inner circle and/or raking in money for themselves on the back of an epidemic. I'm not going to open a can of worms on here  by commenting on the disgraceful so called "purge". 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...