Rockets

Northern - I am not sure what point you are trying to make. To receive the email from One Dulwich I have to register and subscribe - they don't just send the email to me unsolicited. When I have had a question for them I have emailed a different email address that they provide on their contacts page. When you register you are presented with a number of options on how your data will be used. Each person that registers, their postcode is used to display the number of supporters in each part of Dulwich. Does Clean Air Dulwich do anything similar - can I email them if I have a question? Who are they claiming to represent? I follow them but cannot contact them because they don't follow me. The bigger point you seem to be missing and the crux of the issue and why the reason why the council are trying to manipulate the review is that those 2,000 people (the majority of whom are local) represent a much bigger number of people than the council got to support their measures on the OHS consultation that was the basis for these closures (and that number is even bigger when you strip out the people from Islington, Hammersmith and further afield who decided to register their support for the OHS measures - which accounted for about 25% of the total votes in the consultation). So if we presume those 2,000 people are registering their objections via the review then the council and the LTNs are in big trouble and they know that - which is why they are trying to manage/manipulate a more positive outcome for themselves.

Just received an email saying the plans have been updated and resubmitted. That's still a huge amount of digging they are proposing - just how do they get the lorries in and out of Donkey Alley and Goodrich to move those tonnes and tonnes of earth - the disruption to local residents is going to be diabolical.

OneDuwlich and the Dulwich Alliance have both made numerous efforts to get the council to discuss other options but the council have steadfastly refused to entertain the discussion - one has to question why that might be the case. Why is it that the council don't want to hear representations from a group with over 2,000 local people signed yup as member 60% of whom live within areas that are perceived to be benefitting most from the closures (Dulwich Village and Goose Green). And on flyers etc there has been equal amounts of tone deaf messaging from a lot of the pro-LTN groups who are happy to present the Trumpton like state of parts of Dulwich Village yet wilfully fail to acknowledge that East Dulwich and Croxted areas live with the displacement. I actually think taking pictures of people's homes displaying anti-LTN posters (even if they happen to have a Chieftain tank parked on the driveway) is taking things way too far and it has clearly been a catalyst for some of the more fanatical elements of the LTN supporting brigade to follow Clean Air Dulwich's lead. You're banging on about who is behind OD and DA but does anyone have a contact for whomever is behind Clean Air Dulwich? At least with One Dulwich and the DA they have a contact email address on their website and don't hide behind a suppressed and controlled twitter feed that allows no-one, beyond the people they follow, the right of reply!

Rahx3 - deary me.... You might have failed to notice that the One groups are funded by people - mainly local people who are either directly impacted by the closures, care about the negative impact created by them or don't like the way the council is managing the process. So sorry to disappoint you but there isn't a shady petrolhead cabal trying to manipulate the process - the only manipulation is being orchestrated by the people who organised the closures in the first place - manipulating the review so they can try and validate their ludicrous initial decision-making process! Maybe the council should have put another option in to the review to really gauge the feeling of the local community, but they didn't and you have to ask why they didn't - I think you will find that it is because they know that they would have then had to admit defeat and implement that other option - and admitting they were wrong is something this council struggles to do.

Rahx3 - you do realise don't you that the review is deliberately flawed to give the council what they want? I would have loved it if the council had listened to us in the local community and put another option to "vote" for but they didn't but they said you can have this, something else, or nothing - and they never clarified what the something else was so how could anyone vote for it? We're not stupid. We know how this goes....you all voted for something else, says the council...here is that something else, they continued.....but we don't like what you are suggesting as something else, say the people....well, it's something else and that's what you voted for, the council responded. Would you be happy to back a party that didn't share their manifesto? To deposition your narrative a little more below is the guidance from One Dulwich in an email to supporters and for people like me it is clear that the only way this council will engage in any sort of sensible dialogue with all members of the Dulwich community is by forcing them back to the table by pressing the nuclear option. Maybe if the majority of people vote for returning the measures to their previous state then the council will be forced to replace some of the people leading this flawed programme with council members who are more willing to involve everyone and run a fair and balanced consultation..... 3. In this crucial part of the survey, you will be asked to express your preference for each measure. We recommend you choose option ?a. Return it to the original state? for all the measures. This is because options b, c and d are just different ways of retaining the current flawed schemes, which are all inter-connected. See the Dulwich Alliance FAQs, which we support. And here is the link to the Dulwich Alliance FAQs which make the position very clear: https://dulwichalliance.org/surveyfaqs/ Pasted below are the first two FAQs which make their position quite clear. It's pretty clear - but I am sure it won't sway you from your position that all of the campaigning prior to the review about timed closures was all bluster and front as all along they wanted everything to return to normal...... Why is the Dulwich Alliance recommending respondents vote in this way? Southwark?s consultation isn?t designed to be fair and transparent. It doesn?t allow respondents to comment on the measures as a whole; it asks a series of overlapping and ill-defined questions, and is clearly designed to fragment the responses to allow the results to be manipulated. We think this is intentional, so in order to send a clear and unequivocal message to Southwark that this isn?t acceptable, we recommend voting ?Return it to the original state?, for all the measures. We believe this is the only way that the community and the council can come together to co-design a socially and environmentally just scheme that works for everyone. Does this mean the Dulwich Alliance just wants to go back to how things were? No. We have made numerous proposals to Southwark as to how the individual measures could be adapted and improved, and how the overall scheme could be rethought, so that it can fairly achieve our shared goals of reducing traffic on all our roads, improving air quality and promoting active travel. Southwark have failed to include any of these proposals in the consultation, even though they said they would. It has become clear to us that they simply want to shut roads, and have become fixated with the idea of a ?Dulwich Square?, leaving themselves with very little room for manoeuvre. It?s hard to see how a compromise can be reached at this stage, and so we think the only route forward is to emphatically vote down Southwark?s plans, in the only way allowed by their consultation, by voting ?Return it to the original state?.

Rahx3 - that's absolute nonsense and you know it. You've been an active member on this thread since the outset and so are well aware of the timeline and the campaigning that the likes of One Dulwich have been doing for ANPR timed closures so you've either developed a case of selective amnesia or are trying to re-invent history to serve your own purpose? You know full well that all of the groups were campaigning for timed-closures from the outset but the council refused to engage with anyone other than those in their own echo-chamber. What is true is that there are groups of local residents who are being routinely ignored and deprioritised as councils take input, guidance and consultation from vested-interested groups like Southwark Cyclists to determine local travel policy. Time and time again the council has put the views of those groups over anyone that has to live or work in the area and are going out of their way to try to ensure only supportive voices are heard. What makes me chuckle is looking back on this thread a few weeks ago and the pile on around the All Streets Matter debate posters and yet when Clean Air Dulwich start posting pictures of people's houses just because they are displaying a Clean Air for All poster we get this "I don't see an issue with this" narrative. You can't have it both ways. I would have challenged Clean Air for Dulwich about the picture they posted on twitter but they only allow people who they follow to comment so no-one outside of their echo chamber are allowed to comment. It's all getting a bit cult-like.

Rahx3 - no-one set out wanting to return things to the previous state. You know that. You also know, as well as everybody else does, that the review is being so manipulated by the council that people who want something other than what the council wants are being forced to vote for returning it to the previous state because the council have provided no other viable option. So please, stop the they want a removal of restrictions of car use nonsense. You know what's happening here so please stop trying to deposition them by playing that deliberately overly-simplistic narrative.

Northern - it's a worrying turn and cannot be accepted. It's clear what point Clean Air Dulwich are trying to make and it is incredibly passive aggressive and actually quite threatening. If that was your house I am not sure you'd be best pleased. As I said before it is a dangerous precedent to set and it seems, from the second tweet, that some are going to follow their lead and highlight the perceived "hypocrisy". But I am sure there are many who probably think it's acceptable. DC - nothing to say on Spartacus's comment - I don't agree with such comparisons but don't feel the need to comment on it. If there is proof that the council are going into schools to encourage and influence children to partake in the review then that is a different matter. I have no problem with the council bringing the review to everyone's attention but if, as is suggested, they are going out of their way to influence the result by lobbying schoolchildren when they have failed miserably to alert a lot of residents of the review then that would be disappointing, but not surprising from Southwark. They will seemingly engage in any underhand tactic to get the result they so desire. In my view councils should equally present both sides of the argument but, as had been seen during this process, it seems Southwark don't subscribe to that approach.

Seriously uncool of Clean Air Dulwich to post pictures of people's houses just because they are showing the anti-LTN posters. It seems some of their supporters are now taking this as a signal that they should be doing similar things if they think the posters are hypocritical because someone owns a car A dangerous precedent is being set by Clean Air Dulwich and they should remove that post and refrain from such gutter tactics. What next, people posting pictures of cyclists emerging from houses with cars on their drives? Clean Air Dulwich need to grow up a bit.

Sorry to hear that. It is well worth investing a small amount in an RF protected box (you can get them on Amazon)to keep car keys in (especially the newer advanced car keys) as thieves are able to bridge the connection if the car is parked close to the house and the keys are in close proximity.

Oh no, not (yet) another oversight by the council......how unfortunate that these oversights only ever seem to happen when there's anything related to the LTN review involved....! ;-) It's the brazenness of it that astonishes me....they operate like there is never any recourse. It's getting a bit like Liverpool City council and look what happened there......

Ab29 - it's part of the ever changing narrative from the council as they try to find ways to protect their LTNs. Firstly Cllrs, like Cllr McAsh, were saying if traffic doesn't reduce everywhere then the scheme will have been a failure and then they changed it to suggest that A-roads were made for more traffic and therefore, by default, increases there would need to be considered (one can only presume as an acceptable consequence of closing other roads). It suggests they are aware there is a problem with displacement and I also think this is why Cllrs have been suggesting there may need to be tweaks made. But it may be too late if enough people have been forced to vote for the "Return the measures back to how they were before".

Perhaps someone will add Thank You for Supporting local businesses .....because we certainly didn't. They have some front putting those up given the lack of any tangible support for the traders anywhere in Dulwich from the council. In fact they seemed to go out of their way to make things as difficult as possible for them.

Chris_1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that was the best one of the meetings the > council has hosted so far - although that might be > a function of the bar having been so low following > the first two meetings. I think my group was > fairly similar to most: hard to disagree with the > governing ideas (do you want clean air? Do you > like nice things?) but overwhelmingly against the > current implementation. School streets, or very > brief timed closures to facilitate clean and safe > travel for kids was pretty broadly supported. > > I was encouraged - as someone who lives on a > boundary road, and who has been massively > negatively impacted by the measures (specifically > Turney and Burbage restrictions) how many times > groups seemed to comment on the impact on boundary > roads. > > One thing that has amazed me is the extent to > which people have lost confidence in the council. > That feedback was abundantly clear from my group > at least - no trust that the review is anything > other than an exercise in ?going through the > motions? and the outcome is already predetermined. > I don?t know that today remedies that - comments > in the chat suggested not all of the group > summaries were quite so glowing as the groups > reported. > > I really hope they take feedback onboard and > modify some of these schemes to make life easier > for people on boundary roads. Suspect hopes might > go unanswered. Perhaps if the council agreed to subscribe to the Clean Air For All mantra then we could see some progress. All anyone wants to see are measures that lower pollution for everyone - that surely can't be too much to ask for but nowadays Labour finds it very difficult to admit they got anything wrong (nothing is ever their fault). They are reluctant to make changes that show that their path is anything other than the right one.

The TFL side road stats were manipulated to convince people streets needed closing. Car ownership in London has been declining year on year, probably not as fast as we would all wish but the doubling and massive increases in traffic on side roads is a narrative manipulation tactic used by self-interest groups.

Unfortunately it was a fundamentally flawed approach from the get go that was pushed through under the dubious justification of the need for social distancing using the pandemic as the Trojan horse to push through measures they had no local mandate to do. They hoped people would buy in but all they managed to do was galvanize support from vested-interest groups who weren't actually reflective of the thoughts of local residents. Since then they have been desperately trying to skew everything towards the outcome they so desperately desire. Meanwhile us local residents are having to live with the fallout and you know if the review forces a council about turn not a single councillor will be accountable.

Rahx3 - we can. It's been an utter mess and massively weakens the council's position in terms of trustworthiness. Do you remember when they put the monitoring strips only on the closed roads at the outset? I think that shows what they were interested in proving. If the council was an actual business people would have been fired by now for the shambolic nature of how they have gone about it.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just seen on Twitter that Southwark Cyclists are > advising their followers to respond to the > consultation in ways that include advocating for a > modal filter in Red Post Hill. Really hoping all > these plans involve a new hospital somewhere as > this is a key route to Kings for staff/ anyone not > in an ambulance. It?s bad enough with the timed > closures on DV. Can it not be ALL about cycle > routes? > > ETA I do wonder if this links into the email > exchanges back in November when Southwark sprang > the Phase 2 closures on TfL. Just checked back and > it was during a telephone discussion about Red > Post Hill that TfL seems to have expressed concern > that Southwark had neglected to tell TfL that the > closures were going in (notice given on Thursday > for Monday implementation). See attached. Southwark Cyclists won't be happy until they have complete cycle domination and every non cycle vehicle has been eliminated... All joking aside it will be interesting to see how Southwark manages the views of residents over non-residents in the review. The council seems to be more interested in, and actively encouraging, the views of the people who night occasionally pass through the area over those who have to live here.

Legal...ha ha...the process is robust, fair and inclusive...I think the council is trying to convince themselves it is... It probably isn't surprising that they aren't sharing any data at the meeting....everything they have done in this process has been shambolic. Alternatively maybe it is because they have to yet work out a way to cut the data to give them the outcome they want! ;-) Also the break-out rooms idea is absurd...what if you have an opinion on more than one of the subjects? Reeks of trying to divide and conquer if you ask me. This council is utterly out of their depth and seems to be making it all up as they go along.

I thought there must have been a protest/demo of some kind when I saw a big group of cyclists being led to Dulwich Square on Sunday - not, ahem, convinced that the headline is entirely accurate that it was all Dulwich families - not many of them seemed to know where they were going.....;-) https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-families-get-on-their-bikes-to-show-support-for-safe-cycling-routes/

The issue is there were always traffic hot spots, and yes Calton junction with DV was one of them but that was more due to the meddling the council did to try and fix the problem and it just made it worse than it had ever been (and that was validated by their own monitoring that showed that after they made changes to the junction it was more polluted and more congested than it had been before). What I find so disingenuous about those types of twitter posts is that no-one wants traffic, no-one actively wants pollution and congestion - we all want less pollution and less congestion yet what those posts fail to acknowledge (and actually most pro-LTN lobby fail to acknowledge) is that removing traffic from one place and moving it somewhere else doesn't solve the problem it makes it worse. It's almost as if Clean Air Dulwich wants people to believe that since the closures went in EVERYWHERE is a car-free nirvana. It's not. They know that, we know that but they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it. For every 2015 - 2019 video they produce someone on Croxted Road or East Dulwich Grove or Underhill or Lordship lane could produce one highlighting how much worse things are there since the arrival of the LTNs. I want less traffic for all - not a small section of our community and all those videos do is suggest groups like Clean Air Dulwich are concerned about is protecting the car-free nirvana they negotiated with the council at other people's expense....

I just finally got round to filling in the council questionnaire and it really saddened me to see the botched mess the council has made of a once in a lifetime opportunity to actually do something positive about pollution and climate change. As I waded through the myriad of leading questions desperately trying to garner my support for more measures and CPZs I couldn't help but think how did they get themselves into this mess where the only option I have is to register a vote to return the measures to their previous state. This is an abject lesson in how not to do things. The council have let us all down - they have failed everyone on both sides of the debate massively, divided our community and have created more pollution and congestion than ever before. I might write a book: Southwark Council and the LTN folly.....

MrsBoris - I hope you and your family are well and so sorry to hear about the ordeal you went through. I am very glad that the person is now in custody and I hope that you can take some small comfort from that. Thank you so much for you and your friend for alerting people to what happened - it's what forums like this are for and I am sure people were more vigilant as a result.

Heartblock - that document remains the most damning piece of evidence against the council and their foolhardy implementation of the LTNs - it really is the smoking gun to the ludicrousness of the decision to put these LTNs in. Their actions with the LTNs completely contradict and ignore their own advice and conclusions in that, and other, report/s. It begs the question why did they go ahead with it - who got in their ear and made them think this was a good idea - which lobby groups were involved and why and what influence/leverage did they exert on the council and councillors?

Does anyone know what the decision-making process is for the location of hangars? Some roads seem to have lots whilst others have none and like our road, not for a case of people not asking - all of our neighbours added their details to the council list years ago yet no hangars have been forthcoming yet a road around the corner has multiple hangars.