Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Today I first saw the maps in the Southwark Alliance 2007 Annual report. The maps are on the web-site, but not the annual report.


East Dulwich (SE22) is carved up.


North of the railway line and Grove Vale is now classified as South Camberwell. The East Dulwich Estate Community Centre is to become a "hub for South Camberwell". It's interesting that these self-nominating people who are deciding our strategic future don't even know where East Dulwich Station is.


If you're in SE22 but not in the "South West Sector" you are now in South Peckham (off-map to the East).

I agree, Macroban. Who are these people and why do they want to redraw boundaries? I'd like answers, so if the two journalists are looking at this, consider it as a story, please. I'm willing to be interviewed. It's nto that I am anti Camberwell, just anti-meddling, anti-waste and pro-status quo.

It is coterminous with the Local Authority ward boundaries http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Uploads/FILE_33273.pdf and includes the wards of: Brunswick Park, Camberwell Green, South Camberwell, East Dulwich, Village and College.


The original map itself was prouced by 'Graphics & Mapping' in the Regeneration Department of Southwark Council (see bottom right of map)

They have placed something called 'Dulwich' in the middle of the golf course, adjacent to Sydenham Hill Woods. Of course that ward is called 'College', not Dulwich. But I suppose a place called 'College' might seem a little odd.


And North Dulwich station is in Camberwell. Which stretches almost down to Village Way.


And the church on the Green is in Peckham. As are a number of East Dulwich facilities.


While political boundaries may be all very well for...politics, they bear little relation to community, development and planning issues.

Thanks for all the comments about the Southwark Alliance map! I am one half of the graphics & mapping team but I'm afraid I can't remember if I or my co-worker produced this particular map as it is about 5 years old. I also can't take all the credit for the placing or misplacing of stations and names as the map data is taken from the Ordnance Survey data.


I can confirm that the Southwark Alliance areas are based on the Community Councils which are in turn groupings of wards.

I don't think it will have an impact on the Harris Academy. The Harris Federation appears to use 'straight line distance from the school' rather than having a designated catchment area.


Boundary changes? The ward boundaries are changed to ensure there are roughly the same number of electors in each ward. That's why you can end up with funny quirks like the boundary on the eastern side near Dunstans Road, Goodrich Road and Hillcourt Road (it looks a bit like 'The Wash') which looks like a case of lumping a few extra properties in to make up the numbers.


The last review was completed in 1999: http://www.boundarycommittee.org.uk/files/dms/london-southwark_6157-5761__E__.pdf


These boundaries are also used for other things like the Police Safer Neighbourhood Teams which are ward based: http://www.met.police.uk/saferneighbourhoods/boroughs/southwark/saferneighbourhoods.htm


Oh and, apparently, the Southwark Alliance.

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

    • I don't really care about political sleaze in this  i am more concerned about thjle ability to run.a country without running it into the ground. Currently, labout seem to be heading straight towards the rocks, ignoring the warning blasts from the economic ighthouse. 
    • Which is exactly why Rayner had to go - don't be the sleaze attack dog and then not keep your own house in order - the really shocking fact is she didn't go the moment this came to light because she knew what advice, and the advice to seek proper tax expertise that was given to her in writing by the very people she was trying to throw under the bus - she clearly thought she might be able to spin her way out of it. When you look at the facts, the advice she was given and when and her behaviour in the last few days it has been scandalous and just shows the contempt for the public intelligence some politicians have. Interesting to see a very unscientific vox pop on BBC News last night but a lot of her own constituents seem to want rid of her as well and to be honest if you have to lose your cabinet role for this breach of the rules then you should probably lose your seat too. That is the hypocrisy here and why a lot of people don't like politicians because they're all the same.
    • Hi all, I’m after a stereo amp in working condition. Not necessarily anything fancy, as long as it works. Thanks
    • You are missing my point, there are a few here who are rabidly anti Labour.  And have lost sight of the many scandals associated with their party.  I've not made excuses for Rayner, rather I am inferring that it is hypocritical to go on about one of the major parties whilst ignoring your own dirty washing.   You are not making sense.  I expect half the country likes a drink and a sizeable number likes a vape.  What is your point?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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