Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi James, not sure if you are the person to ask about this.


I took a car load of stuff to the council tip off the Old Kent Road yesterday, including a large can half full of old oil-based paint.


I asked someone where to put the paint, and they said "Is it any good?" When I said no (it had gone off and wasn't useable) they told me to put it in with "general waste".


I said "Are you sure?" and was told "Yes, of course I'm sure, I work here."


I thought things like paint had to be disposed of separately for environmental reasons? That was the only reason I took it to the tip in the first place!

Hi James,


Is there a way to end the dropped kerb madness on Dunstans Road? I never saw the planning application for the latest one. Must have been pinned to a lamp post. It is majorly inconvenient for people who do not own their front garden as there soon won't be anywhere to park; is potentially dangerous, what with all the children going to school and cars reversing out of their front garden; and makes things quite hard for people with pushchairs.


Thank you.

Monkey, I'm afraid to say that this is driven by an anti-car agenda, just another way to force people onto bikes or buses. The irony is that, as ever, this will penalise poorer members of the community, as you say, those who do not have a front garden to convert into parking, or cannot afford to do so.


Parking is also incrementally and quite deliberately being squeezed by schemes like one hour free parking where large swathes of unrestricted parking is converted to restricted, in the guise of doing us all a favour. 20 mph on A roads and bonkers schemes, like the "no right turn" on Townley, place further pressure on drivers and are meant to support cyclists.


The final irony is the effect mass conversion to dropped kerbs might have on the environment...all that creation of hard standing is not great.

Hard standing creates problems with rain water having nowhere to go and will result in potentially impossible to deal with flooding. Think Noah if this goes on we will all need an ark.


Allowing dropped curbs and giving people the ability to park of street is also elitist and will make those who can do this even more advantaged over the poor who live in flats with no access to parking of any form it's obviously an elitist scheme devised by the capitalist political elite outrageous as this is raised as an issue now just ahead of the election this thread is being used as political propaganda for the non socially elite.


If the poor can't have dropped curbs.. Then neither should the rich...


Dropped curbs for all!!!!!!



Power to the people ....




http://the-militant-atheist.org/images/noahs-beaver-problem.jpg

monkey - Southwark's guidelines on car parking on forecourts/front gardens says



", private land owners are required to enter into one or more legal

agreements with the Borough Solicitor agreeing and undertaking to ...to exit (and in most instances) enter the Vehicle Crossing in forward gear "


so cars shouldn't be reversing onto roads .


Though don't ask me how that's enforceable .

agreements with the Borough Solicitor agreeing and undertaking to ...to exit (and in most instances) enter the Vehicle Crossing in forward gear


You do realise that this would require cars to have sufficient space to turn right-around in the parking space to both enter and exit facing front (or have a railway style turntable installed). This is clearly madness, and perverse madness at that. Anyone subsequently buying a house with a dropped kerb, as I did, would have not been such a signatory, and unless the deeds were changed to make this some form of restrictive covenant (they won't have been) unenforceable.


This convinces me that the Southwark people purporting to be in charge of this are either mad, or bad, or (probably) both.

Agreed, reversing in and driving out is my preferred choice - and I knew that you did realise the impact of all this - it was just for emphasis - nonetheless it does say '(and in most instances) enter'... they clearly do not think of the meaning of what they write, and in regulations too - and the elected councilors and cabinet members who are meant to oversee this are slipshod, careless or stupid. Possibly all three.

Hi first mate,

I don't think so. A lot of time and effort has gone into these proposals by all parties and I can't see how the decision breaches any policies or strategies - which is reqired for a call-in to Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

Unless you tell me otherwise...

James, you are the expert and have far more knowledge of the process than I. I have a hunch that you support the decision too. It is just that there seems to be a disjuncture between use of process to reach the 'valid' decision desired by councillors (for whatever reasons) and local feeling/objections. Who was it said that 'process is the politican's friend'.

Hi first mate,

As an opposition councillor we have to weigh up what we call-in via Overview & Scurtiny Committee. We appear to have upset Labour when we chaired this committee such that they now have a Labour chairperson - with a majority they decide this although it is breaking a long tradition of the leading party not chairing the committee that scrutinses the ruling party. We have always been reticent about using this call-in power for fear of Labour umbridge and losing it. With a council majority they can change the constitution as they wish. That is my reticence. Saying that in 2014 they changed the constitution to make it possible for Lib Dems to still be able to call-in decisions.


I've been copied an email sent to OSC members by residents and am very sympathetic to reasons for call-in B2,B3,B4. B1 at the meeting officers anssered to my satisfaction - turning circles for coaches during rush hour.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi first mate,

> As an opposition councillor we have to weigh up

> what we call-in via Overview & Scurtiny Committee.

> We appear to have upset Labour when we chaired

> this committee such that they now have a Labour

> chairperson - with a majority they decide this

> although it is breaking a long tradition of the

> leading party not chairing the committee that

> scrutinses the ruling party.


Er, have a look at Liberal Democrat controlled Three Rivers District Council - with about 1/3 of the Councillors belonging to the opposition councillors. 4 O & S Committees, guess how many are chaired by the opposition? Go on, guess, James. Guess how many have an opposition Vice-Chair ? Go, on, guess.


> We have always been

> reticent about using this call-in power for fear

> of Labour umbridge and losing it.


Though you whinged like mad when Labour used this when you were in power...

Hi landsberger,

They don't run cabinet council there but run on a committee basis.

You've compared apples with melons.


I never complained when Labour called-in decisions when in opposition. My lot have called-in fewer decisions than Labour did.


In Southwark 10 Labour councillors meet in one cabinet and make collective and individual decisions. Scrutiny committees review issues and other topics and scutinise some decisions but most they do not scrutinise.


In Three Rivers I believe they don't have cabinet government but committees where all the parties debate decisions before they're decided upon and each committee votes on decisions - hence the chair is held by the majority party for each committee. This is how Southwark used to be run until New Labour introduced "strong government" options and gave councils the option of cabinet government.


I prefer the committee decision making process as it keeps all councillors actively involved in decision making and the scrutiny ensures better government. They also have 3 years in 4 a third of councillors are elected. This ensures all parties feel the tug public opinion and don't get complacent.


Which system do you think leads to better governance - strong leader/cabinet or committee?

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

    • If you're a fundraising intermediary, reporting promptly and accurately on how you've raised and spent funds seems quite important.
    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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