Chener Books

Juilet Seymour, Southwark Planning Policy Manager, issued an "Article 4 direction" effective from 17 October 2013 that was subsequently cofirmed by "full council" on 7 April 2014 and will remain in force until further notice. This affects Lordship Lane, Further details here http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/856/planning_policy/3289/article_4_directions

Memorial Service invitation.

> James Barber Wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------- >> Hi grisett, >> And we also had people at the January meeting who >> trade on Grove Vale saying it would help their >> customers. I don't remember that. John K

I listened carefully to Mr Barber. I could not understand his reasons for not representing his constituents. John K

Mr Barber is now running a parallel unofficial consultation exercise? John K

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let me try and explain how an election works > simply for you. An electorate is defined and then > they are polled. The votes cast are counted and > listed as integers and as a percentage. It was not an election. But, yes, a consultation area was defined and the "votes" are in. milk76 does not like the result and now wishes to change the "electorate". John K

Council Officers disallowed several Derwent Grove "votes" as they were deemed to be duplicates. John K

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A car for most costs around 1/2 to 1 > working days work per week. ? John K

I remain puzzled that some residents of Derwent Grove are in favour of the proposed CPZ. I can see no rational explanation for this. I wonder whether a partial explanation might be that some were early "voters" who replied to the consultation before the metrics were flushed out and published on the EDF. John K

When I remember the duo of Simon McT and Victor Parsons in action it will always bring a smile to my face. Peace be with you. John Kennedy

Anyone remember John Beasley and his OTDOGS campaign of 30 years ago? Prescient. What, exactly, is a gated footpath? The docum,ents are here. John K

Well identified, Zak. The "Transport Assessment" document is here in two parts: http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/DocsOnline/Documents/139597_1.pdf http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/DocsOnline/Documents/139598_1.pdf Paragraphs 4.3.2 and 4.3.9 are interesting. Residents of Melbourne Grove (North) and Derwent Grove may wish to read this carefully. John K

Here is another creep.

My down to earth comment about the marginal cost of consulting the streets immediately outside the proposed CPZ got buried under theorectical posturing. Why was Matham Grove not consulted? Because it would cost to much. How much would it cost to consult 34 houses, say 68 households, in Matham Grove? No more than ?136. Why was Matham Grove not consulted? Because you're not worth it. John K

Planet earth calling... Southwark Council has stated that the (sole?) reason for not including the impacted adjacent streets in the formal consultation was cost. This marginal cost should have been costed and rejected before it was decided to go with the restricted consultation. This financial calculation of the rejected marginal cost can be put into the public domain. The probable cost components for each marginal consultee are: a) an extra copy printed copy of the consultation package at run on cost b) the letter box delivery c) extra data processing cost if the consultee responds Perhaps a maximum of ?2 per marginal consultee. John K