former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[pebs]

Hello James,

Do you know what the latest is on the southwark spine cycleway? really keen for this to happen. thanks.

[landsberger]

I've just looked at the proposed timetable for East Dulwich and they are showing London Bridge trains at 51, 06, 21, and 36 alternately from West Croydon and Beckenham Junction.

[BrandNewGuy]

Do you have a link for that?

[landsberger]

Check out realtimetrains.co.uk

[BrandNewGuy]

Well, I don't have the app and the website search said it couldn't find a station called East Dulwich. National Rail Enquiries shows the same peak times as now for late May.

[landsberger]

Change the date to the post timetable change

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/EDW/2015/06/24/0000-2359?stp=WVSC&show=all&order=wtt

[landsberger]

Sorry - better URL - this for the 29th June 2015

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advancedhandler?type=advanced&location=East+Dulwich&date=24%2F06%2F2015&toc=All&earlier_cp=&later_cp=&timespan=fullcustom&time_start=&time_end=&show=all&order=wtt&stp_wtt=1&stp_var=1&stp_stp=1&stp_can=1

[BrandNewGuy]

Well, I'm getting the attached times, which for morning peak London Bridge-bound services are the same times as now.

[landsberger]

Which I think probably suggests no change - thankfully.

[Sue]

Hi James, not sure if you are the person to ask about this.

I took a car load of stuff to the council tip off the Old Kent Road yesterday, including a large can half full of old oil-based paint.

I asked someone where to put the paint, and they said "Is it any good?" When I said no (it had gone off and wasn't useable) they told me to put it in with "general waste".

I said "Are you sure?" and was told "Yes, of course I'm sure, I work here."

I thought things like paint had to be disposed of separately for environmental reasons? That was the only reason I took it to the tip in the first place!

[James Barber]

Hi Sue,

That sounds very odd. We share the same udnerstanding.

Let me ask and come back to you.

[Monkey]

Hi James,

Is there a way to end the dropped kerb madness on Dunstans Road? I never saw the planning application for the latest one. Must have been pinned to a lamp post. It is majorly inconvenient for people who do not own their front garden as there soon won't be anywhere to park; is potentially dangerous, what with all the children going to school and cars reversing out of their front garden; and makes things quite hard for people with pushchairs.

Thank you.

[fazer71]

Yea kill the dropped curbs ..

They allow people to part of road should be made illegal.

Outrageous letting people have a drive to park their cars on.

Road to moon parking way better than that madness..

;)

[first mate]

Monkey, I'm afraid to say that this is driven by an anti-car agenda, just another way to force people onto bikes or buses. The irony is that, as ever, this will penalise poorer members of the community, as you say, those who do not have a front garden to convert into parking, or cannot afford to do so.

Parking is also incrementally and quite deliberately being squeezed by schemes like one hour free parking where large swathes of unrestricted parking is converted to restricted, in the guise of doing us all a favour. 20 mph on A roads and bonkers schemes, like the "no right turn" on Townley, place further pressure on drivers and are meant to support cyclists.

The final irony is the effect mass conversion to dropped kerbs might have on the environment...all that creation of hard standing is not great.

[fazer71]

Hard standing creates problems with rain water having nowhere to go and will result in potentially impossible to deal with flooding. Think Noah if this goes on we will all need an ark.

Allowing dropped curbs and giving people the ability to park of street is also elitist and will make those who can do this even more advantaged over the poor who live in flats with no access to parking of any form it's obviously an elitist scheme devised by the capitalist political elite outrageous as this is raised as an issue now just ahead of the election this thread is being used as political propaganda for the non socially elite.

If the poor can't have dropped curbs.. Then neither should the rich...

Dropped curbs for all!!!!!!

Power to the people ....

http://the-militant-atheist.org/images/noahs-beaver-problem.jpg

[intexasatthe moment]

monkey - Southwark's guidelines on car parking on forecourts/front gardens says

", private land owners are required to enter into one or more legal

agreements with the Borough Solicitor agreeing and undertaking to ...to exit (and in most instances) enter the Vehicle Crossing in forward gear "

so cars shouldn't be reversing onto roads .

Though don't ask me how that's enforceable .

[Penguin68]

agreements with the Borough Solicitor agreeing and undertaking to ...to exit (and in most instances) enter the Vehicle Crossing in forward gear

You do realise that this would require cars to have sufficient space to turn right-around in the parking space to both enter and exit facing front (or have a railway style turntable installed). This is clearly madness, and perverse madness at that. Anyone subsequently buying a house with a dropped kerb, as I did, would have not been such a signatory, and unless the deeds were changed to make this some form of restrictive covenant (they won't have been) unenforceable.

This convinces me that the Southwark people purporting to be in charge of this are either mad, or bad, or (probably) both.

[intexasatthe moment]

Yes Penguin I do realise that . I think it's a very poorly written and thought out document .

Though I see more emphasis on exiting than entering in forward gear . It's conceivable that drivers reverse in isn't it ?

[Penguin68]

Agreed, reversing in and driving out is my preferred choice - and I knew that you did realise the impact of all this - it was just for emphasis - nonetheless it does say '(and in most instances) enter'... they clearly do not think of the meaning of what they write, and in regulations too - and the elected councilors and cabinet members who are meant to oversee this are slipshod, careless or stupid. Possibly all three.

[first mate]

james, will you and Rosie Shimmell be calling in the Townley Road decision?

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

I don't think so. A lot of time and effort has gone into these proposals by all parties and I can't see how the decision breaches any policies or strategies - which is reqired for a call-in to Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

Unless you tell me otherwise...

[first mate]

James, you are the expert and have far more knowledge of the process than I. I have a hunch that you support the decision too. It is just that there seems to be a disjuncture between use of process to reach the 'valid' decision desired by councillors (for whatever reasons) and local feeling/objections. Who was it said that 'process is the politican's friend'.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

As an opposition councillor we have to weigh up what we call-in via Overview & Scurtiny Committee. We appear to have upset Labour when we chaired this committee such that they now have a Labour chairperson - with a majority they decide this although it is breaking a long tradition of the leading party not chairing the committee that scrutinses the ruling party. We have always been reticent about using this call-in power for fear of Labour umbridge and losing it. With a council majority they can change the constitution as they wish. That is my reticence. Saying that in 2014 they changed the constitution to make it possible for Lib Dems to still be able to call-in decisions.

I've been copied an email sent to OSC members by residents and am very sympathetic to reasons for call-in B2,B3,B4. B1 at the meeting officers anssered to my satisfaction - turning circles for coaches during rush hour.

[landsberger]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi first mate,

> As an opposition councillor we have to weigh up

> what we call-in via Overview & Scurtiny Committee.

> We appear to have upset Labour when we chaired

> this committee such that they now have a Labour

> chairperson - with a majority they decide this

> although it is breaking a long tradition of the

> leading party not chairing the committee that

> scrutinses the ruling party.

Er, have a look at Liberal Democrat controlled Three Rivers District Council - with about 1/3 of the Councillors belonging to the opposition councillors. 4 O & S Committees, guess how many are chaired by the opposition? Go on, guess, James. Guess how many have an opposition Vice-Chair ? Go, on, guess.

> We have always been

> reticent about using this call-in power for fear

> of Labour umbridge and losing it.

Though you whinged like mad when Labour used this when you were in power...

[James Barber]

Hi landsberger,

They don't run cabinet council there but run on a committee basis.

You've compared apples with melons.

I never complained when Labour called-in decisions when in opposition. My lot have called-in fewer decisions than Labour did.

In Southwark 10 Labour councillors meet in one cabinet and make collective and individual decisions. Scrutiny committees review issues and other topics and scutinise some decisions but most they do not scrutinise.

In Three Rivers I believe they don't have cabinet government but committees where all the parties debate decisions before they're decided upon and each committee votes on decisions - hence the chair is held by the majority party for each committee. This is how Southwark used to be run until New Labour introduced "strong government" options and gave councils the option of cabinet government.

I prefer the committee decision making process as it keeps all councillors actively involved in decision making and the scrutiny ensures better government. They also have 3 years in 4 a third of councillors are elected. This ensures all parties feel the tug public opinion and don't get complacent.

Which system do you think leads to better governance - strong leader/cabinet or committee?