Friday, January 25, 2008
Public meeting concerning the planning application for 75 Leyland Road
There will be a public meeting to discuss the issues raised concerning the planning application for 75 Leyland Road (Ref: DC/07/67594) at the Lee Green United Reform Church 111-113 Burnt Ash Road, Lee Green, SE12 8RA on Wednesday 5th March starting at 7.00pm.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Hither Green East CPZ consultation - the Pros and Cons
A quick reminder that the exhibition to support the Hither Green East CPZ consultation will be taking place outside Hither Green station this Friday (23rd) between 10am and 8pm, and on Saturday from 10am to 4pm.
To accompany this here's my personal take (both as a resident in the proposed zone and as a local ward councillor) on what's proposed for the Hither Green East CPZ and how much it will cost.
The roads in the Hither Green East CPZ consultation are:
Fernbrook Road, Leahurst Road, Longhurst Road, Manor Park, Pascoe Road, Staplehurst Road, Weardale Road and a short section of Ennersdale Road from the railway bridge to the junction with Leahurst Road. What's proposed is:
The restrictions proposed are (from my interpretation of the consultation map):
Residents only parking in:
Weardale, Manor Park, Pascoe, Fernbrook Crescent, Fernbrook (from the junction with Leahurst/Fernbrook Crescent), Ennersdale, Leahurst (from junction with Ennersdale to Dermody).
Shared Use Bays (Permit and Pay & Display, maximum stay 4 hours) in:
Staplehurst. small part of Longhurst and Leahurst at junctions with Staplehurst.
Shared Use Bays (Permit and Pay & Display, all day stay) in:
Fernbrook (railway embankment side), Longhurst (junction with Manor Lane), Manor Park (junction with Lee High Road), Weardale (junction with Lee High Road).
1 Free bay (maximum stay 30 minutes) outside the Rodett Play Group in Manor Park
2 loading bays in Staplehurst Road.
2 disabled bays outside Hither Green station forecourt.
6 fixed bus stops in Fernbrook Road.
There are no other consultations planned within Lee Green ward this year.
Permits, and what they cost:
Resident permits are £30 per annum or £12.50 per quarter - but you must have a vehicle registered to your address to buy one - so it wouldn't be possible to have a 'any car' one you could lend to visitors. Permits are only valid for the zone in which they are issued, so Lewisham residents not in the Hither Green East zone couldn't park here using a permit for another zone.
Visitor permits cost £2 per day, or a £1 for half a day (up to five hours)and you can buy as many of these as you want. Or you can buy a weekly visitors permit for £5 per week (effectively half price) - but you can only buy 12 weeks worth of these weekly permits in any one year. The weekly permits must be used on the same vehicle for a consecutive seven day period. When purchasing a visitor permit you will need to be on the electoral register or you will need to supply proof of residency in the form of your council tax book or your most recent council tax bill. They're in scratch-card form, so you can have a 'stock' at home and just scratch off the appropriate day you want to use them.
Carer permits are £30 per year. They do not carry a specific registration number and can be used by any person caring for the resident. Use of the permit is restricted to four hours in any one day. Carers' permits are only available to residents who live within a controlled parking zone and who do not have a resident permit for the address at which they live.
Permit application forms are available by contacting the Parking Shop. The application form must be accompanied by a letter from the applicant’s doctor confirming that the applicant relies on constant help and care at home
Business permits cost £300 per annum, or £165 for six months. Business permits are available to employees of businesses located within one of the borough’s controlled parking zones (CPZ). They permit the holder to park in designated 'Business Permit Holders Only', or in dual or triple use bays.
Disabled Blue Badge holders are entitled to a free Residents permit.
Arguments for the Hither Green East CPZ:
Because residents permits issued elsewhere in the borough wouldn't be valid in the Hither Green East zone the proposed CPZ would deter most commuter parking.
As long as there were sufficient residents' parking bays the proposed CPZ would solve the chronic parking problems affecting residents in Weardale.
The two disabled bays proposed for Staplehurst (outside Hither Green station and alongside the Drain Centre) would take the pressure off the existing disabled bays in Fernbrook. (However there could be a problem concerning the existing disabled bays - see arguments against below.)
It would remove the all day parking from the front of Hither Green station forecourt.
Arguments against the Hither Green East CPZ:
No one can actually predict what the outcome of installing a CPZ will be until it is in operation. What the knock-on effect will be for surrounding roads outside the zone is also something we'd only know once the CPZ is in operation. We already know that no other consultations are planned for Lee Green ward this year so any problems arising in neighbouring roads or affecting the Staplehurst shops probably wouldn't be addressed for 12 months or more.
One of the biggest problems with CPZs that you can see from where they are already installed is that many residents pave over their front gardens to create off-road parking space and this could have serious consequences for rain water run off making floods and water shortages more likely as rain water will not be able to soak into the ground. It's estimated that around two thirds of London's front gardens are already paved over.
Disproportionate cost for small shops and businesses. We've seen from Springbank Road that CPZs appear to have a seriously negative impact on shopping areas. They also impose a heavy additional cost on small shops, some of which are already struggling to make ends meet.
CPZs don't just affect car owners, they are even more costly for non-car owners. Visitors permits cost £2 per day, so after 15 visits a non-car owner has paid the same as a car owning resident who pays £30 for 365 days of parking.
There's no guarantee that CPZ charges will remain at the low level they are now or that banded charging based on the type of car you own won't be introduced.
While the disabled residents in Fernbrook are entitled to a free Resident permit it is unclear whether their existing disabled parking bays will be replaced by residents' parking bays which any resident with a permit can use.
The proposed CPZ doesn't address the problems that the residents in Fernbrook Road have with damage being caused to their vehicles by the 273 bus and other large vehicles. Unfortunately the current proposal with parking on both sides of the road doesn't allow for any more room for the passage of the bus than there is now.
The plans residents have been presented with are just a proposal as the actual CPZ that's installed will only be finalised if residents vote for the CPZ. So keep in mind that there could be amendments to the plan such as for example putting in a limited number of all day shared use bays in Leahurst and Pascoe, or a Car Club space.
You have to go to the Parking Shop in Catford in order to buy the permits. They are not to my knowledge available anywhere locally.
Are there any alternatives?
My ward councillor colleagues and I believe that residents should have also been offered the option of a two hour restriction in the middle of the day which we think would have been enough to deter the commuter parking, but in our opinion cause far less inconvenience for local residents, their visitors, and our shops. We feel as far less work would have been involved in implementing this restriction and policing it that the cost of permits, especially to our small shops could be significantly reduced.
Another alternative that we are keen to introduce to the ward is the Car Club. Car Clubs make cars available in the ward that you can hire by the hour. On average every Car Club car replaces six cars so residents who only use their cars occasionally could save money by getting rid of their car while still having access to a car when they need one, and free up much needed parking space. You can find out more about Car Clubs at: http://www.carplus.org.uk/carclubs/what-are.htm
You can find information about parking, CPZs and permits in Lewisham online at:
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/TransportAndStreets/Parking/ParkingPermits/
This is an important issue and you have about a week left in which to return your consultation paper. Not returning the survey isn’t a protest vote or a vote for or against – it just means the Council won’t know what you think. When returning your survey, please do use the comments section too. My colleagues and I know from calling round locally that many people favour a simple 2-hour CPZ restriction, which would tackle commuter parking, but cause far less hassle for local residents. We encourage you to ask for this type of restriction in the ‘commments’ section by writing in “I favour a two hour restriction in the middle of the day”
The CPZ consultation will affect everyone in our area – whether you have a car or not. Please make sure you have your say. And if you've lost your consultation paper and would like another please email me with your address details and I'll try to get a replacement to you.
To accompany this here's my personal take (both as a resident in the proposed zone and as a local ward councillor) on what's proposed for the Hither Green East CPZ and how much it will cost.
The roads in the Hither Green East CPZ consultation are:
Fernbrook Road, Leahurst Road, Longhurst Road, Manor Park, Pascoe Road, Staplehurst Road, Weardale Road and a short section of Ennersdale Road from the railway bridge to the junction with Leahurst Road. What's proposed is:
The restrictions proposed are (from my interpretation of the consultation map):
Residents only parking in:
Weardale, Manor Park, Pascoe, Fernbrook Crescent, Fernbrook (from the junction with Leahurst/Fernbrook Crescent), Ennersdale, Leahurst (from junction with Ennersdale to Dermody).
Shared Use Bays (Permit and Pay & Display, maximum stay 4 hours) in:
Staplehurst. small part of Longhurst and Leahurst at junctions with Staplehurst.
Shared Use Bays (Permit and Pay & Display, all day stay) in:
Fernbrook (railway embankment side), Longhurst (junction with Manor Lane), Manor Park (junction with Lee High Road), Weardale (junction with Lee High Road).
1 Free bay (maximum stay 30 minutes) outside the Rodett Play Group in Manor Park
2 loading bays in Staplehurst Road.
2 disabled bays outside Hither Green station forecourt.
6 fixed bus stops in Fernbrook Road.
There are no other consultations planned within Lee Green ward this year.
Permits, and what they cost:
Resident permits are £30 per annum or £12.50 per quarter - but you must have a vehicle registered to your address to buy one - so it wouldn't be possible to have a 'any car' one you could lend to visitors. Permits are only valid for the zone in which they are issued, so Lewisham residents not in the Hither Green East zone couldn't park here using a permit for another zone.
Visitor permits cost £2 per day, or a £1 for half a day (up to five hours)and you can buy as many of these as you want. Or you can buy a weekly visitors permit for £5 per week (effectively half price) - but you can only buy 12 weeks worth of these weekly permits in any one year. The weekly permits must be used on the same vehicle for a consecutive seven day period. When purchasing a visitor permit you will need to be on the electoral register or you will need to supply proof of residency in the form of your council tax book or your most recent council tax bill. They're in scratch-card form, so you can have a 'stock' at home and just scratch off the appropriate day you want to use them.
Carer permits are £30 per year. They do not carry a specific registration number and can be used by any person caring for the resident. Use of the permit is restricted to four hours in any one day. Carers' permits are only available to residents who live within a controlled parking zone and who do not have a resident permit for the address at which they live.
Permit application forms are available by contacting the Parking Shop. The application form must be accompanied by a letter from the applicant’s doctor confirming that the applicant relies on constant help and care at home
Business permits cost £300 per annum, or £165 for six months. Business permits are available to employees of businesses located within one of the borough’s controlled parking zones (CPZ). They permit the holder to park in designated 'Business Permit Holders Only', or in dual or triple use bays.
Disabled Blue Badge holders are entitled to a free Residents permit.
Arguments for the Hither Green East CPZ:
Because residents permits issued elsewhere in the borough wouldn't be valid in the Hither Green East zone the proposed CPZ would deter most commuter parking.
As long as there were sufficient residents' parking bays the proposed CPZ would solve the chronic parking problems affecting residents in Weardale.
The two disabled bays proposed for Staplehurst (outside Hither Green station and alongside the Drain Centre) would take the pressure off the existing disabled bays in Fernbrook. (However there could be a problem concerning the existing disabled bays - see arguments against below.)
It would remove the all day parking from the front of Hither Green station forecourt.
Arguments against the Hither Green East CPZ:
No one can actually predict what the outcome of installing a CPZ will be until it is in operation. What the knock-on effect will be for surrounding roads outside the zone is also something we'd only know once the CPZ is in operation. We already know that no other consultations are planned for Lee Green ward this year so any problems arising in neighbouring roads or affecting the Staplehurst shops probably wouldn't be addressed for 12 months or more.
One of the biggest problems with CPZs that you can see from where they are already installed is that many residents pave over their front gardens to create off-road parking space and this could have serious consequences for rain water run off making floods and water shortages more likely as rain water will not be able to soak into the ground. It's estimated that around two thirds of London's front gardens are already paved over.
Disproportionate cost for small shops and businesses. We've seen from Springbank Road that CPZs appear to have a seriously negative impact on shopping areas. They also impose a heavy additional cost on small shops, some of which are already struggling to make ends meet.
CPZs don't just affect car owners, they are even more costly for non-car owners. Visitors permits cost £2 per day, so after 15 visits a non-car owner has paid the same as a car owning resident who pays £30 for 365 days of parking.
There's no guarantee that CPZ charges will remain at the low level they are now or that banded charging based on the type of car you own won't be introduced.
While the disabled residents in Fernbrook are entitled to a free Resident permit it is unclear whether their existing disabled parking bays will be replaced by residents' parking bays which any resident with a permit can use.
The proposed CPZ doesn't address the problems that the residents in Fernbrook Road have with damage being caused to their vehicles by the 273 bus and other large vehicles. Unfortunately the current proposal with parking on both sides of the road doesn't allow for any more room for the passage of the bus than there is now.
The plans residents have been presented with are just a proposal as the actual CPZ that's installed will only be finalised if residents vote for the CPZ. So keep in mind that there could be amendments to the plan such as for example putting in a limited number of all day shared use bays in Leahurst and Pascoe, or a Car Club space.
You have to go to the Parking Shop in Catford in order to buy the permits. They are not to my knowledge available anywhere locally.
Are there any alternatives?
My ward councillor colleagues and I believe that residents should have also been offered the option of a two hour restriction in the middle of the day which we think would have been enough to deter the commuter parking, but in our opinion cause far less inconvenience for local residents, their visitors, and our shops. We feel as far less work would have been involved in implementing this restriction and policing it that the cost of permits, especially to our small shops could be significantly reduced.
Another alternative that we are keen to introduce to the ward is the Car Club. Car Clubs make cars available in the ward that you can hire by the hour. On average every Car Club car replaces six cars so residents who only use their cars occasionally could save money by getting rid of their car while still having access to a car when they need one, and free up much needed parking space. You can find out more about Car Clubs at: http://www.carplus.org.uk/carclubs/what-are.htm
You can find information about parking, CPZs and permits in Lewisham online at:
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/TransportAndStreets/Parking/ParkingPermits/
This is an important issue and you have about a week left in which to return your consultation paper. Not returning the survey isn’t a protest vote or a vote for or against – it just means the Council won’t know what you think. When returning your survey, please do use the comments section too. My colleagues and I know from calling round locally that many people favour a simple 2-hour CPZ restriction, which would tackle commuter parking, but cause far less hassle for local residents. We encourage you to ask for this type of restriction in the ‘commments’ section by writing in “I favour a two hour restriction in the middle of the day”
The CPZ consultation will affect everyone in our area – whether you have a car or not. Please make sure you have your say. And if you've lost your consultation paper and would like another please email me with your address details and I'll try to get a replacement to you.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Answering Mr Mallory
This is my reply to Jim Mallory, Chair of Manor House Gardens User Group addressing his emailed concerns to me (and FUSS, Lee Manor Society, and the Chair of the Safer Neighbourhood Team) that as ward councillors we'd made very little effort to consult over the 2007 Locality Fund. Jim's text is shown in italics.
--------
On 26 Jan 2007, at 09:16, James Mallory wrote:
I write with some concern about the ward’s Locality Fund for this year, and in particular over the steps you are taking to ensure local groups are consulted. To date, as far as I can ascertain, we have had nothing other than a note in your party leaflet - hardly sufficient, I’m sure you will agree if local groups are to get some proper input. Information on timing, criteria, etc, would be extremely helpful.
Jim - your inference here seems to be that we really haven't made any effort to consult on the Locality Fund which really couldn't be further from the truth. We were given just six weeks to get the Locality Fund proposal together, and that included Christmas, when I understood you were away in Canada, and New Year, with a deadline of 15th January. As well as using our Focus we also asked for suggestions for the fund on my Internet Blog (which I know is read by members of Lee Manor Society among others), and we consulted with the local Town Centre Manager for Staplehurst Road, Lewisham Cyclists, local TRAs, Northbrook, Brindishe and Abbey Manor, our SNT and ward panel Chair, plus as we're also in fairly constant contact with FUSS, Lee Manor Society and Manor House Library User Group we were open to their feedback throughout, and whenever the opportunity arose we consulted with constituents throughout the ward. As we understood you were away during this period we didn't contact you as Chair of Manor House Gardens User Group, but as Elizabeth is also an officer of MHGUG I did consult her, and I was aware through the last MHGUG meeting that you had the funding available for the lake fountain which I believe was the only outstanding item of expenditure for MHGUG? We're aware that with such tight deadlines it is difficult to reach as many constituents and groups as we'd like so we'll be starting the consultation process for any possible funding (even though we have no idea whether this will be continued and how much will be allocated) in 2008 in April this year. I should point out that neither of the Labour councillors who were ward councillors in Lee Green at the time of the pilot Locality Fund for 2006 took part in the Locality Fund process at all, and it was only at the eleventh hour and well after the deadline that Cllr Long asked for an item to be included. The bulk of the 2006 funding was arranged and agreed jointly with Cllrs Milton and Bodimeade in Lewisham Central. So I think on balance while not perfect we've achieved a great deal more consultation than in 2006 and we've done the best we could in the time allowed. Perhaps the question you should be asking is why so little time is allocated to wards to allow for consultation and actually spending the money? The Fund has to be spent by the end of March (and there's a great deal of work to be done before you even get to that point) which completely cuts out summer activities and spreading them over the year.
I shall be raising the Locality Fund as an item on the next meeting of Manor House Gardens Users’ Group (6 Feb), and am copying Kathy Gasson of FUSS, and Ralph White of the Lee Manor Society, so that they may - if they want - relay any feedback we get from you to their groups, as well as the Safety Neighbourhood Team. There may be others which I have through ignorance I’ve omitted.
Raising the Locality Fund at the next MHGUG meeting is obviously an option you have every right to exercise but what exactly would be the purpose as I'm answering your concerns fully here and your basic premise that hardly anyone has been consulted is obviously completely unfounded? We're quite prepared to defend our Locality Fund proposals to the MHGUG committee but don't you think there are other things that are far more important for the committee to spend their time on? For example I'd like to request that an item is added to the agenda where I'll be asking for the committees support in asking Glendale to introduce full on-site recycling of green waste in Manor House Gardens. Plus the Christmas tree recycling drop point I got included at the Old Road entrance to the park this year was also a great success, so surely your time would be better spent adding to these initiatives that improve the quality of life for everyone in the ward?
However, as well as asking for suggestions for the Locality Fund on the Internet we also published on January 14th (the day before the deadline) on the Internet how we're intending to spend this year's money. However you argue this you really can't get more open and accessible than the Internet! This year's proposed spending builds on what we started last year and we believe benefits virtually everyone in our community. On each occasion when considering the Locality Fund we've wanted the maximum number of people to benefit, and we've wanted to ensure that our money is as far as possible spent locally and I think we've achieved this in what we are proposing for this year. The object of the fund is to engage local residents to deliver improvements in their ward, and in the process to commission actions or activities that will directly benefit the local neighbourhood and make a visible difference.
But to recap, what did we spend the £5,000 Locality Fund on last year in 2006? Money was spent on supplying and maintaining the Eltham Road planters, and also on installing girder gates to stop the wholesale fly-tipping and dumping and burning of stolen cars in the Leegate-Burnt Ash area. The rest of the money was match funded with Lewisham Central ward to get work started on the derelict nature reserve space between platforms 4 and 5 of Hither Green station, and towards establishing a management committee to seek funding for the refurbishment of the Hither Green side of Hither Green station. Was all this successful? Unequivocally yes! The planters were universally liked, the gates are in place and we're continuing to work with the Council to bring lasting changes to an area that's been blighted for years. The renovation of the nature reserve will begin in the spring and I've continued to work with the emerging Hither Green group and my colleagues in Lewisham Central to start the rejuvenation process there, something which can only benefit us all.
So that was 2006, what are we hoping to spend the money on this year in 2007?
1. We've offered matched funding to the Friends of Brindishe school towards the purchase of outdoor benches to create an outdoor classroom.
2. We’re hoping to purchase and install much needed stainless steel waste bins to match the new TfL seating in Eltham Road.
3. We’re commissioning Envirowork, a social enterprise run by Lewisham residents providing employment and ground-based training to unemployed local people, to design, produce, and maintain 4 planters for Eltham Road. The advantage is that unlike last year the ward will actually own these planters so future expenditure will be confined to replenishing the planting and maintenance. We’re also asking Envirowork to put together a permanent year round planting scheme for the raised brick flower bed outside Lee station which will be maintained by Southeastern.
4. We’re commissioning Tall Lighthouse, a local publisher of poetry and organiser of poetry workshops to put on a community poetry event by local poets at the Stark Gallery enterprise and and also put on a poetry workshop at Northbrook school.
5. We’re funding the purchase of a built-in radio for the common room area of Abbey Manor College.
6. At the request of Martin Hyde the bulk of our Locality Fund is being spent on match funding a sculpture for the soon to be completed newly refurbished Manor Park. We’ve ensured that this commission will be open to local artists and in order to secure our funding we’ve asked that there’s a commitment to ensuring that all green waste produced in the park will be recycled on-site.
7. And finally we’re match funding the refurbishment of the Burnt Ash Triangle area alongside the car wash in Burnt Ash Road which has been an eyesore for years.
These are our proposals and we believe they meet the criteria of the fund and benefit the maximum number of residents. We were not able to consider funding the SNT ward panel because at present it doesn't have a bank account for the money to be transferred to. I've emailed the Chair, Ray Cohen, about this and asked for it to be raised at the next ward panel. We were also prepared to consider funding youth diversionary activities should our SNT wish to organise them and this was discussed, but the short timescale made this impractical this time, and even though we didn't end up allocating any of the locality fund to the TRAs our offer of some funding (plus a lot of hard work on Cllr Robson's part) was instrumental in bringing youth work back to the ward. Manor House Library is soon to become a building site so funding wasn't considered in this round for MHLUG but we know of things, such as a computer compatible projector which they, and other library users, would find useful in the meeting rooms of the refurbished library and we could consider funding something like this in the future. And as FUSS had just received their Lottery funding which covered the expenditure they had planned we rightly I believe concentrated on areas where funding wasn't readily available.
So as you can see contrary to what you obviously believed a lot of thought and effort has gone into this year's Locality Fund along with a great deal of consultation, but we believe we can and will improve on the consultation process in coming years.
Regards etc.
--------
To put all this in some kind of context you may remember that Jim stood as a Labour candidate at the last local elections and Lewisham has a Labour Mayor and a Labour administration, so I think I'm justified in making the following comments. The lack of time allocated for consulting, getting costings and spending the Locality Fund is, I'm afraid, down to his Labour administration not us. For one entire week of the six weeks we had to pull this all together I was arranging the road closure for the FUSS Christmas Fair. This involves amongst other things ticketing all the cars daily, checking that all licences are in place, putting up the barriers the evening before, and doing a 6am to 8pm shift on the day of the Fair. Given we had all this going on, plus casework and meetings I think it's a miracle we pulled it together so well. I also understand from a follow up email from Jim that he's concerned that the cost of moving trees for the Manor House Library refurbishment will consume most of the Manor House Gardens User Group funds, implying this could have been an item MHGUG might have approached us for, but once again I have to say that the question he should be asking is why his Labour administration are not funding the Manor House Library refurbishment adequately enough to cover the full cost of the project. Money for moving the trees could probably not in any case have been spent before the end of March 2007. The Locality Fund is only £10,000 for the whole ward (only £5000 last year), so it is inevitable that some needs and desires cannot be met from it. Choices had to be made quickly and it was down to the team of elected councillors to make them, and I still contend that this year's allocations meet the criteria of the Fund and will benefit many people living in the ward.
--------
On 26 Jan 2007, at 09:16, James Mallory wrote:
I write with some concern about the ward’s Locality Fund for this year, and in particular over the steps you are taking to ensure local groups are consulted. To date, as far as I can ascertain, we have had nothing other than a note in your party leaflet - hardly sufficient, I’m sure you will agree if local groups are to get some proper input. Information on timing, criteria, etc, would be extremely helpful.
Jim - your inference here seems to be that we really haven't made any effort to consult on the Locality Fund which really couldn't be further from the truth. We were given just six weeks to get the Locality Fund proposal together, and that included Christmas, when I understood you were away in Canada, and New Year, with a deadline of 15th January. As well as using our Focus we also asked for suggestions for the fund on my Internet Blog (which I know is read by members of Lee Manor Society among others), and we consulted with the local Town Centre Manager for Staplehurst Road, Lewisham Cyclists, local TRAs, Northbrook, Brindishe and Abbey Manor, our SNT and ward panel Chair, plus as we're also in fairly constant contact with FUSS, Lee Manor Society and Manor House Library User Group we were open to their feedback throughout, and whenever the opportunity arose we consulted with constituents throughout the ward. As we understood you were away during this period we didn't contact you as Chair of Manor House Gardens User Group, but as Elizabeth is also an officer of MHGUG I did consult her, and I was aware through the last MHGUG meeting that you had the funding available for the lake fountain which I believe was the only outstanding item of expenditure for MHGUG? We're aware that with such tight deadlines it is difficult to reach as many constituents and groups as we'd like so we'll be starting the consultation process for any possible funding (even though we have no idea whether this will be continued and how much will be allocated) in 2008 in April this year. I should point out that neither of the Labour councillors who were ward councillors in Lee Green at the time of the pilot Locality Fund for 2006 took part in the Locality Fund process at all, and it was only at the eleventh hour and well after the deadline that Cllr Long asked for an item to be included. The bulk of the 2006 funding was arranged and agreed jointly with Cllrs Milton and Bodimeade in Lewisham Central. So I think on balance while not perfect we've achieved a great deal more consultation than in 2006 and we've done the best we could in the time allowed. Perhaps the question you should be asking is why so little time is allocated to wards to allow for consultation and actually spending the money? The Fund has to be spent by the end of March (and there's a great deal of work to be done before you even get to that point) which completely cuts out summer activities and spreading them over the year.
I shall be raising the Locality Fund as an item on the next meeting of Manor House Gardens Users’ Group (6 Feb), and am copying Kathy Gasson of FUSS, and Ralph White of the Lee Manor Society, so that they may - if they want - relay any feedback we get from you to their groups, as well as the Safety Neighbourhood Team. There may be others which I have through ignorance I’ve omitted.
Raising the Locality Fund at the next MHGUG meeting is obviously an option you have every right to exercise but what exactly would be the purpose as I'm answering your concerns fully here and your basic premise that hardly anyone has been consulted is obviously completely unfounded? We're quite prepared to defend our Locality Fund proposals to the MHGUG committee but don't you think there are other things that are far more important for the committee to spend their time on? For example I'd like to request that an item is added to the agenda where I'll be asking for the committees support in asking Glendale to introduce full on-site recycling of green waste in Manor House Gardens. Plus the Christmas tree recycling drop point I got included at the Old Road entrance to the park this year was also a great success, so surely your time would be better spent adding to these initiatives that improve the quality of life for everyone in the ward?
However, as well as asking for suggestions for the Locality Fund on the Internet we also published on January 14th (the day before the deadline) on the Internet how we're intending to spend this year's money. However you argue this you really can't get more open and accessible than the Internet! This year's proposed spending builds on what we started last year and we believe benefits virtually everyone in our community. On each occasion when considering the Locality Fund we've wanted the maximum number of people to benefit, and we've wanted to ensure that our money is as far as possible spent locally and I think we've achieved this in what we are proposing for this year. The object of the fund is to engage local residents to deliver improvements in their ward, and in the process to commission actions or activities that will directly benefit the local neighbourhood and make a visible difference.
But to recap, what did we spend the £5,000 Locality Fund on last year in 2006? Money was spent on supplying and maintaining the Eltham Road planters, and also on installing girder gates to stop the wholesale fly-tipping and dumping and burning of stolen cars in the Leegate-Burnt Ash area. The rest of the money was match funded with Lewisham Central ward to get work started on the derelict nature reserve space between platforms 4 and 5 of Hither Green station, and towards establishing a management committee to seek funding for the refurbishment of the Hither Green side of Hither Green station. Was all this successful? Unequivocally yes! The planters were universally liked, the gates are in place and we're continuing to work with the Council to bring lasting changes to an area that's been blighted for years. The renovation of the nature reserve will begin in the spring and I've continued to work with the emerging Hither Green group and my colleagues in Lewisham Central to start the rejuvenation process there, something which can only benefit us all.
So that was 2006, what are we hoping to spend the money on this year in 2007?
1. We've offered matched funding to the Friends of Brindishe school towards the purchase of outdoor benches to create an outdoor classroom.
2. We’re hoping to purchase and install much needed stainless steel waste bins to match the new TfL seating in Eltham Road.
3. We’re commissioning Envirowork, a social enterprise run by Lewisham residents providing employment and ground-based training to unemployed local people, to design, produce, and maintain 4 planters for Eltham Road. The advantage is that unlike last year the ward will actually own these planters so future expenditure will be confined to replenishing the planting and maintenance. We’re also asking Envirowork to put together a permanent year round planting scheme for the raised brick flower bed outside Lee station which will be maintained by Southeastern.
4. We’re commissioning Tall Lighthouse, a local publisher of poetry and organiser of poetry workshops to put on a community poetry event by local poets at the Stark Gallery enterprise and and also put on a poetry workshop at Northbrook school.
5. We’re funding the purchase of a built-in radio for the common room area of Abbey Manor College.
6. At the request of Martin Hyde the bulk of our Locality Fund is being spent on match funding a sculpture for the soon to be completed newly refurbished Manor Park. We’ve ensured that this commission will be open to local artists and in order to secure our funding we’ve asked that there’s a commitment to ensuring that all green waste produced in the park will be recycled on-site.
7. And finally we’re match funding the refurbishment of the Burnt Ash Triangle area alongside the car wash in Burnt Ash Road which has been an eyesore for years.
These are our proposals and we believe they meet the criteria of the fund and benefit the maximum number of residents. We were not able to consider funding the SNT ward panel because at present it doesn't have a bank account for the money to be transferred to. I've emailed the Chair, Ray Cohen, about this and asked for it to be raised at the next ward panel. We were also prepared to consider funding youth diversionary activities should our SNT wish to organise them and this was discussed, but the short timescale made this impractical this time, and even though we didn't end up allocating any of the locality fund to the TRAs our offer of some funding (plus a lot of hard work on Cllr Robson's part) was instrumental in bringing youth work back to the ward. Manor House Library is soon to become a building site so funding wasn't considered in this round for MHLUG but we know of things, such as a computer compatible projector which they, and other library users, would find useful in the meeting rooms of the refurbished library and we could consider funding something like this in the future. And as FUSS had just received their Lottery funding which covered the expenditure they had planned we rightly I believe concentrated on areas where funding wasn't readily available.
So as you can see contrary to what you obviously believed a lot of thought and effort has gone into this year's Locality Fund along with a great deal of consultation, but we believe we can and will improve on the consultation process in coming years.
Regards etc.
--------
To put all this in some kind of context you may remember that Jim stood as a Labour candidate at the last local elections and Lewisham has a Labour Mayor and a Labour administration, so I think I'm justified in making the following comments. The lack of time allocated for consulting, getting costings and spending the Locality Fund is, I'm afraid, down to his Labour administration not us. For one entire week of the six weeks we had to pull this all together I was arranging the road closure for the FUSS Christmas Fair. This involves amongst other things ticketing all the cars daily, checking that all licences are in place, putting up the barriers the evening before, and doing a 6am to 8pm shift on the day of the Fair. Given we had all this going on, plus casework and meetings I think it's a miracle we pulled it together so well. I also understand from a follow up email from Jim that he's concerned that the cost of moving trees for the Manor House Library refurbishment will consume most of the Manor House Gardens User Group funds, implying this could have been an item MHGUG might have approached us for, but once again I have to say that the question he should be asking is why his Labour administration are not funding the Manor House Library refurbishment adequately enough to cover the full cost of the project. Money for moving the trees could probably not in any case have been spent before the end of March 2007. The Locality Fund is only £10,000 for the whole ward (only £5000 last year), so it is inevitable that some needs and desires cannot be met from it. Choices had to be made quickly and it was down to the team of elected councillors to make them, and I still contend that this year's allocations meet the criteria of the Fund and will benefit many people living in the ward.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
A Question of Identity
Towards the end of last year there was a follow up consultation on the way forward for the redevelopment and refurbishment of the Hither Green (Springbank Road) side of Hither Green station. One thing that clearly arose from the meetings was the fact that both sides of the station divide felt there was a need to adopt clear and distinct identities. As Fernbrook and Staplehurst are in Lee Green ward it seems logical for us to refer to our side as Lee Green. Which of course means that the Springbank side can now be referred to as Hither Green. Does any of this matter you might ask yourself? Well yes it does. The Hither Green side have very much thought of themselves as the poor relations to the Lee Green side, but to make matters worse we also often referred to our area as Hither Green so there was a feeling that we'd stolen their identity too. It also matters when our Hither Green neighbours start applying for funding and negotiating with developers and key stakeholders that they have a distinct identity.
So I'm proposing that from here on in the Staplehurst side of the station is referred to as Lee Green, and the Springbank side as Hither Green. We share a lot of common problems, plus the responsibility for Hither Green station that we'll have to work on closely together but having now defined and named our areas we can now get on and promote the uniqueness of each area too.
I know our colleagues, Cllr Andrew Milton and Cllr Dave Edgerton are devoting quite a large proportion of their Locality funding to infrastructure improvements in Hither Green and hopefully the benefits of this investment will be there for all to see by the summer.
So I'm proposing that from here on in the Staplehurst side of the station is referred to as Lee Green, and the Springbank side as Hither Green. We share a lot of common problems, plus the responsibility for Hither Green station that we'll have to work on closely together but having now defined and named our areas we can now get on and promote the uniqueness of each area too.
I know our colleagues, Cllr Andrew Milton and Cllr Dave Edgerton are devoting quite a large proportion of their Locality funding to infrastructure improvements in Hither Green and hopefully the benefits of this investment will be there for all to see by the summer.
A dangerous precedent?
For the first time, in nearly two years as a councillor, two of my questions to the next full Council on the 24th have been substantially edited without my approval. This has been justified under sections 13.4 and 14.3 of Lewisham's Constitution. To save you searching these out here are the relevant sections:
13.4 Scope of questions – The proper officer may reject a question if:-
It does not relate to a matter for which the Council has powers or duties, unless it is a matter which affects the interests of local people.
It is defamatory, frivolous or offensive
It is substantially the same as a question which has been put and answered at a Council meeting within the last three months
It requires the disclosure of confidential or exempt information
That responding to the question would entail disproportionate cost
That the question relates to the circumstances of an individual case.
The proper officer may put questions into an appropriate form without affecting the substance of the question and redirect them if necessary.
14.3 Disallowing questions – Questions may be disallowed for the same reasons as those from the public and the proper officer may amend questions in the same circumstances and to the same effect as those from the public. (Rules 13(4) and (5) above.)
I think most of us wouldn't argue with the points in 13.4 although item 1 in my opinion needs to be more clearly defined. I believe the subjective editing of the contextual parts of my questions is a dangerous precedent and that it leaves the whole question system open to political censorship and abuse. Fortunately though, I do have the option of publishing my questions completely unedited here - the Council's edited versions, which will appear in the meeting's agenda, are shown in italics.
---------------
We've seen from the problems experienced by ULT over the building of
the Paddington Academy that contractors and sub-contractors can, and
do, go out of business. What contingency plans does the Council have
to ensure that if this happens to a contractor or sub-contractor
during the BSF programme that the building schedule will not
adversely delayed or affected?
---------------
On the 14th September 2004 Tony Blair made a speech on climate change
in which he had this to say about "New Sustainable Schools":
"There is a huge school building programme underway. All new schools
and City Academies should be models for sustainable development:
showing every child in the classroom and the playground how smart
building and energy use can help tackle global warming.
The government is now developing a school specific method of
environmental assessment that will apply to all new school buildings.
Sustainable development will not just be a subject in the classroom:
it will be in its bricks and mortar and the way the school uses and
even generates its own power.
Our students won't just be told about sustainable development, they
will see and work within it: a living, learning, place in which to
explore what a sustainable lifestyle means".
I understand that the commercial partner in the LEP (Local Education
Partnership) will be selected by the end of January and we will then
enter the design phase of the BSF programme. With both this and Tony
Blair's speech in mind, and bearing in mind that the Council have had
more than two years since Tony Blair's speech to plan this programme,
what specific sustainable features, both in terms of the buildings
themselves, and in encouraging a whole school environmental
management policy, will be mandatory in all the designs for the new
schools?
I understand that the commercial partner in the LEP (Local Education Partnership) will be selected by the end of January and we will then enter the design phase of the BSF programme. What specific sustainable features, both in terms of the buildings themselves, and in encouraging a whole school environmental management policy, will be mandatory in all the designs for the new schools?
---------------
As part of the Council's Waste Management Strategy for 2006 the
following undertakings are made:
1. we will establish long term partnerships with the private,
business, community sector and other public authorities, who all have
a part to play to ensure that waste is dealt with in a sustainable
manner in Lewisham.
2. we will ensure the provision of recycling & composting services
are available to all producers of waste.
In Lee Green ward we are already working as councillors to try to
ensure that all green waste produced locally in our parks and green
spaces is recycled on-site. Surely though as green waste is so easy
to recycle the Council should be negotiating borough wide with
Glendale, and other managers and owners of green space such as
Network Rail, to ensure that this is the norm right across all our
green spaces. Can we expect to see action from the Council on this,
and can we reasonably expect to see full on-site recycling of all
green waste at all our green spaces by year end as this would surely
contribute to meeting recovery targets and also help meet the Master
Composter Workshops target?
Does the Council intend to negotiate boroughwide with Glendale, and other managers and owners of green space such as Network Rail, to ensure all green waste produced locally in our parks and green spaces is recycled on site. Can we expect to see action from the Council on this, and can we reasonably expect to see full on-site recycling of all green waste at all our green spaces by year end as this would surely contribute to meeting recovery targets and also help meet the Master Composter Workshops target?
---------------
The reason for asking the first two questions is of course the rebuilding of Northbrook school under Building Schools for the Future, a government funded iniative that I believe is being referred to in the section I've quoted from Tony Blair's speech in 2004. It should not be forgotten that Lewisham has been in Labour control for about thirty years, and is looked on as a flagship Labour council, so it is not unreasonable I feel to relate the contents of Tony Blair's speech to this administration and expect that they will try to deliver on his promise. While there are just a few months set aside for the design consultation on Northbrook the BSF programme itself has been known about for considerably longer so it is not unreasonable to expect that by now the council will have a list of sustainability features, both for the building and for sustainable management once the school is open, that it will expect in every school. After all, commercial development proposals that are now coming to planning are awash with these features, shouldn't our schools have these features too? What I want to avoid is a situation where residents close to Ennersdale (Northbrook's decant site) and Northbrook are subjected to two years of disruption while the council builds schools that are no more sustainable than what we have now. The whole project is called Building Schools for the Future, my questions are an attempt to ensure we do exactly that.
The waste management question appears to have been edited because I had the temerity to mention that we are being proactive in our ward in trying to get full on-site recycling of green waste in all our parks and green spaces. Something I believe a great many of our constituents support. Labour councillors rarely ask questions in council (just check the the council's online archive) but when they do they are often praising this or that achievement of either the government or Lewisham's Labour administration. It seems however from my latest experience that any positive promotion relating to the opposition in questions will from now on be edited out.
13.4 Scope of questions – The proper officer may reject a question if:-
It does not relate to a matter for which the Council has powers or duties, unless it is a matter which affects the interests of local people.
It is defamatory, frivolous or offensive
It is substantially the same as a question which has been put and answered at a Council meeting within the last three months
It requires the disclosure of confidential or exempt information
That responding to the question would entail disproportionate cost
That the question relates to the circumstances of an individual case.
The proper officer may put questions into an appropriate form without affecting the substance of the question and redirect them if necessary.
14.3 Disallowing questions – Questions may be disallowed for the same reasons as those from the public and the proper officer may amend questions in the same circumstances and to the same effect as those from the public. (Rules 13(4) and (5) above.)
I think most of us wouldn't argue with the points in 13.4 although item 1 in my opinion needs to be more clearly defined. I believe the subjective editing of the contextual parts of my questions is a dangerous precedent and that it leaves the whole question system open to political censorship and abuse. Fortunately though, I do have the option of publishing my questions completely unedited here - the Council's edited versions, which will appear in the meeting's agenda, are shown in italics.
---------------
We've seen from the problems experienced by ULT over the building of
the Paddington Academy that contractors and sub-contractors can, and
do, go out of business. What contingency plans does the Council have
to ensure that if this happens to a contractor or sub-contractor
during the BSF programme that the building schedule will not
adversely delayed or affected?
---------------
On the 14th September 2004 Tony Blair made a speech on climate change
in which he had this to say about "New Sustainable Schools":
"There is a huge school building programme underway. All new schools
and City Academies should be models for sustainable development:
showing every child in the classroom and the playground how smart
building and energy use can help tackle global warming.
The government is now developing a school specific method of
environmental assessment that will apply to all new school buildings.
Sustainable development will not just be a subject in the classroom:
it will be in its bricks and mortar and the way the school uses and
even generates its own power.
Our students won't just be told about sustainable development, they
will see and work within it: a living, learning, place in which to
explore what a sustainable lifestyle means".
I understand that the commercial partner in the LEP (Local Education
Partnership) will be selected by the end of January and we will then
enter the design phase of the BSF programme. With both this and Tony
Blair's speech in mind, and bearing in mind that the Council have had
more than two years since Tony Blair's speech to plan this programme,
what specific sustainable features, both in terms of the buildings
themselves, and in encouraging a whole school environmental
management policy, will be mandatory in all the designs for the new
schools?
I understand that the commercial partner in the LEP (Local Education Partnership) will be selected by the end of January and we will then enter the design phase of the BSF programme. What specific sustainable features, both in terms of the buildings themselves, and in encouraging a whole school environmental management policy, will be mandatory in all the designs for the new schools?
---------------
As part of the Council's Waste Management Strategy for 2006 the
following undertakings are made:
1. we will establish long term partnerships with the private,
business, community sector and other public authorities, who all have
a part to play to ensure that waste is dealt with in a sustainable
manner in Lewisham.
2. we will ensure the provision of recycling & composting services
are available to all producers of waste.
In Lee Green ward we are already working as councillors to try to
ensure that all green waste produced locally in our parks and green
spaces is recycled on-site. Surely though as green waste is so easy
to recycle the Council should be negotiating borough wide with
Glendale, and other managers and owners of green space such as
Network Rail, to ensure that this is the norm right across all our
green spaces. Can we expect to see action from the Council on this,
and can we reasonably expect to see full on-site recycling of all
green waste at all our green spaces by year end as this would surely
contribute to meeting recovery targets and also help meet the Master
Composter Workshops target?
Does the Council intend to negotiate boroughwide with Glendale, and other managers and owners of green space such as Network Rail, to ensure all green waste produced locally in our parks and green spaces is recycled on site. Can we expect to see action from the Council on this, and can we reasonably expect to see full on-site recycling of all green waste at all our green spaces by year end as this would surely contribute to meeting recovery targets and also help meet the Master Composter Workshops target?
---------------
The reason for asking the first two questions is of course the rebuilding of Northbrook school under Building Schools for the Future, a government funded iniative that I believe is being referred to in the section I've quoted from Tony Blair's speech in 2004. It should not be forgotten that Lewisham has been in Labour control for about thirty years, and is looked on as a flagship Labour council, so it is not unreasonable I feel to relate the contents of Tony Blair's speech to this administration and expect that they will try to deliver on his promise. While there are just a few months set aside for the design consultation on Northbrook the BSF programme itself has been known about for considerably longer so it is not unreasonable to expect that by now the council will have a list of sustainability features, both for the building and for sustainable management once the school is open, that it will expect in every school. After all, commercial development proposals that are now coming to planning are awash with these features, shouldn't our schools have these features too? What I want to avoid is a situation where residents close to Ennersdale (Northbrook's decant site) and Northbrook are subjected to two years of disruption while the council builds schools that are no more sustainable than what we have now. The whole project is called Building Schools for the Future, my questions are an attempt to ensure we do exactly that.
The waste management question appears to have been edited because I had the temerity to mention that we are being proactive in our ward in trying to get full on-site recycling of green waste in all our parks and green spaces. Something I believe a great many of our constituents support. Labour councillors rarely ask questions in council (just check the the council's online archive) but when they do they are often praising this or that achievement of either the government or Lewisham's Labour administration. It seems however from my latest experience that any positive promotion relating to the opposition in questions will from now on be edited out.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
My response to The Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee regarding our local Safer Neighbourhood Team
Normally responses to committees don't see the light of day, but I'm taking the unusual step of publishing my response to the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee regarding our Safer Neighbourhood Team because I feel it is an important issue and of interest to everyone. The questions I was asked are shown in italics:
Please see the attached letter inviting your comments and views on your individual Safer Neighbourhood Team. The Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee's would very much appreciate your views and comments to help inform their review of Safer Neighbourhood Teams.
• if you have been consulted in the setting up of the ward panel?
• If you are a member of your Ward panel
• If you have been asked to work on the ward panel?
• What role do you think you should be playing in your ward panel?
I've been involved since day one with our SNT, and with the set-up of the ward panel, of which I'm also a member until the next AGM.
This is obviously still a very new and radical development in terms of local policing and understandably both our SNT officers, and the members of our ward panel, are still discovering how they can best work together. I think this task was made harder because there appear to have been no clear guidelines as to what the ward panel's role is and how it is suggested it operates, and no budget to support it. Furthermore, while I understand that this particular issue is being reviewed and hopefully sorted out, there appears also to be an issue over the copyright of the SNT 'brand' and who can use it which means that at present our SNT panel can't publicise itself, for example by producing a web page, without infringing on the Met's copyright.
As to my role on the ward panel, I see it as providing information to the panel that I acquire in my work as a councillor, and also as bringing my experience of committees and how they work to the panel. It should be remembered that my ward councillor colleagues and I already deal with a large amount of low level anti-social behaviour such as graffiti and fly-tipping.
• If there is increased police visibility in your ward?
Yes there is. However, as I understand it the precise duties of the SNT officers have never been defined, and although I've always understood that our SNTs were ringfenced and couldn't be pulled away on other duties this doesn't appear to be the case. Both these issues need to be resolved as they can obviously impact negatively on the effectiveness of the SNT team.
Another issue which can also impact negatively on a SNT's effectiveness in a ward is where there are secondary schools, or the transit of secondary school students, and there is no dedicated schools officer, although I understand in general being a dedicated schools officer is not seen as an attractive career option within the Met and and can also result in a loss of overall income. I know that in the few months my ward was without a schools officer a considerable amount of our SNTs time and effort had to be diverted to school duty, obviously reducing the time that they had available for other ward issues. It would seem to me that given this experience the case can and should be made for each SNT to be augmented with an appropriate number of schools officers, and that positive action should be taken if necessary to lessen the impact of becoming a schools officer on an officer's career and income.
• If there is any reduction or perception of reduction in anti-social behaviour and other crime in your ward as a result of SNT’s?
I think it is too early to say, however my overall impression is that those constituents that have come into contact with our SNT have been in general very satisfied with the way their complaints have been dealt with by the team.
• If you receive any information from your local SNT?
Yes we do, although on a constituent level this has been minimal due to there being no clear budget for newsletter issues, or a means of delivering them through resident's doors. Local crime statistics have been made available to the ward panel in order to set the SNT team's priorities within the ward. My councillor colleagues and I are also regularly in contact with the SNT team, so while by no means perfect, information is being distributed within the ward.
Final comment:
I was a ward councillor before the inception of the SNTs and I would be extremely reluctant to revert to the previous situation where we had virtually no local police presence or dialogue with the police of any description. I also think that the ward panel in bringing together our local police and residents has already had the very positive effect of bringing about a greater understanding of residents' concerns, while at the same time making residents aware of the constraints under which our SNT, and others such as Head Teachers, have to operate. I see this as a win-win situation for both the police and local residents, and once the issues I've outlined above are resolved I believe we'll have the basis of an excellent locally accountable police service, but it should be recognised that for local policing to work well we can't just leave it to the SNT or the ward panel, and that as residents and local representatives we all have to play our part if local policing is to work effectively.
Please see the attached letter inviting your comments and views on your individual Safer Neighbourhood Team. The Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee's would very much appreciate your views and comments to help inform their review of Safer Neighbourhood Teams.
• if you have been consulted in the setting up of the ward panel?
• If you are a member of your Ward panel
• If you have been asked to work on the ward panel?
• What role do you think you should be playing in your ward panel?
I've been involved since day one with our SNT, and with the set-up of the ward panel, of which I'm also a member until the next AGM.
This is obviously still a very new and radical development in terms of local policing and understandably both our SNT officers, and the members of our ward panel, are still discovering how they can best work together. I think this task was made harder because there appear to have been no clear guidelines as to what the ward panel's role is and how it is suggested it operates, and no budget to support it. Furthermore, while I understand that this particular issue is being reviewed and hopefully sorted out, there appears also to be an issue over the copyright of the SNT 'brand' and who can use it which means that at present our SNT panel can't publicise itself, for example by producing a web page, without infringing on the Met's copyright.
As to my role on the ward panel, I see it as providing information to the panel that I acquire in my work as a councillor, and also as bringing my experience of committees and how they work to the panel. It should be remembered that my ward councillor colleagues and I already deal with a large amount of low level anti-social behaviour such as graffiti and fly-tipping.
• If there is increased police visibility in your ward?
Yes there is. However, as I understand it the precise duties of the SNT officers have never been defined, and although I've always understood that our SNTs were ringfenced and couldn't be pulled away on other duties this doesn't appear to be the case. Both these issues need to be resolved as they can obviously impact negatively on the effectiveness of the SNT team.
Another issue which can also impact negatively on a SNT's effectiveness in a ward is where there are secondary schools, or the transit of secondary school students, and there is no dedicated schools officer, although I understand in general being a dedicated schools officer is not seen as an attractive career option within the Met and and can also result in a loss of overall income. I know that in the few months my ward was without a schools officer a considerable amount of our SNTs time and effort had to be diverted to school duty, obviously reducing the time that they had available for other ward issues. It would seem to me that given this experience the case can and should be made for each SNT to be augmented with an appropriate number of schools officers, and that positive action should be taken if necessary to lessen the impact of becoming a schools officer on an officer's career and income.
• If there is any reduction or perception of reduction in anti-social behaviour and other crime in your ward as a result of SNT’s?
I think it is too early to say, however my overall impression is that those constituents that have come into contact with our SNT have been in general very satisfied with the way their complaints have been dealt with by the team.
• If you receive any information from your local SNT?
Yes we do, although on a constituent level this has been minimal due to there being no clear budget for newsletter issues, or a means of delivering them through resident's doors. Local crime statistics have been made available to the ward panel in order to set the SNT team's priorities within the ward. My councillor colleagues and I are also regularly in contact with the SNT team, so while by no means perfect, information is being distributed within the ward.
Final comment:
I was a ward councillor before the inception of the SNTs and I would be extremely reluctant to revert to the previous situation where we had virtually no local police presence or dialogue with the police of any description. I also think that the ward panel in bringing together our local police and residents has already had the very positive effect of bringing about a greater understanding of residents' concerns, while at the same time making residents aware of the constraints under which our SNT, and others such as Head Teachers, have to operate. I see this as a win-win situation for both the police and local residents, and once the issues I've outlined above are resolved I believe we'll have the basis of an excellent locally accountable police service, but it should be recognised that for local policing to work well we can't just leave it to the SNT or the ward panel, and that as residents and local representatives we all have to play our part if local policing is to work effectively.
How we're proposing to spend the Locality Fund
This information is so new that I've only just emailed everyone concerned with details of what we are hoping to be able to fund from our Locality Fund this year. We had about six weeks to come up with ideas for how we were going to spend the £10,000, and consult locally, and two of those weeks included Christmas and the New Year! We've done the best we could in the circumstances, and this years proposed spending builds on what we started last year and benefits virtually everyone in our community. We may be councillors but we are also residents, and your quality of life is also ours. We care about our shared environment and I think this is reflected in how we've allocated the Locality Fund over the last two years. We've wanted the maximum number of people to benefit, and we've wanted to ensure that our money is as far as possible spent locally. I think we've achieved this and I hope what we are proposing this year meets with your approval.
The object of the fund is to engage local residents to deliver improvements in their ward, and in the process to commission actions or activities that will directly benefit the local neighbourhood and make a visible difference. So to recap, what did we spend the £5,000 Locality Fund on last year in 2006?
Money was spent on supplying and maintaining the Eltham Road planters, and also on installing girder gates to stop the wholesale fly-tipping and dumping of stolen cars in the Burnt Ash area. The rest of the money was match funded with Lewisham Central ward to get work started on the derelict nature reserve space between platforms 4 and 5 of Hither Green station, and establish a management committee to seek funding for the refurbishment of the Hither Green side of Hither Green station.
So what are we hoping to spend the money on this year in 2007?
1. We are offering matched funding to the Friends of Brindishe school towards the purchase of an outdoor bench.
2. We’re hoping to purchase and install 2 stainless steel waste bins to match the new TfL seating in Eltham Road.
3. We’re commissioning Envirowork, a social enterprise run by Lewisham residents providing employment and ground-based training to unemployed local people to design, produce, and maintain 4 planters for Eltham Road. The advantage is that unlike last year the ward will actually own these planters so future expenditure will be confined to replenishing the planting and maintenance. We’re also asking Envirowork to put together a planting scheme for the raised brick flower bed outside Lee station.
4. We’re commissioning Tall Lighthouse, a local publisher of poetry and organiser of poetry workshops to put on a community poetry event by local poets at the Stark Gallery enterprise and and also put on a poetry workshop at Northbrook school.
5. We’re funding the purchase of a built-in radio for the common room area of Abbey Manor College.
6. The bilk of our Locality Fund is being spent on match funding a sculpture for the soon to be completed newly refurbished Manor Park. We’ve ensured that this commission will be open to local artists and in order to secure our funding we’ve asked that there’s a commitment to ensuring that all green waste produced in the park will be recycled on-site.
7. And finally we’re match funding the refurbishment of the Burnt Ash Triangle area alongside the car wash in Burnt Ash Road which has been an eyesore for years.
That’s our proposal, we believe it meets the criteria of the fund and benefits the maximum number of residents, and we hope it meets with your approval.
The object of the fund is to engage local residents to deliver improvements in their ward, and in the process to commission actions or activities that will directly benefit the local neighbourhood and make a visible difference. So to recap, what did we spend the £5,000 Locality Fund on last year in 2006?
Money was spent on supplying and maintaining the Eltham Road planters, and also on installing girder gates to stop the wholesale fly-tipping and dumping of stolen cars in the Burnt Ash area. The rest of the money was match funded with Lewisham Central ward to get work started on the derelict nature reserve space between platforms 4 and 5 of Hither Green station, and establish a management committee to seek funding for the refurbishment of the Hither Green side of Hither Green station.
So what are we hoping to spend the money on this year in 2007?
1. We are offering matched funding to the Friends of Brindishe school towards the purchase of an outdoor bench.
2. We’re hoping to purchase and install 2 stainless steel waste bins to match the new TfL seating in Eltham Road.
3. We’re commissioning Envirowork, a social enterprise run by Lewisham residents providing employment and ground-based training to unemployed local people to design, produce, and maintain 4 planters for Eltham Road. The advantage is that unlike last year the ward will actually own these planters so future expenditure will be confined to replenishing the planting and maintenance. We’re also asking Envirowork to put together a planting scheme for the raised brick flower bed outside Lee station.
4. We’re commissioning Tall Lighthouse, a local publisher of poetry and organiser of poetry workshops to put on a community poetry event by local poets at the Stark Gallery enterprise and and also put on a poetry workshop at Northbrook school.
5. We’re funding the purchase of a built-in radio for the common room area of Abbey Manor College.
6. The bilk of our Locality Fund is being spent on match funding a sculpture for the soon to be completed newly refurbished Manor Park. We’ve ensured that this commission will be open to local artists and in order to secure our funding we’ve asked that there’s a commitment to ensuring that all green waste produced in the park will be recycled on-site.
7. And finally we’re match funding the refurbishment of the Burnt Ash Triangle area alongside the car wash in Burnt Ash Road which has been an eyesore for years.
That’s our proposal, we believe it meets the criteria of the fund and benefits the maximum number of residents, and we hope it meets with your approval.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Welcome to Skulduggery for Beginners!
Welcome to Skulduggery for Beginners! While Leepedia Lite is all about news and events, Skulduggery for Beginners is all about comment and ideas that relate to my role in opposition in Lewisham council, and as a councillor for Lee Green ward. Quite how this experiment will work out I have no idea, but I'm sure it will be fun finding out!
Now read on.......
Now read on.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
