first mate

Back in 2009 there was a thread by Peckham Rose on here. She had posted a PDF of Southwark Plans for 20 mph, including a reply to her detailed objections at the time. That PDF appears to gave been deleted from S'wark website. I suspect one would have to go back through council meetings and minutes. However, I think the "consultation" will have been done quite purposefully over a number of years, garnering support of sorts for roads on a piecemeal basis until they have enough to join it all together. But yes, perhaps a councillor, any councillor, can explain and reveal the full process and mechanism of consultation with the public in this case, from first notification to grand finale. If S'wark, its officers and councillors are so keen to be seen as the listening borough, then they should be ever so keen to reply.

Please see http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s38770/Lordship%20Lane%2020mph%20zone%20proposal.pdf

Hi blue canary, I think the second link I posted is the one for Lordship Lane, it documents objections too.

Here's an interesting link to a map https://southwarklivingstreets.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/jtp-06nov14.ppt you need to scroll down about 15 sections. This is taken from the Southwark Living Streets map showing state of progress for 20 mph in London boroughs. SLS is one of the bodies consulted and therefore fulfilling Southwark's legal obligation to consult with interested parties. It would be interesting to find out at what point in the "process" they were consulted and how this was done. Here us one example of a consultation between this group and a consultation with Southwark on a variety if issues including 20 mph in Camberwell http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/8813/3d_-_streets_-_living_streets_response Does anyone recall tbese http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s38770/Lordship%20Lane%2020mph%20zone%20proposal.pdf http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=4154

Yes, which is is why when the "free parking" consultation's opening weasel- worded question is "Do you support the principle of free parking, yes or no ?" We see how easily either answer can be used to support changing unrestricted parking to restricted. I really am beginning to feel that councillors of any hue take us for fools. What can be done to stop the various issues listed in this thread?

There is a document that precedes this one, that states that a period of consultation should include interested parties, like cyclist groups and Southwark Living Streets ( the latter is documented in favour of the 20 mph plan) but also local residents. Why has a charity like Southwark Living Streets ( see www.southwarklivingstreets.org.uk) been given a voice when, apparently, local residents have not. I would like to know where is the evidence for consultation with local residents? Has the Council truly followed process or simply stated that it has?

I don't really understand the territory but if certain policies are "strategic and borough wide" is there any way to object to/ overturn them? What is the process? There is a sense in certain posts that because it's "strategic" it is inevitable.

If you actually read my initial posts you will see that I am one of those who adheres to the 20mph but many do not and the experience of being aggressively tailgated is not only unpleasant but dangerous. You will also see that I am not advocating breaking the law or the limit but pointing out the fact that many do and will continue to do so, unless a load if money is spent on enforcement. Southwark states that it expects the scheme to be self enforcing. So next time I labour up Sydenham Hill with a string of irate, hooting drivers right up my number plate, I will think of you Bawdy Nan and your kind advice.

ZT Indeed, especially since the police were dead against it in the first place, so there is an argument to say that instead of making roads safer the council have made them more dangerous, and I, for one do not want to see a load of money spent on traffic calming, speed cameras and pavement widening, to try to enforce it. What a mess.

Is there no CCTV in the area...next to station?

Hi James, on this issue, for this ward, I think the attempts to change unrestricted parking into areas of restricted parking is totally wrong and as the councillor representing ED And its voters I would hope you will resist those changes as hard as you can, even if it is Borough wide and strategic.

James, thanks. Think it is vital to stop this nonsense before real damage is done. In regard to the 20mph, this seems to be yet another example of undemocratic imposition by councillors; unless we regularly tap into Southwark website how would we have known these changes were on the horizon Why were special interest groups like that for cyclists alerted in good time but not the general public? We are all affected by these changes. As it is, in my experience the new limit is making the roads riskier not safer because many drivers are flouting 20 mph. If you haven't already, try taking a spin up to Crystal Palace at 20 mph and see what happens. And as for the issue of enforcement, the Council's own records show the police were/are totally against 20mph on main routes. This smacks of undemocratic control freakery at its worst.

Wow, when is a consultation not a consultation. I see that police put in a major objection to 20mph, but the Council just forged ahead. Unbelievable.

Don't want to derail discussion but just to say that dog attacks on humans are more likely in the home/ private property than out in parks or other public places. At least, that is my understanding, so not sure of relevance of that point.

For those that have them, what are Sat navs reporting as speed limit on the new 20mph roads? Thanks ZT for asking if these new 20mph stretches are binding in law or advisory. It is taking councillors a long time to respond to questions about new speed limits and restricted parking.

James, can I draw your attention to the thread on one hour parking. As a matter of urgency what can be done to halt the council's measures to introduce restricted parking across hitherto unrestricted areas of ED, under the guise of one hour free parking? Do you agree that the consultation form is not fit for purpose? Do you also agree that the council are being disingenuous in mixing a proposed change to already restricted parking slots from 30 mins to 1 hr free, with introduction of 1 hr slots to other areas that are already unrestricted and therefore already free? Do you agree that the council, far from freeing up parking us seeking to restrict it?

The first question, "do you support the principle of 1 hour free parking, yes or no" made me wary of filling out the form. I just don't trust the council to use the info honestly. If you start to look at all the various pages detailing plans in the area it is clear that they are attempting to introduce restricted parking all over the place. What can be done to intervene and stop this happening? The consultation form is worded in such a way that it could easily be skewed.

ZT, that is a really good question? Would James Barber, or Renata Hamvas, or any other Councillor, know?

dhjs, Yes, it is clear that you are fulfilling your brief in adhering to health and safety, that is not the issue. The point, I feel, is more one of poor communication. It would have been so simple to say something like the following from the outset, "regrettably, since these trees are highly toxic, we are obliged, for health and safety reasons to remove them". If you refer back to the late communications with Lucy Snow, the lady who has tended the trees over many years, it seems that the Capital projects Southwark person was not clear about reasons for removal either. I am not suggesting this failure of communication was your personal responsibility. I looked at the planning application and could not see mention of poisonous trees anywhere- perhaps it is buried in the detail? Let us hope that a home can be found for the trees and that there is a positive end to this saga. I am sure the school will be very successful and look forward to seeing the final result.

dhjs, I actually do think it is a waste to take out healthy trees, in prime condition, and then replace them with more shrubs. I also do wonder why the word poisonous was not mentioned right at the outset?

Thank you for your explanation, at least the reason is now clear. One does wonder though why the poison issue was not flagged up right away? Anyway, at least we now have clarity. I am also guessing that Southwark will not want to plant these trees anywhere that is frequented by children, including public parks? Still think it a great shame, a waste of public money planting trees that are considered to be such a hazard to children within a space that has been used as a nursery, not to mention the time and care devoted by a member of the community to their upkeep. I am sorry Lucy that you were not given this simplest of explanations from the outset.

Louisa, the fox is a member of the family canidae, so closer to a dog/wolf, but it is also described as cat-like in some respects, most notably its eyes- slitty pupils for nocturnal hunting, long thin canines with which it can deliver a killer bite, the habit of arching it back and hissing in a defensive display of aggression and its incredible climbing ability. Aside from all that they slink around like cats.... Forgot to add, unlike most cats which are obligate carnivores, foxes are carnivorous by choice but also scavengers, which means they can subsist on a wide range of foods- part of the reason for their immense ability to adapt.

The photo is perfectly charming and anyone who says otherwise...Roberto...shall feel the sharp end of my clettering stick!

Perhaps a topiary garden....? With some Niwaki too?

Aaaaaaaaah!