rollflick

According to TfL bus data (attached - a few years old but no big changes), the section of road where the bus only section is one of the freest flowing for buses of anywhere in Southwark, see attached screen grab. It's the other side of the common where there is congestion. Southwark consulted on a bus lane on the congested bit in 2016, consultation showed big support. So, nothing happened. https://web.archive.org/web/20220520112534/https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/peckham-rye-proposed-bus-lane/ This is a much bigger scheme and any half competent council would provide enough information for residents to make informed comment, like potential impact on bus times, a map showing route / stop changes, or indeed driving routes through the area. The consultation needs to be extended until Southwark provides that basic information. That said while this area does need big improvements but this scheme is terribly designed for all modes of transport, and fails to step change the tired public realm, which other London boroughs are doing so well. As an interim step the bus lane should go ahead while a coherent plan for the bus and cycle corridors is drawn up that this section would need to be designed to fit into. It's the fourth plan Southwark has come up with in this location in a decade (itself a sign of the massive waste and dysfunction in the Southwark highways team) and the worst so far. And to add insult to injury, despite an earlier consultation exercise last year raising important issues, Southwark officers have ignored responses, not even providing any feedback for their reasons. Don't hold your breath this time...

Yes there is certainly inconsiderate behaviour but the problem is made worse in the ED area due to the inadequate pavement width. See attached map, source is p13 in https://content.tfl.gov.uk/lsp-app-six-b-strategic-neighbourhoods-analysis-v1.pdf. Isn't it striking how much narrower pavements are across Southwark than neighbouring Lambeth for instance? That's why it was wrong for Southwark to limit the survey to just a few streets and why radical solutions to how rubbish & recycling are stored are needed. And yes maybe that includes some sort of ban on leaving bins out on narrow pavements. Plus perhaps underground communal bins like on the continent or maybe an interim solution of large bins replacing a car parking space or two.

This is another poorly designed Southwark survey, in this instance as: 1) The streets with the biggest issues are those where there's a difference in height between the front door and pavement, e.g. Malfort Road and ED end / west side of Bellenden Road (see attached image) and likewise Lyndhurst Way. That's because there's less likely to be level space in front gardens and they also have tiny pavements. But these streets are not listed in the survey and there's no "other" option to comment about them. 2) You're only supposed to respond for your own street - but many of us face regular difficulties using streets in the local area and are thereby shut out from the survey, allowing officials to keep ignoring legal duties on accessibility. Does anyone else think the issue has become worse in recent years as the refuse collection service seem to leave bins in a much more haphazard way (Veolia trying to maximise profit?), as well as some council communications telling people they now have to leave bins outside front gardens on the pavement. Whereas in the past refusepeople (or whatever binmen are called these days?!) would be prepared to take the extra second to take and put back bins from just inside front gardens. If you're away, the new approach of chucking bins down also highlights your home to burglars. Another problem is the amount of overgrowing plants from private properties. In other parts of London you get a letter from the council telling you to cut plants back, here staff and councillors seem too busy promoting Streets for People publicity to bother. The last year's wet weather has made the plant problem the worst I can remember. As a result the combination of some of London's narrowest pavements on top of poor management means Southwark has some of London's worst conditions for walking.

If you include comments that the development is too big / out of character, the council will be forced to ignore you. The new govt is consulting on updating the national planning policy framework (NPPF): https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system Character and density 10. Paragraph 130 was added to the NPPF to explain that local character can be taken into account when local planning authorities consider their ability to meet their housing needs. The policy sets out that significant uplifts in density may be inappropriate if this would result in development wholly out of character with the existing area. Local planning authorities are required to use authority-wide design codes to evidence the impact on character. 11. We propose reversing this change and deleting paragraph 130 in its entirety. We are clear that local planning authorities should identify opportunities for maximising the efficient use of land, especially in areas well served by transport and other infrastructure. By restricting density, the existing policy is likely to have longer term negative impacts on achieving sustainable patterns of development and on meeting expectations on future housing supply. Alongside this reversal, we propose strengthening expectations that plans should promote an uplift in density in urban areas. This already has weight as draft policy and is expected to be approved very soon, some suggest even this side of Christmas - please don't shoot me for simply being the messenger on this! Clearly the site is well served by public transport. With TfL currently consulting on cutting local bus routes, because "More buses are operating than are needed by customers", proposals like this would actually safeguard services and help improve frequency. However, while the development would be carfree, other than disabled spaces, the issue raised by some of the impact of access by taxis and deliveries is certainly significant. As mitigation, probably would need to restrict deliveries to using Railway Rise, make Melbourne Grove a school street and have some sort of pedestrian and cycle zone (with permits for existing residents) north of Jarvis Place. Any other ideas welcome! I very much like the idea of a low line walking if not cycling route but am wondering who owns the land to Deventer Crescent. Given the various concerns about biodiversity connectivity (a bit tenuous IMO and anyway policy is to offset that these days) how to manage any impacts of the necessary land take? The national planning consultation also calls to "extract more public value from development, including through infrastructure, amenity, and transport benefits and, where necessary, through use of strengthened compulsory purchase powers". So that could be a good hook to use to ask the developer to commit to such a connection. Finally Southwark is proposing to replace the perfectly good raised footway over Railway Rise with paving stones, learning nothing from the long-standing mess where they did that at the ED end of Camberwell Grove. All the extra traffic from this development would make that crumble even faster. Shouldn't the funding for that should be shifted to providing a continuous footway on the other side of Grove Vale at Vale End?

When I went today (in a car) staff basically admitted the time limit had been introduced to discourage anyone coming by van. You already had to fill in a form to book in advance and were limited to four van trips per Southwark resident per year, with a requirement to show ID at the entrance. While it will be impossible to stop misuse 100%, that would surely keep it to low levels while not penalising legitimate residents. It's also worth remembering that the centre was set up under a 2003 Private Finance Initiative contract with Veolia who run it. So I'm wondering how much this was Veolia or Southwark's doing. Perhaps Southwark agreed to the new limits to get a better price for the variation of the contract that is extending food waste collections to estates. It's all unacceptably murky and one doubts that Southwark's negotiating skills against a massive multinational were particularly effective. By 2028 waste incineration is going to be brought into the Emissions Trading Scheme, massively increasing costs. With recycling levels flatlining for a decade in Southwark, despite ambitious targets, that's what's really going to blow a hole in council finances but councillors run a mile when anyone tries to raise the failings of this PFI contract.

Has anyone tried to take a van to Southwark's recycling centre recently? It seems every year they try to make it more difficult. You now need to give 3 days notice, are limited to 4 trips per year and the latest wheeze is limiting van users to a one hour slot in the morning, timed to coincide with rush hour and the school run: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/bins-and-recycling/recycling/recycling-centres/reuse-and-recycling-centre/?chapter=2 Van access is restricted to 8.30am and 9.30am on the date you have selected when booking. You must complete all unloading and leave the site during this time. This is due to vans generally taking much longer to unload and can obstruct or cause hazards to other site users because of their larger size. This is bizarre as a different page says that The busiest times are on Saturdays, Sundays and at the start and end of each day. You may have to queue if you visit during these times. There's usually no queue between 10am to 3pm on weekdays. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/bins-and-recycling/recycling/recycling-centres/reuse-and-recycling-centre How can they claim to be worried about hazards to other users then force van users to visit at the busiest times? Living in a carfree household and relying occasionally on Zipcars, a majority of which seem to be (Zip)vans in the ED area now, these changes seem as unnecessary as they are annoying. But I only visit the centre once or twice a year, maybe others have different experiences and views?

The assertion is from here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/bins-and-recycling/garden-waste-collection-subscriptions?chapter=4 Why is the council asking me to put out food and garden waste separately? We are expecting the law will change in the near future, and it will become a legal requirement to collect and treat food waste and garden waste separately. We're starting to separate our services for these materials now, so they are ready for the change. Just asked the council to take back my brown bin, wondering if there will be a noticeable decline in them on ED streets this year. Or will it take until the price goes into three figures before many more have a rethink?

If the brown bin price had simply gone up with inflation since the first £30 full year charged in 2020/1, it would be just £36 now. Even the paper sacks are going up from £30 to £40 this April, so get in now quick while they are still err a bargain. Bet it will be £100 for the brown bin in 2025! Also worth adding that in Nov 2023, Defra scrapped plans to require councils to collect garden waste for free. Southwark's assertion that it now needs to collect food and garden waste separately because of a forthcoming law turns out to be rubbish: 'An optional garden waste collection will be offered to all households, and councils can choose to co-collect food and garden waste if preferred.' https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consistency-in-household-and-business-recycling-in-england/outcome/government-response Surely it could save some cash if it went back to combined collections? Food waste composts better when mixed with garden waste too.

Errr no and JMK you are clearly way out of your depth. Please stop confusing others besides yourself. It is section 72 that enabled decriminalisation of traffic offences, hence the creation of the wonderfully named Civil Enforcement Officers to replace parking wardens: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/part/6/crossheading/civil-penalties-for-road-traffic-contraventions Yes there will be separate statutory consultation - the clue is in Southwark calling the current round "informal" - but that is basically procedural rather than a vote. As for Rockets asking how CPZs can work if allegedly 68% of local trips are on foot, well at risk of stating the obvious, that still leaves a fair amount of driving. There's lots of peer-reviewed research on the internet about parking management if you are the sort that does your research e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192092200147X#s0010. That highlights the importance of reducing parking space not simply charging for it and enabling shared mobility, if we are to reduce inequality as well as emissions. Fortunately that is what Southwark is proposing here.

Ah, another great example of how muddled this debate can get. The guidance JMK quotes is about councils taking over enforcement powers from the police - it's not about implementing parking restrictions in the first place. The Mayor's Transport Strategy is required by and underpinned by the GLA Act 1999, so it is statutory. By contrast the guidance JMK quotes is just guidance, as it indeed says in its intro. 😑 There's lots of research about parking management being one of the most effective levers for modal shift, less though than road pricing. In any event, for a successful judicial review, you'd need to show that it was irrational for a council to think it might have that effect. Any competent lawyer would run a mile from trying to argue that.

You are assuming they are being advised competently? 🫣 If the council is serious about its targets to reduce motor traffic etc. significantly by 2030, it's obvious that 2hr long parking restrictions targetted at commuters are not going to be effective, especially as less of the driving post-pandemic is people commuting. Yet the consultation still talks about "Reducing traffic by reducing people driving into Southwark", as if it's simply about outsiders. A lot of people aren't going to agree whatever happens, but at least give people the relevant information so we can try having an honest, informed conversation. Also there will particularly need to be longer hours of restrictions (not least on weekends) on Lordship Lane etc. Buses increasingly are getting delayed trying to squeeze past ever wider cars on streets designed using dimensions of horses and carts.

"statutory protocols"? Err no such thing. There will be a statutory consultation later but it's not a vote. Rather you can try providing informed comment as to how Southwark might meet climate, air quality, road safety etc. targets without parking controls and significant reductions in car use and ownership they will help deliver. The council seems to have finally woken up about how its performance was second worst across London in the last decade - see attached image from p10 of this report. It now needs to take action. Good luck, you'll need it.

Actually it would be unlawful for Southwark NOT to implement CPZs across all of its roads. One of the areas where this debate has become so muddled is in asking what Southwark's mandate is. In London, the Mayor is responsible for transport, with the boroughs' role limited to implementation of the Mayor's Transport Strategy. Southwark's Local Implementation Plan was only approved after it was strengthened (an earlier draft was heavily criticised) to include motor traffic reduction measures including borough wide CPZs, in order to meet climate, air quality, road safety, public transport etc. targets. Southwark now has a legal duty to get on with implementation: 151 Implementation by a London borough council. (1) Where the Mayor has approved a local implementation plan, or a local implementation plan as proposed to be revised, submitted to him under section 146(1) above, the London borough council which submitted the plan— (a) shall implement the proposals contained in it https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/section/151 Of course you can try voting for that Susan lady, the one who's a fan of Boris, Liz and Donald, to get rid of Sadiq next year. But she has more chance of getting in that a legal challenge succeeding.

Rockets, attached is the TfL feedback off Twitter. TfL has previously criticised Southwark for multiple reasons, including in 2019 a total lack of governance and prioritisation. While pretty much all other boroughs had formal oversight from their cabinets / committees over their funding bids to TfL, there was no governance again in 2023 for Southwark's bid. If there was any coherent or competent planning, it would have been obvious that there was no justification spending so much money (£1.8m) on a fancy junction redesign, especially after recent spending on the permanent concrete planters, and the major rejig of the junction a few years before that. It is cock-up rather than conspiracy - incompetent officers plus councillors that are incapable of holding officers accountable on behalf of their electors. Rockets - still waiting for positive suggestions on how to make Turney Road attractive for all ages to cycle.

According to local cllr McAsh, whose portfolio has just expanded to streets, taking that from faltering Cllr Rose, the council now is: "implementing an accelerated controlled parking zone roll-out with the aim of achieving 100% coverage by August 2024", i.e. across the whole borough: I am more of a fan of CPZs than many on here. Parking restrictions will really help the buses on much of Lordship Lane so long as designed well (though the Nunhead CPZ could be designed much better for buses). But really the council should: 1) be clear in consultations that this is what it's planning on CPZs and that the consultation is just about the details, otherwise it's misleading. 2) improve alternatives at the same time - it is falling far behind other inner London boroughs on integrated delivery, almost all the others have published coherent Borough Healthy Streets Delivery Plans while Southwark consults on waffle like "Prioritise equity in all transport schemes so everyone can achieve their potential". There will always be disagreements on transport & parking issues, but it's made unnecessarily worse by how incompetent our council is compared to its peers and that our cllrs are unable to be honest about this or much else.