Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Council are currently consulting on the New Southwark Plan which will cover the period to 2033.

This is the Local Plan which will inform planning consultations and a variety of matters affecting how our area looks. I?ve only had a chance for a quick look - the plan is over 300 pages long before you get to the supporting policies - but this will influence planning requirements, how shop frontages look, how Borough Open Land / MOL / Green space / Biodiversity is treated even protecting views from various areas into other areas of London (which I hadn?t even thought was something the Council did), basically there will be something to affect everyone.

I?m sure most of us don?t have time to digest the full document and all the implications but if there is something that?s important to you and you get a chance to have a look and respond this is a chance to have your say.


Formal consultation is taking place until 17 May 2019.


https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/local-plan?chapter=4

What Caught my eye, with the current proposal for a CPZ in the area is section P52, page 76


Controlled Parking Zones

6 Development within existing or planned CPZs will not be eligible for on street resident and business car-parking permits.


Reasons

Private cars take up much more resources and space per person than many other modes of transport, particularly walking, cycling and public transport. Southwark will grow sustainably without adverse environmental impacts through car free development in highly accessible areas and reduced reliance on the private car.

That's it really. They should have the courage of their convictions and say Southwark Council is implementinfg this as they wish to curtail private car use on page 1 - than pretend it's anything to do with significant and majority local resident and business demand.


It's a Labour council - anti-car, anti-business, anti 'private'/individualism ; there's an argument for all of these, largely based on top down paternalistic socialism but they shouldn't pretend it's something else.

Here is some more info about the current New Southwark Plan (NSP) consultation which you might find of interest. The current consultation is on the several policies that have been amended since the last consultation a year ago on the ?submission? version. This is the version that is to be submitted to the Government for the 'Examination in Public? (EiP) later this year or early next year. If you comment on these they have to be in a particular form and then you can be invited to speak at the EiP. The Southwark Planning Network (SPN) http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/Southwark_Planning_Network , which links local action groups, is arranging some workshops and guidance on what to look for and how to make ?representations? this time round.


Two major policies being amended are on housing, and on ?social regeneration? now renamed ?regeneration that works for all?:


* The housing policy and amendments are aimed at meeting the needs for housing for all and not just about 20/30% as now. Informed assessment so far is that the housing policies will continue to fail to achieve this, while continuing to redevelop (ie demolish and rebuild) existing neighbourhoods creating over 60/70% ?unaffordable housing?.


* The need for the new policy of ?social regeneration (hastily inserted at the last moment before the last consultation) and the need for its amendment already, is a recognition that regeneration has not been working for all. This new and amended policy is therefore a welcome attempt to go in a different direction but there are still serious doubts that these amendments will achieve it. In the meantime existing residents and neighbourhoods are being disrupted by the relentless regeneration policies across the borough which manifestly do not ?work for all?.


If you want to take part in the discussion about all this at the EiP Public Hearings later this year/ early next year, you can do that by making ?representations? before 17 May.


If you would like to be part of the discussion now at community action level, please email [email protected] to get on the mailing list. Connect even faster by coming to the public meeting Wed 20th March 6-9pm at the Old Mill Building. This is responding to one of the new policies which is creating a new Heritage Local List - see the post here about the Local List and the meeting: https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,2013475

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think it's connected with the totem pole renovation celebrations They have passed now, but the notice has been there since then (at least that's when I first saw it - I passed it on the 484 and also took a photo!)
    • Labour was damned, no matter what it did, when it came to the budget. It loves go on about the black hole, but if Labour had had its way, we'd have been in lockdown for longer and the black hole would be even bigger.  Am I only the one who thinks it's time the NHS became revenue-generating? Not private, but charging small fees for GP appts, x-rays etc? People who don't turn up for GP and out-patient appointments should definitely be charged a cancellation fee. When I lived in Norway I got incredible medical treatment, including follow up appointments, drugs, x-rays, all for £200. I was more than happy to pay it and could afford to. For fairness, make it somehow means-tested.  I am sure there's a model in there somewhere that would be fair to everyone. It's time we stopped fetishising something that no longer works for patient or doctor.  As for major growth, it's a thing of the past, no matter where in the world you live, unless it's China. Or unless you want a Truss-style, totally de-regulated economy and love capitalism with a large C. 
    • If you read my post I expect a compromise with the raising of the cap on agricultural property so that far less 'ordinary' farmers do not get caught  Clarkson is simply a high profile land owner who is not in the business as a conventional farmer.  Here's a nice article that seems to explain things well  https://www.sustainweb.org/blogs/nov24-farming-budget-inheritance-tax-apr/ It's too early to speculate on 2029.  I expect that most of us who were pleased that Labour got in were not expecting anything radical. Whilst floating the idea of hitting those looking to minimise inheritance tax, including gifting, like fuel duty they also chickened put. I'm surprised that anyone could start touting for the Tories after 14 years of financial mismanagement and general incompetence. Surly not.  A very low bar for Labour but they must be well aware that there doesn't need to be much of a swing form Reform to overturn Labour's artificially large majority.  But even with a generally rabid right wing press, now was the opportunity to be much braver.
    • And I worry this Labour government with all of it's own goals and the tax increases is playing into Farage's hands. With Trump winning in the US, his BFF Farage is likely to benefit from strained relations between the US administration and the UK one. As Alastair Campbell said on a recent episode of The Rest is Politics who would not have wanted to be a fly on the wall of the first call between Angela Rayner and JD Vance....those two really are oil and water. Scary, scary times right now and there seems to be a lack of leadership and political nous within the government at a time when we really need it - there aren't many in the cabinet who you think will play well on the global stage.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...