Southwark's (lack of) Consultation process: eg CPZ; Speed limits; Restricted parking; Cycling etc

[hopskip]

First Mate

yes, and thank you, I feel this is a real problem and we have to get Southwark to appreciate it and recognise the need to address it. I know there are many specific issues that are the subject of separate threads on EDF and I am not trying to circumvent them as they are real concerns and bring focus to those instances. But there is an overarching issue of Southwark and how it consults and it seems well overdue for reform based upon the many recent and consistent concerns raised on the various threads here, yet alone those that go direct to Southwark and that we never hear about.

[Tessmo]

"In my view, Southwark have lost their way, really lost their way, on open, transparent and balanced input to their plans." Well put, @hopskip.

And yes, @first mate. I agree. Time for consultation on the consultation process, and some much-needed reform.

@Rodneybewes Again, I can see what you mean. But I still think that if we have a system in which only those who are well known for being active become part of the consultation process, we are somehow missing the point. I don't want to fall out over this, because I think we both want an open, democratic system. But I am worried by the power and influence of unelected lobby groups. We elect councillors to take action on our behalf, and I would rather they, and not self-selected activists, took action on our behalf.

[first mate]

ED History. Thank you. Do you know if the Society have a stance on any if the issues under discussion here?

Tessemo, yes and if I have my facts right some special interest groups/ activists are also local councillors- someone please correct me if I am wrong.

[rodneybewes]

@Tessmo, absolutely I think we both want the same result - a local democratic system that at least lets all voices be heard and encourages input and informed debate by all. I just think it happens quite naturally that those who push themselves out there will be more heard than those who don't. It was ever thus and will probably ever be. That's why it's crucial to play an active role rather than waiting for local government to reach out to you. Which, let's face it will become even less likely with the cuts they will probably be facing over the next half a decade. There will probably be quite a lot less reaching out, not more unfortunately.

[hopskip]

RB

well I think the world is changing very rapidly and that Councils and Councillors can not expect to rely on former practices. They are elected and expected to represent all; and are paid accordingly.

I wonder how new Councillors are trained upon appointment (if at all) to understand the Southwark processes and how to work with their Wards.

[Tessmo]

@Rodney bewes Yes, again, I think you have a good point. I see what you're saying. But shouldn't our elected councillors be making sure that those who find it less easy to speak still have the chance to make their voices heard? The noisy ones - the ones who push themselves forwards - may not, in fact, be speaking on behalf of the community. Who knows? Their noisiness might even be used (cynically) by those who have other, more political agendas. I believe the best thing is a published process on Southwark's website, saying exactly how consultations are conducted. Then consultations should be widely publicised through ward councillors. And if ward councillors are NOT making a strong commitment to getting the local community involved in these consultations - perhaps they are not doing their job properly, and we should take them to account.

[kford]

A locked-off section at the top of this forum, just for public notices affecting SE22/21/15, would be a good start

[lameduck]

Its The same as my thread in the lounge [ waste of ]

about Bredinghurst school, started demolition 6 days before due date

of neighbours opinions.

They at least should be seen to be taking peoples thoughts

into consideration

[edhistory]

There is also this "strategic" matter under consultation which seems to have slipped under the radar.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1433553,1433553#msg-1433553

Should generate extra revenue for Southwark Council as it is extended across East Dulwich.

John K

[first mate]

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1725/response_to_reports_concerning_20mph_limit_and_cyclists

A search on S'wark website indicates that that cllr barrie Hargrove announced in oct 2013 that 20 mph would go to statutory consultation. The above is a press release in June 2014 which indicates the consultation has been done, it also contains interesting information on enforcement, whereby the limit won't apply to cyclists, only motorised vehicles.....bizarre and a bit of a mess.

[first mate]

This is a link to Southwark's forward plan http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgListPlans.aspx?RPId=153&RD=0

But you can also do a bit of a search backwards by putting in key phrases like "speed limits" or "licensing".

I can already see that a big meeting on licensing residences is coming up, as well as management of leisure facilities ( thinking of the poo in the pool thread, and many complaints about ED leisure).

I wonder if admin could dedicate a tab to this and a few other key links?

This link about how S'wark intends to consult on the S'wark plan is also of interest http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11085/consultation_plan

[bluecanary]

first mate Wrote:

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

> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1725/resp

> onse_to_reports_concerning_20mph_limit_and_cyclist

> s

>

> A search on S'wark website indicates that that

> cllr barrie Hargrove announced in oct 2013 that 20

> mph would go to statutory consultation. The above

> is a press release in June 2014 which indicates

> the consultation has been done, it also contains

> interesting information on enforcement, whereby

> the limit won't apply to cyclists, only motorised

> vehicles.....bizarre and a bit of a mess.

Apparently Southwark originally intended to include cyclists but had to back down after being challenged

http://road.cc/content/news/124738-southwark-backs-down-20mph-cycling-limit

[bluecanary]

'The London borough of Southwark has this afternoon announced it will not attempt to impose speed limits on cyclists as part of its adoption of a 20 mph limit across the borough.

While lower speed limits are to be welcomed as reducing road danger for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, there was concern that attempting to apply the limit to cyclists was beyond the council?s legal powers, and would provide police with another excuse to harass cyclists in light of the Met?s disproportionate attention to cyclists in Operation Safeway.

Cycle campaign charity CTC pointed out that the Road Traffic Regulations Act gives local authorities the power to impose new speed limits only on motor vehicles, not cyclists.

Following road.cc?s stories on this issue yesterday and this morning, Southwark Council issued the following statement.

Councillor Mark Williams, cabinet member for transport: "The council sees the establishment of a 20 mph borough as significant step forward in ensuring the safety of all road users not least cyclists and pedestrians. To achieve this we feel that all vehicles should limit their speed to 20 mph.

"The report published on the 18 July to determine the statutory objections relating to a borough-wide 20mph speed limit makes it clear that orders made under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 can apply to motor vehicles only and as such any prosecution by the police for breaches of the speed limit under that Act would be limited to motorised vehicles only. Accordingly the traffic order will be amended to make reference to "motorised vehicles" only.

"The council does not have powers to prosecute cyclists who travel in excess of 20 mph and recognises that dangerous cycling is a matter for the police alone. Nor are we seeking to " target" cyclists for enforcement, rather to reflect the concerns raised by pedestrians about the problems caused by a small minority of cyclists whose speed endangers other road users."

[first mate]

Here's a link to proposals on free parking...again has consultation passed us all by http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/3654/one_hour_free_parking_in_local_shopping_parades

[Blah Blah]

How can they target cyclists anyway. Cyclists have no way of knowing if they are breaking a speed limit, because DUH they are not required to have on board speedometres. I would have thought that to be blatently obvious.

[first mate]

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/3654/one_hour_free_parking_in_local_shopping_parades

See map, page 30 for detail of proposed changes from unrestricted free parking to restricted, under S'warks free parking scheme. Consultation us ongoing. Without objections this is due to be implemented late March, early April thus year.

[bluecanary]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> How can they target cyclists anyway. Cyclists have

> no way of knowing if they are breaking a speed

> limit, because DUH they are not required to have

> on board speedometres. I would have thought that

> to be blatently obvious.

Quite. Hence the backing down!

[@Woodwarde]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Here's a link to proposals on free parking...again

> has consultation passed us all by

> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_pr

> ojects/3654/one_hour_free_parking_in_local_shoppin

> g_parades

The closing date is today FEB 9th - so take a look and respond. Is it worth a separate thread on EDF to flag this up right now and if so, can someone do that?

[bluecanary]

CONSULTATION CLOSES TODAY!

Short summary of proposed changes (my adding up, feel free to check!)

18 new restricted spaces created on North Cross Road

22 new restricted spaces created on Lordship lane and side roads

83 current 30 mins restricted to be changed to 60 mins, 62 of which will have the hours of operation extended to include Saturdays. Therefore in effect creating a loss of 62 unrestricted parking spaces on a Saturday.

I post this information to bring it to the attention of interested parties, although a regular driver I either walk or bus whilst visiting Lordship Lane so am not directly affected at present by the proposals.

first mate Wrote:

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

> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_pr

> ojects/3654/one_hour_free_parking_in_local_shoppin

> g_parades

>

> See map, page 30 for detail of proposed changes

> from unrestricted free parking to restricted,

> under S'warks free parking scheme. Consultation us

> ongoing. Without objections this is due to be

> implemented late March, early April thus year.

[first mate]

By mixing in already restricted areas with proposed changes to unrestricted it seems to me that the Council have tried to pull a fast one. If you oppose introduction of new restricted parking on L'dship Lane you need to object to the whole package and explain why.

I also hope that James Barber is prepared to take the Council to task on the design of this consultation and the Council's attempts to get a result by sleight of hand.

[DadOf4]

Southwrks approach:

1. Heres a plan that we think is For The Greater Good

2. lets present "evidence" that justifies our plan (usually consultants)

3. lets go through the motions of doing the bare-minimum we can to say that we've "consulted"

4. We'll only really try to circulate the information to people we think will be in favour

I was heavily involved in the anti-CPZ movement (around ED station) a couple of years back. The consultation process was a joke (admittedly it wasnt helped by James Barbers one man crusade to force the scheme in, without showing his true colours)........

1. the documentation (put through doors) was a sales-job on the benefits of the scheme. Nothing else

2. only people INSIDE the propssed zone were informed - no attempt to engage the wider community (which it would have greatly affected)

3. most people only found out about it through EDF

4. used a joke-of-a-list of "representative organisations" that they knew would generally favor the scheme in order to try and justify it (serously,they asked the London Ambulance service to comment on a proposed CPZ, but forgot to ask the local traders association)

5. once people started to pile in with their objections (mainly caused by EDF) - the council refused to extend the consultation by a week or so and went to great lengths to rubbish a forum such as this as a source of info

In summary: it wasnt a consultation : it was a fight with southwark council

Without going into the specifics of the actual proposed scheme, I think southwark could/should take the following actions on consultations:

1. Do an informal consultation BEFORE working up plans. For example, with the recent "no right turn" debacle, they could have come up with a very early set of options before paying 1000's for detailed analsysis and plans. It would have been clear that banning a RH turn was going to cause a lot of objections.

All it would have taken was one council officer ro post here. I'm not saying EDF is 100% representative of the area, but just think how much (useful) feedback they would have got

Obvously, sooner or later they will have to propsed/consult on some solid plans - but why not get people involved in early discussions prior to that. I accept they wont be able to listen to everybody and may sometimes have to do some unpopular things

2. Modernise communications.

I've been to a couple of community councl meetings and I get a (printed) letter every now and then. Really ? come on guys

[@Woodwarde]

And another :: NEW SOUTHWARK PLAN

From the DULWICH SOCIETY website:

http://dulwichsociety.com/

Published on Sunday, 25 January 2015 16:45

A poorly attended initial consultation meeting took place at the Dulwich Picture Gallery on Monday night to discuss the new draft Southwark Plan. This reflected the total lack of promotion by the council, even local councillor were unaware of it!

A further more detailed draft plan will be consulted on in September and the aim is for the new development plan to come into effect in 2017. The initial consultation period runs to the 6 March and an interactive consultation map will be launched in February with the aim of providing opportunities for stakeholders to comment on proposed site allocations and even suggest any new sites ? this will be operational till the early summer.

A list of forthcoming scheduled consultation workshops elsewhere in the borough are detailed on the council?s New Southwark Plan webpage: www.southwark.gov.uk/newsouthwarkplan

Last Updated on Sunday, 25 January 2015

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

The bit about not applying to cyclists is that it legally isn't enforceable for cyclists. Bicycles don't come with speedometers. But the Police can enforce cycling recklessly.

Hi edhistory,

I don't believe I've seen the report on the private landlord consultation. We have a real problem of some landlords not ensuring their properties are secure or insulated. A disproportionate number of the burglaries in East Dulwich are from such properties - poor locks, no window locks, etc.

The worst insulation problems should be resolved via new government regs that start coming into force 2016 - http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/?p=2926

[hopskip]

This is a good clear piece from Bristol City Council on consultations and sets a clear statement of intent. We should look to Southwark for their equivalent.

_____________

Whenever we make a decision about improving or changing services, we need to be confident the decision is properly informed by public opinion.

For nearly ten years, the council has maintained a corporate consultation strategy setting out the principles that should underpin consultation and engagement with the people of Bristol. Those principles remain true today and this new code of good practice seeks to reaffirm and refine them - and strengthen their consistent application.

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/council-and-democracy/code-good-practice-public-consultation

Our seven consultation principles

1.Time consultations well and allow sufficient time to respond.

2.Clearly present relevant information and encourage informed opinion.

3.Be well targeted and reach out to seldom heard groups.

4.Offer genuine options and ask objective questions.

5.Be well planned, managed and co-ordinated.

6.Be listed on Consultation Finder and be well communicated.

7.Provide fair, accessible feedback.

We will use these principles whenever we run public consultations.

[Scootingover]

Just in case you are not aware of the Local Government Ombudsman if complaints to your council are not addressed and you believe that there is cause for complaint.

Local Government Ombudsman

Councils' performance - check out Southwark

These are the annual reviews (previous called annual letters) that we send to all councils about their performance in dealing with complaints made about them to the Ombudsman. The aim is to provide councils with information to help them improve complaint handling, and improve their services more generally, for the benefit of the public. The letters also include a summary of statistics relating to the complaints we have received and dealt with against each council. There is a note to help with interpretation of these statistics.

http://www.lgo.org.uk/CouncilsPerformance/?letter=S