Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[TheArtfulDogger]

Abe

Do you have inside information or are you speculating that it will go ahead ?

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

In the next few days we should have the officer's interim report. This will include a recommentation from the officer regarding implementation: whether to implement and, if so, the area it should cover and the details for implementation. The Dulwich Community Council on the 27th April will then discuss it and make its own recommendation before Cllr Richard Livingstone, the cabinet member with this brief, makes a decision.

Best wishes

James

[clairedaly]

Dear James

Over the past 6 months or so independent businesses on lordship lane and grove vale have been closing at an alarming rate, with several others earmarked for closure. Of course, there are many contributing factors at play, but having spoken with a couple of businesses during their final days of operations, they told me that their main reasons for closure were:

-increases in business rates

-increases in rents

-increased competition from established high street retailers who are able to afford the extortionate rents and rates on lordship lane. I was told by one business owner that either Boots or Superdrug are moving into the old Londis store. Now, I'm not sure if this is true and I?m unsure as to whether you are the appropriate person to raise this with; however I would very much like to save our high street! Lordship lane is so unique and a real gem in London. We are lucky to have it on our doorstep and many residents shop local to support these fantastic businesses. Are you able to do anything to further support our independent traders to enable them to continue operating?

Thank you

[TheArtfulDogger]

James

With all these new stealth taxes being applied by Southwark council, two very serious questions for your attention

One, what are you and the other councillors doing to represent the people who voted you in ?

Two, how do we get a motion of no confidence ( or similar ) raised against the councils running of the borough ?

[Penguin68]

Two, how do we get a motion of no confidence ( or similar ) raised against the councils running of the borough ?

There is an opportunity every three years.

The only other remedy is judicial review if you believe the authority is acting outwith its statutory powers, or against the intent of these. These do not come cheap.

Where a borough is more closely run electorally (i.e. there is a strong opposition, or a coalition running the council) council members may effectively challenge the apparat, but this is not an option in the People's Republic of Southwark. A choice we made last year.

Electors (judicial review apart) only can express a legally binding view once every three years, as I have said.

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

Thanks for your questions TheArtfulDogger.

Your first question is a pretty big one and essentially encompasses everything I do as a councillor. I cannot cover everything I do to represent people but here's some examples:

- I carry out casework on behalf of local people. Some of this is relatively minor and simple but other examples are more serious, for example regarding housing, benefits or social care. You read the statistics but it is nonetheless incredibly shocking how hard life is in austerity Britain for many people. I have, for instance, had to arrange for food deliveries for people who otherwise would not be able to eat, thanks to mistakes and errors taken by the Department for Work and Pensions leaving then without the payments to which they are entitled.

- I work with community groups and local institutions to improve the local area. As a primary school teacher myself I have taken an active interest in working with the four state primary schools in the ward, having met with all of them and worked with them on their concerns. For instance, I recently arranged for two schools to have parking enforcement cameras put outside their entrances to make these roads safer for the children. I have also supported schools with their work on air quality.

- Alongside my fellow councillors I allocate council funding to projects around the ward. I am currently working with residents near the train station to install some new lights in an area where has been incidents of property damage and fly tipping. We also allocated funding to install new benches in the ward, on Cllr Charlie Smith's suggestion. These are just two small examples from a long list.

- I sit on the Southwark Council Planning Committee where I ensure that major new developments in Southwark meet our planning policies in terms of design, environment and social housing amongst other issues.

- I ensure that the views of local people are taken seriously when new projects are proposed. At the moment the biggest of these by far is the proposed CPZ, and I have made my views on this very clear: it should only be implemented in an area where residents want it. Another current project is the building of new council homes on Bassano Street. I was there for the recent drop in session to hear the views of local residents and ensure that they are properly considered.

- I play a part in shaping council-wide policy through my involvement in the Southwark Labour Group of councillors. I played a major role in changing the council's policy on the use of Embedded Immigration Officers from the Home Office. I believe that these create a hostile environment for migrants living in Southwark so I am pleased that we no longer have them in Southwark.

These are just a few examples of the work I do to represent people: I do a lot more. I would of course love to do even more but being a councillor is not a full time job: I have my class at school to teach, and a number of other commitments outside of both work and the council.

I hope that this begins to answer your question though.

Regarding a no confidence, Penguin68 is right that the best way to show that you do not support the current Labour administration is to vote for other parties at the next election in 2022. In the meantime, you could perhaps organise a petition to express your views. While I do not agree with you on this matter, I would nonetheless be happy to ensure that such a petition - were it to receive significant numbers - be considered at council assembly.

However, I speak to residents in Goose Green and across the borough constantly and in general I do not think that many people share your view. People definitely have their criticisms but I think that most people appreciate that central government cuts force local councils to make difficult decisions and that, by and large, Southwark Council is pretty well-run under Labour. You are, of course, welcome to prove me wrong!

Best wishes,

James

[jamesmcash]

Dear Claire

Sorry I just realised I missed your question. I will respond later.

Best wishes

James

[TheArtfulDogger]

Hi James

Sorry you misunderstood what I'm asking, it's not a no confidence in the councillors it's a no confidence in the council officers who actually run the council

Slight difference and not a voting item I think

[Penguin68]

it's a no confidence in the council officers who actually run the council

Council officials operate as agents of the ruling party(s) and at the behest of elected officials and committees. Where malfeasance is alleged - it is either the responsibility of the elected councillors (if the officials are acting properly under instruction) or it is a disciplinary offence. In neither case is there any possibility of any formal 'no confidence' proceedings against officials. Where you believe an official has acted improperly your first point of call would be a local councillor (in your ward) to raise the issue with the executive on your behalf.

Like civil servants, council officers (appointed officials, not elected members) act as instructed by elected members either directly or through the application of agreed rules. If they follow instructions they have no independent culpability for the impact of these (save where they run contrary to existing laws etc.). That rests with the elected members.

[jamesmcash]

Dear Claire

Thanks for raising this issue. I agree that we are very fortunate in East Dulwich to have such a thriving high street of independent traders. I wouldn?t want to see these replaced with either closed shop fronts or identikit corporate chains, many of whom scarcely contributing taxes.

Unfortunately the three issues you identify are out of the council?s control: business rates are set by local government; the council has no regulatory powers over commercial rents; and the council?s planning powers do not allow it to prevent chains moving in.

Nonetheless there are some things that we can do to improve the situation. For instance, the council has put some money into a fund called the High Street Challenge. A group of local traders formed the East Dulwich Action Group to apply for and then spend this money. This has led to the mural outside the train station and the photographic banners on and around Lordship Lane. The goal is to make it more pleasant to shop in the area, and to give East Dulwich a clearer identity. We are now looking at putting some similar things in place along North Cross Road, where the Saturday market is also expanding.

In addition, there are some buildings which the council owns and therefore have more influence over. One of these is the old mental health unit on Lordship Lane near Goose Green Park. We are looking at using this space to further support local businesses and community ventures.

That?s a taste of some of the things we are doing but I?m sure there is more we can do. If you have any suggestions then please let me know.

Best wishes

James

[jamesmcash]

Dear TheArtfulDogger and Penguin68

Thanks for following up and clarifying what you meant TheArtfulDogger. I?m relieved to hear that you don?t have no confidence in me after all, even if you do think I?m ?spineless?.

Penguin68 has answered this question better than I ever could. If residents have criticisms of how the council is run then they should hold their elected councillors, not council officers, accountable. In the case where council officers are acting improperly then this can be dealt with through the appropriate procedures in the council. But, in my experience, the criticisms that people have of the council are generally regarding the political decisions taken by elected councillors. In this case, TheArtfulDogger, I assumed that your colourful phrase ?stealth taxes? referred to the new charge for garden waste, and the proposals regarding the CPZ and parking charges in local parks. These are all example of decisions were either taken by elected councillors or which will be taken by elected councillors following consultation. I apologise if I assumed wrongly in this case.

Best wishes

James

[Sporthuntor]

James your belief that most people think Southwark council does a good job is at best misplaced and at worst arrogantly detached from reality. Dissatisfaction is high given the recent initiatives that have been introduced or proposed, and if there were an election tomorrow the chances of you retaining your position as a councillor would be slim. You and your fellow councillors really need to reconsider your approach.

[singalto]

James,

How is the phrase ?stealth taxes? colourful? It?s true. We found out about the garden waste and parking charges from the EDF which is ludicrous. And I am pretty sure that in spite of the protests from residents and businesses, the CPZ will be introduced. I can think of far more colourful phrases than ?stealth taxes?.

[Penguin68]

As the council actually sells the compost it makes from garden and other waste maybe, as a quid pro quo for charging those with gardens to take away the waste, it should also offer them a discount on buying the subsequent compost?

Also - can anyone clarify whether garden waste in paper sacks will be taken free from those who do not choose to have the large brown bins and pay for collection? I suspect that either the sacks will be charged for, or will not be taken away from residences who have not paid the fee. Otherwise the policy makes no sense at all. In which case those who have brown bins and need additional sacks for any one collection will be paying twice - for the brown bin and for the sacks.

They gets us coming and they gets us going...

Southwark's topology of course means that it is mainly the leafy suburbs of the old borough of Camberwell which will be hardest hit by all this - but no surprises there. Unlike Millwall maybe it is only Tooley St. that hates us, and actually some of us do care!

[jamesmcash]

Dear all

Sporthuntor- Perhaps you are right. I speak to a lot of people thought and while there are definitely criticisms - which I try to address through my casework - I think generally people do not feel as negatively as you might think on this forum.

Singalto - I think that this says more about the high level of community engagement from people on this Forum - which should of course be applauded! - than it does about the council. I used the word ?colourful? because these are neither taxes nor introduced by stealth. Two of them are actually still in consultation, and the other has yet to be introduced.

Penguin68 - Let me look into this for you.

Best wishes

James

[jamesmcash]

Dear all

The interim report on the proposed East Dulwich controlled parking zone (CPZ) is now available on the project page here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projects/east-dulwich-parking-study-and-healthier-streets-consultation

Or direct link here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/9190/East%20Dulwich%20parking%20consultation%20-%20Interim%20report%20(final).pdf

The report in context of the overall process

This is an interim report. It is written by council officers, on the basis of the consultation responses. It is published to that local people can discuss its recommendations and make comments. The next meeting of Dulwich Community Council (2.30pm 27th April - Dulwich Library) will discuss the matter and issue its own recommendation before Cllr Livingstone - the cabinet member responsible for this area of work - makes a final decision. Everyone is welcome at the Dulwich Community Council so do come along to discuss it.

The consultation responses

The report itself highlights the high turnout in the consultation: 37%, which is a council record. It then goes onto summarise the results and make some recommendations.

The headline result is that, as expected, the majority of respondents living in the Northwest of the consultation area (around the station and hospital) support there being a CPZ, whereas the majority living elsewhere in the area oppose it.

The officer recommendations

I have made it clear from the beginning of this process that there are only three possible outcomes on the table. I summarised these back in January as such:

- Outright rejection of the proposal on the grounds of majority opposition. This was the case with the last East Dulwich consultation in 2012.

- Outright implementation of the proposal following majority support. This has happened in a number of places for instance Thorburn Square.

- Partial implementation of the proposal in a contiguous sub-area where the proposal was supported. This happened in Herne Hill.

The officer recommendation is consistent with this: it proposes that a CPZ be implemented in a subsection of the area where there is 54% support for one. This area comprises the following roads: Grove Vale, Railway Rise, Melbourne Grove, Jarvis Road, Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Tintagel Crescent, Zenoria Street, Oxonian Street, East Dulwich Grove, Tell Grove, Matham Grove, Glengarry Road, Trossachs Road, Tarbert Road, Thorncombe Road, the East Dulwich Grove estate, Ashbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove, Bassano Street and Blackwater Street. The rest of the consultation area - which includes the majority of the streets consulted - would not have a CPZ implemented under the officer recommendation.

For me, one of the key aspects to the decision is regarding the impact on local schools. The officer recommendation would mean that the schools which support a CPZ would be in one, and those which do not would not.

As I noted above, the officer recommendation is consistent with the pledge I have made on here: it would only implement a CPZ in the subsection of the area which supports one.

Nonetheless, I have discussed this with fellow councillors and we think there are still some aspects to the plan which merit further discussion. Two spring to mind immediately.

Question 1: size of the zone

Any Controlled Parking Zone needs to have boundaries which make sense. The officer recommendation is for a zone which is bound to the north by Grove Vale, to the west by the railway line, and to the east by Lordship Lane. These boundaries seem relatively simple and straightforward to me. However, the boundary to the south seems more arbitrary. Ashbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove, Bassano Street and Blackwater Street are included whilst Lytcott Grove, Playfield Crescent and Colwell Road are excluded. I suspect that were the latter roads to be included then the zone would no longer have a majority in support of a CPZ so it makes sense to exclude them, but I think there is a question over whether the former four streets should be included. If the objective is to create the biggest possible CPZ whilst still maintaining a majority for it, then it makes sense to include them. But if the objective is to find a zone which pleases the maximum number of people then removing the four streets would mean that a greater number of people are living under an outcome that they supported. None of these streets returned a majority in favour of the CPZ. The same logic applies to removing the southern section of Melbourne Grove (south of East Dulwich Grove)

Moreover, I suspect that these streets are rarely used for commuter parking at the station, but often used by shoppers visiting Lordship Lane. So removing these streets might further alleviate any concerns regarding the impact on local traders. The streets left remaining in the proposed CPZ are not generally used by shoppers.

What do you think? If a CPZ goes ahead with the proposed area, should Melbourne Grove south, Ashbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove, Bassano Street and Blackwater Street be included?

Question 2: Hours of operation

Of those living within the officer?s proposed area, 44% want the CPZ to be operational all day (8.30am to 6.30pm), compared to 27% for two hour controls and 18% for ?Other?. This makes it the most popular option of the three. However, I assume that those who selected ?Other? want the zone to be operational for either less than 2 hours per day, or for more than 2 hours but less than all day. I doubt that those selecting ?Other? were doing so because they wanted the zone to be operational throughout the night.

If this assumption holds then it means that, while 8.30am-6.30pm is the most popular option of the three, the majority of respondents in this area would prefer it to be shorter.

What do you think? If a CPZ goes ahead with the proposed area, either with or without the streets mentioned in Question 1, should it be operational from 8.30am to 6.30pm or for a shorter period of time?

Question 3: Other comments

The two questions above were just the ones which jumped out at us. But if anyone has any further comments it would be great to hear them too.

That said, I do not think it is worth rehashing the arguments for and against a CPZ in general. I know that there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate, and finding these out was the purpose of the consultation. For me at least, the question now is how to use the information we have to decide an outcome that best meets the conflicting views and concerns of different people in the area.

Best wishes,

James

[jamesmcash]

Dear Penguin68

The brown bag scheme continues. Residents can buy a bundle of 20 sacks for ?15 and the council will then collect those without the household having to subscribe to the new fee. This option may not be practical for households with larger gardens but it may be a good options for those with smaller gardens.

Best wishes

James

[Rockets]

James,

A couple of comments:

Question 1: size of the zone

Can you break out for us which streets actually voted for or against in the Melbourne Grove zone as the documentation says:

14 streets were in favour of a parking zone, 12 were not in favour and 8 were undecided.

I think that may be interesting in determining the size of the zone.

Question 2: Hours of operation

The all-day recommendation is overkill. If the council is trying to alleviate commuter parking but wants to protect Lordship lane then the hours of operation need to be two hours - I would even suggest that a one-hour slot between 9am and 10am would be the most sensible option if you want to protect parking spaces from commuters and the thriving local community.

To be fair the more I look at it the recommendation seems to have more holes in it than Blair's Iraq WMD dossier....;-)

[jamesmcash]

Dear Rockets

The report uses maps to show which roads support, oppose or are undecided. Support is green, oppose is red and undecided is blue.

Best wishes

James

[Abe_froeman]

In the whike of East Dulwich, these were the streets in favour:

Derwent Grove

Zenoria Street

Tintagel Crescent

Jarvis Road (!)

Matham Grove

Tell Grove

Trossachs

Tarbert

Shawbury Road

A small section of the housing estate north of EDG near Green Dale

What would be least disruptive to the vast majority of residents who do not a CPZ would be simply to implement a CPZ in those streets that want it.

[Cardelia]

James,

In response to question 1, I think the map in Figure 2 would be much more informative if Melbourne Grove was split into two. The responses showed that the section north of EDG is clearly in favour of a CPZ (hence it should be coloured green) and the section south of EDG is clearly against a CPZ (hence it should be coloured red). This would make it easier to see that the proposed zone is too big. Your suggestion of removing Melbourne Grove (south), Blackwater Street, Bassano Street, Chesterfield Grove and Ashbourne Grove from the proposed CPZ is a good one. None of these roads showed a clear majority in favour of a CPZ, with some clearly against a CPZ, so it seems unfair to impose one on them.

[Abe_froeman]

James will the council be publishing the full results of the consultation as well as their selected highlights?

[Siduhe]

Cardelia Wrote:

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

> James,

>

> In response to question 1, I think the map in

> Figure 2 would be much more informative if

> Melbourne Grove was split into two. The responses

> showed that the section north of EDG is clearly in

> favour of a CPZ (hence it should be coloured

> green) and the section south of EDG is clearly

> against a CPZ (hence it should be coloured red).

> This would make it easier to see that the proposed

> zone is too big. Your suggestion of removing

> Melbourne Grove (south), Blackwater Street,

> Bassano Street, Chesterfield Grove and Ashbourne

> Grove from the proposed CPZ is a good one. None of

> these roads showed a clear majority in favour of a

> CPZ, with some clearly against a CPZ, so it seems

> unfair to impose one on them.

And that approach would also be consistent with the pledge mentioned - that no area that did not want a CPZ would have one imposed on them. 12 streets in the proposed zone did not want a CPZ but one is being imposed on them. And a significant majority of the 33 streets were not positively in favour of a CPZ, so your suggestion would seem fair and most consistent with the pledge you mention.

What I'm more surprised at is the differential charging for diesel vehicles - how can that be justified on parking pressure grounds? I don't drive a diesel, so no direct interest, but how can Southwark justify that recommendation on the basis of a CPZ consultation where it wasn't even raised as an issue or a possibility? Genuinely interested to understand the basis for the differential charging in the context of a CPZ consultation.

[Rockets]

Cllr Mcash - do you have any thoughts on the hours of operation of parking that I suggested? Surely implementing a 9.30am - 10.30am CPZ in those roads would both protect those roads from commuter parking but also protect Lordship Lane as a vibrant local community?

I am afraid this consultation has been everything the majority of local residents feared it would be.....an absolute whitewash. The consultation process, the public meetings and the recommendation report are the outputs of a council that is manipulating the results to give it the decision it wants. Just 18% of all roads polled voted for a CPZ.....yet everyone will feel the impact.

If this is modern democracy in action then we are all in trouble....

[Ginster]

James, please let me know how we feed back /who to about the Peckham West result? Link given in email sent with result isn't clear. Thanks