Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell and beyond…

The Bakerloo line is the only tube line considered to still have spare capacity. So it could be extended. It already extends significantly to the north so a southern extension deeper into Southwark is the obvious direction and South London has very poor public transport.

1949-1952 such a southern extension was started – several ventilation shafts were built along the Walworth Road and tunnelling proceeded as far as Heygate Street. That Transport and Works Act passed by parliament in 1930 and renewed in 1947 was based on a stops at Walworth Road, Camberwell Green and interchange at Denmark Hill.

Transport for London in 2006 produced a study “Transport 2025” which suggested 3 options for such an extension.

Option 1 – Burgess Park, Peckham – Lewisham-Bromley.

Option 2 – Walworth, Camberwell, Denmark Hill, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, Streatham Hill, West Norwood, Gipsy Hill, Crystal Palace.

Option 3 – Burgess Park, Old Kent Road – Lewisham-Bromley.

Option 2 would create the most new capacity with 6+ trains per hour. Option 3 mostly replaces Network Rail trains on train lines – increasing capacity from 5 to 6 tph Hayes into central London representing poor value.

Cost. When the DLR was extended to Woolwich Arsenal it cost £180M for 2.5km including everything – new carriages the works.

http://developments.dlr.co.uk/extensions/woolwich/details.asp?id=7

DLR trains are large and rectangular rather than small circular tube trains. So tunnelling under the Thames and other parts would be more expensive but DLR trains are much shorter so stations smaller – broadly similar costs per km. Also it was run as a PFI into DLR who have been shown to be much more economic at building things. Broadly they follow the Madrid model where after an election they spend 6 months planning a new tube line dividing it into 100M Euro chunks that contractors spend 3 years building and the new tube line opens a few months before the next Madrid elections. Contractors are managed for cost and know they can’t get future work unless they hit the price.

But TfL are proposing for the Northern Line extension of roughly 2.5km from Kennington to Battersea Power station £550M.

Adapting the Madrid model and getting DLR to run a project to extend the Bakerloo line could see the Bakerloo line extended to Streatham Hill for circa £600M all in or just to Camberwell/Denmark Hill for £250M.

Its clear TfL don’t have serious intentions to extend the Bakerloo line. So how to make it happen. The coalition government is now proposing to allow councils to borrow money against the Community Infrastructure Levy. Along any proposed extension route are many development opportunities – such as building above the current London road depot.

Interest costs could be offset by reducing bus services that would no longer be needed with passengers switching to tube journeys. Each bus route is subsidised on average cost £4M. Deleting the 68 and terminating the 468 at Camberwell alone would save £6M.

Such an extension would also be suitable for EU regional funding which could bring a many tens of millions.

The problem is TfL and its warped cost base and mayors with vision. But perhaps Lambeth & Southwark councils could use localism powers to make this happen. The former could be bypassed and handed over a turn key as they do with DLR projects and the latter local councils could really focus on such a step improvement in public transport.

Currently the only council doing anything is Lewisham committee pushing for Option 3 – the worst option for Southwark and Lambeth.

One last practical but important factor is where you’d build from. With the Heygate estate about to be demolished this is great opportunity to use this site to base much of the works from. The quid pro quo for the E&C regeneration is that it would make that scheme also much more attractive.

Do you think the Bakerloo line should be extended? And if so which option do you support?

Controlled Parking Consultation

The council officer reporthas just been released about proposed a controlled parking zone near East Dulwich station. I suspect everyone agrees with some degree of controlled parking – even if only disabled parking bays outside disabled people’s homes – but the degree of other reasons for controlled parking is very controversial.

The administration applied to Transport for London for money to study and consult the streets most vocal about parking pressures near East Dulwich station?Council officers receiving 44 compliants about parking pressures in three years from the consulted streets out of 130 for the whole of Southwark.

It seems clear that the proposed streets north of Grove Vale in South Camberwell ward do not want controlled parking. The East Dulwich ward streets south of Grove Vale are more mixed with Derwent Grove and Tintagel Crescent clearly in favour. Several other streets in East Dulwich ward against East Dulwich Grove, Elsie Road, Grove Vale, Lordship Lane, or in favour if neighbouring streets were to have controlled parking – Oxonian/Zenoria. A majority of Melbourne Grove residents are in favour of parking controls but shops are against stating they needed places for employees to park.

If controlled parking is introduced most wanted the ‘lite’ version 10am-12noon  Monday-Friday.

241 people responded to the consultation via the questionnaire and from the proposed streets and 155 from people on streets not proposed across the East Dulwich area. Another 114 responded outside the questionnaire. With a further 1,826 people signing a variety of other petitions by people from adjacent roads as well as a from Peckham Rye to Herne Hill.

The proposed options are:

1. Do nothing.

2. Do a little remarking of local roads.

3. Introduce 1hr Mon-Fri controlled parking to Derwent Grove

4. Introduce 1 hr Mon-Fri controlled parking to Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Melbourne Grove (Grove Vale to East Dulwich Grove), Oxonaina Street, Tintagel Crescent, Tintagel Gardens and Zenoria Street.

5. Introduce 1 hr Mon-Fri controlled parking to Derwent Grove, Elsie Road and Tintagel Crescent.

I can see arguments for and against all of the proposed options. If you have views tell me.

9 foot avertising aliens from Mars

Southwark Council has signed a deal with JCDecaux UK Ltd to allow 90 x 2.746m (9foot) tall x 1.472m (4’9″) wide free standing pavement advertising hoardings.

The plan is they’ll be illuminated 24/7, 6 sheet rotating things with the first application for one outside East Dulwich station – 11-AP-3314 – heaven only know what the carbon footprint will be. They will be VERY tall.

If you think this is a great or bad idea please do tell the planning officer anna.clare@southwark.gov.uk.

And please do tell me what you think.

Damilola lessons not learnt?

I was horrified to read a report showing that English school children are the most fearful for their safety before and after school in Europe. It feels shameful that we’ve not created a country where children feel and are safe.

The report by Stephen Moore of Anglia Ruskin University discovered that of 4,000 children surveyed in eight European countries aged 12-16, 31% of English pupils felt scared of being bullied or worse comapred to 19% across those European countries.

Four percent said they were often or always victimisaed on the way to or from school. 1 in 25!

Apparently kids didn’t want to turn to schools and that schools anti bullying strategies didn’t cover this. That children turn to other children but they’re not sure what to do.

How on earth do we as a soceity fix this?

Nice one for new Grove Vale library?

For a number of years I’ve been working towards a brand new Grove Vale library. We had a scheme ready but the banking collapse killed that one. The latest scheme gained planning permission earlier this year. But getting a sensible section 106 that details the library has proved shall we say ‘ellusive’.

Council officers wanted to include a clause about deciding whether to take a library or money instead with realy complicated ocnditions and clauses. So complicated that lawyers have been having a field day. The uncertainty this caused meant its been hard for the developers who have to keep in mind what banks will lend against. Banks don’t like uncertainty.

The developer, and even more so I, became worried that the council was deciding to stall and planned to take the money. It would appear from assurances today that I was reading the runes wrongly.

TODAY the council leader Councillor Peter John has stepped in and I sincerely hope will break the deadlock. He is clear that Labour Southwark also want to keep Grove Vale library and also want to have a new double sized Grove Vale library. So he has today stated that the cabinet report on libraries being decided 18 October will have a recommendation for the new Grove Vale library. Nice one. Thank you Peter. I will hold you to this.

Why so much passion for a new Grove Vale library? Its right on the doorstep to the most deprived area around East Dulwich – the East Dulwich estate. It will bring much improved access to books, etc but also computers, study places and space to job hunt. Huge proportion of our library users are job hunting and studying. So a real lift for people wanting to do this that can’t easily do this at home.

16,000 Southwark council tax cheats?

Lambeth Council has produced a report suggesting more than 15,000 Lambeth residents are fraudulently claiming 25% Single Persons Discount council tax out of the 50,000 . These people will be challenged and they suspect 90% will be proven fraudulent – 13,500!

Southwark Council has 53,145 residents claiming Single Persons Discount.

So how many Southwark residents are fraudulently claiming Single Persons Discount? If at the same ratio as Lambeth that would be around 16,000 – 10% = 14,400.

But as Lambeth recognise investigating such claims costs on average £1,000, taking a resident to a magistrates court £1,800.  This clearly shows that Council Tax is a very messy system and expensive to police. One day we’ll have a local income tax instead.

Lambeth is considering issuing £280 penalty fines using civil law on a “balance of probabilities” test. What should Southwark do to resolve this?

The first thing I’ve done is ask for Southwarks Audit & Governance Committee to have a similar report to Lambeth. Lets see where this takes us…

Wedding rip-off?

Wedding and civil parntership fees up by 27% from 21 October in Labour led Southwark council for non statutory fees.   27%!

This during the week the Labour council leader proclaimed his adherence to traditional values. So why is he effectively taxing weddings so much more?

The council report studiously avoids stating percent increases. It also doesn’t include all London authorities in its comparisons. It does state that they should charge sufficient fees to cover costs “The cost of service provision has therefore also been a consideration in arriving at the proposed fees” and adhere to the Medium Term Resource Strategy (MTRS) 2010/11 – 2012/13.

So why have Southwark increased its fees by this amount when 90%+ of its registry staff costs are salaries, Local Government has a pay freeze and the service is meant to be self funding?

Labour Southwark are penalising people for falling in love. Rather than saying “I do” couples will be saying “I’m sorry but I can’t afford it.” It is a heartless move from a mean spirited Labour Council who would rather squirrel away millions in their reserves than help people celebrate the happiest day of their lives

The statutory minimum fee will still be £40 but if you want to use the Garden Room for the ceremony you’ll be charged  an extra £180 up from £140 or 29% increase. If you want to have the ceremony at another approved premise elsewhere then the new cheapest wedding fee will be £335 (up 27%)  versus £160 in Wandsworth and £70-£125 for the equivalent of Southwark’s Garden Room in Kingston-upon-Thames or £270 for an approved premise wedding fee.

What’s so weird is the Approved Premises fees just cover a few hours times of a Registrar or assistant Registrar. Hence why more efficient boroughs can charge so much less.

It seems clear that the law should be changed so any Registrar can lead the service at any Approved Premise. This would create real competition between Registrars and ensure couples who want to demonstrate the commitment and love they feel are not being ripped of in Southwark going forward.

Olympic Parking Fine Excess

London won the Olympics 2012. I was delighted. WOW!

But the plans for this and sponsorship make it clear that this won’t really be the London we all know and love Olympics but some emasculated parody of London.

The Olympic Delivery Authority is now asking London councils to impose draconian parking fines during the London Olympic 2012 games across London. So far Greenwich council is suggesting £500-£1000 parking fines and so far Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets support higher parking fines with most London councils yet to respond. I just think this sets the wrong tone.

I hope London Lib Dems will be holding out to minimise not maximise the disruption to London and Londoners.

The proposal for draconian parking penalties, wheel clamping, much more removal of vehicles, storage charges and disposal of vehicles fees should be an anathema to us all.

Londoners should not be cowed by the threat of heavy Olympic fines. London households are already hugely subsidising the games.

So no, we should not accept these increased charges. Frankly we should be telling the ODA to spend more time making the Olympics  friendly to London and Londoners generating sufficient good will so Londoners want to help make it happen. I really fear a nasty Olympic backlash and these proposals make that more likely.

Compulsory Food Ratings

I have a passionate interest in environmental health from a close family experience.

The Food Safety Agency working with local councils have a scheme for giving ratings to all food establishments – based on hygienece, cleanliness, process, training. You can see their ‘Scores on the Doors’ on line and Android and Apple apps.  The ratings go:

0   –  Urgent improvement necessary (8)
1   –  Major improvement necessary (48)
2   –  Improvement necessary (26)
3   –  Generally satisfactory (34)
4   –  Good (81)
5   –  Very good (35)

Amazingly businesses don’t have to display their scores in a visible place or schools having to tell parents. In Wales the devolved government is planning to make is compulsory.  Frankly it should be UK law.

Frankly all food establishments should be able to reach a score of 5. In the SE22 East Dulwich area we have 232 rated food places, 35 with 5*, 81 with 4*, 34 with 3*, 26 with 2*, 48 with 1* and 8 with 0*’s. Some really low scoring places are local schools!

Until all food establishments have to display their scores they don’t have to try very hard to keep the public safe.

Do you think all scores should have to be displayed?

Getting food safety wrong can be fatal and cause lasting life changing health issues.

Will Food Poisoning Rise?

On Friday Southwark Council confirmed its Food Safety Business Plan for 2011-12.

Food poisoning can kill – lots of different horrible bugs, additives, etc. Ensuring the food chain in Southwark is good is critical to public health.

The strategy is to ensure the highest risk food manufacturers, shops, takeaways, etc are inspected at the MINIMUM recommended rate. Category C & D premises are takeaways, cafes and restaurants. It proposes that 324 of the 1102 Category C premises will be inspected at the MINIMUM rate of every 18 months. That ‘s around half the premises that should be inspected during the year. Category D premises should be inspected at least biannually but only 158/439 are planned to be visited. For Category E that should be inspected at least every 3 years 0 / 634 will be inspected. But the strategy does plan to visit all 301 unrated premises.

What’s really troubling is that without meeting at least the MINIMUM stated recommended inspection rate you can’t spot dodgy places that should be kept under closer more frequent inspection.

Inspection scores are made available via the wed – Scores on the Doors . Weirdly the strategy doesn’t promote the Apple of Android Apps that give very easy and GPS based access to these inspection ratings.

What feels odd though is that the Strategy also stated 12.5 council officers work in this arena. That should work out at around 2,600 available person days available per annum.

So why can’t they make at least the minimum recommended 1,796 inspections every year?