Rockets

Malumbu - glad you agree with us that we need some representative democracy - I am sure you will agree that there is so little of it in evidence in the way the council is managing LTNs, no more aptly demonstrated by the cabinet meeting last week....... You're lucky that you live far enough away from the LTNs to not be impacted by the displacement. Tuesday's council meeting for the Dulwich Hill ward is going to be very interesting as this is the first one where the council are going to be unable to rely on the local pro-closure lobby monotonising proceedings. It will be interesting to see how they run it and if they apply the same rules of engagement they applied during the Melbourne Grove LTN meetings.

Sensible suggestion from Dulwich Alliance. I believe independent arbitration is the only way forward, we cannot trust the council to deal with this in a fair and balanced way. Open letters An open letter to the Leader of Southwark Council (7 February 2021) Dear Councillor Williams At the end of the session of the Cabinet Meeting on 2 February that was devoted to the 700+ signature petition (to end the 24/7 closures around Dulwich and implement an area-wide, camera-controlled permit scheme), you highlighted that views are strongly held in Dulwich on both sides, and that there was a ?need to find a way of coming to a consensus view? through a review process that ?brings people together?. We agree. We suggest that there is, in fact, a lot more common ground than people realise, but it is not being allowed to surface at the moment because of the rancour this issue is causing. The need to reach a consensus has always been the position of the Dulwich Alliance and One Dulwich. However, with opposing views so strongly held, the only way this can realistically be achieved is through an impartial and transparent resolution process. Unfortunately, the proposed ?Dulwich Area Community Forum? chaired by a Council-appointed ?Area Champion?, mentioned by Cllr Rose at the Cabinet meeting as being under consideration, would obviously not be impartial and so simply cannot achieve that. It would be extremely unhelpful both for the community and for the Council if another consultation simply repeated and further entrenched existing polarised positions. Instead we propose that either the Council establishes a public inquiry, or that an independent, professionally qualified arbitration specialist, such as a chartered arbitrator or an accredited resolution specialist, be appointed to carry this out. For this to work, the arbitrator would obviously have to be subject neutral as well as impartial, and have the broad support of the community. This would ensure that those affected (be that negatively or positively) by the Orders are allowed to make their representations and have their views heard. It would also provide the Council with impartial direction on how to proceed in a way that meets the Council?s objectives of reducing through traffic and pollution and encouraging walking and cycling (which everyone supports), but which also balances the different needs of the wider community. In fact, we believe that it is only by following an independent and transparent process that the Council can ensure acceptance of the outcome by all interested parties. There appears to have been little by way of timely studies into traffic levels or air quality within the locality before the Orders were introduced. Added to this, the experiment is being undertaken during a time in which traffic conditions and pollution levels are not representative of what they were before the COVID-19 pandemic, or indeed are likely to be after the pandemic. This further underlines the need for an independent investigation, as clearly any evidence gleaned from this experiment will not be sufficient to underpin any future permanent measures. We know that, as Leader of the Council, you put equality and fairness at the heart of all you do, and that you want to build a better future for everyone in the borough. We urge you to consider seriously this route of independent investigation. It provides a way forward that builds on common ground among people in Dulwich with different views, and a way out of the current community relations quagmire that we all find ourselves in. Yours sincerely The Dulwich Alliance

As Julie demonstrated as part of her council-sponsored/encouraged deputation the goal appears to be to turn Dulwich Village into some sort of inner city rural idyll for the benefit of a few of Southwark's wealthiest residents but at the expense of everyone else. How dare we stand in the way of this noble quest!!!!

The deputation part was an absolute joke and the questions from the councillors as predictable as they were weak and insipid. What struck me was the complete disregard for anyone outside of the Village and the impact to them and the pro-closure lobby diatribe regurgitated by Julie. She highlights Dulwich having the highest car ownership in the borough but omits the fact that Dulwich has some of the worst PTAL scores in Southwark. Look how the council are trying to manipulate and control the process - no wonder Clive is getting frustrated. The same thing happened on the Melbourne Grove virtual meeting where the supporters of the closures were given disproportionately more air time then anyone opposing the closures. Apparently that was just coincidence. Yet on this last cabinet meeting we see the true colours of our council and I laughed at the irony of the painting of One Dulwich and the Dulwich Alliance as groups that are unwilling to engage in dialogue. Honestly, it's all getting a bit Comical Ali from the council but you can tell from the desperate nature of the impassioned defence by the pro-lovby that you know the pressure refuses to diminish.

I think everyone can agree that all we want is some clarity from the council - they are dithering over every aspect of these measures and even the most pro-closure supporter must be wondering what the council is up to. It's almost as if they put them in and had no strategic plan in place to back them up. A couple of councillors thought it good to leverage "social distancing" for these personal vanity projects and now the council can't find a way to make them stick. As I have been saying from the outset, the complete mis-management of this project by the council is likely to have long-term implications on the appetite for and ability to execute any future traffic and pollution control measures. That, I am afraid, is probably going to be the long-term legacy of this ill-thought out programme and we should all be holding the councillors accountable for that.

I agree with both of you and it does seem that the council seems to be changing the rules of engagement at every opportunity. I very much suspect that this is because the feedback and data they are seeing coming in from both the local residents and their monitoring doesn't back their position of unwavering support for the measures they have put in. Cllr William's comments on "finalising" the design of the review this close to publication should be ringing alarm bells for everyone on both sides of the argument.

Wow, every email, every bit of analysis, every FOI strikes another blow to the pro-closure lobby and the "facts" they have used to prop up their assertations. The house of cards is beginning to wobble. Perhaps some of our dear friends on this forum from the pro-closure lobby might like to comment........;-)

NorthernMonkey - I like all of the report. Your accusations of wrong-doing do not stand the test of scrutiny as each of them can equally be applied to the way the council has manipulated data throughout years of "consultations". I am not for a moment saying that two wrongs make a right but what Dulwich Alliance is doing is based on complete mistrust of the way the council is handling it. They have taken data that is from a website that is publicly available and one where the council has encouraged the community to leave their comments. Of course, the council could issue a strongly worded rebuttal if they believe the Duwlich Alliance have manipulated the data. To date, they haven't. In fact, Cllr Rose tried to address their analysis by saying that Commonplace "evolves" and is part of the process. She could have easily issued a rebuttal if she felt the analysis was manipulated. She didn't. That speakers volumes. What she instead did was do what the council has been doing for the duration of this process and issued a "wait and see" directive. It's akin to their "let it bed in" narrative they have tried to push. What was also slightly concerning was Cllr Williams' assertation that they were "finalising" the design of the review. Surely if you are due to publish something in a couple of weeks, as the council is promising, the design of the review should have been determined by now. That suggests to me the council might be having to tweak the findings. Good on the Dulwich Alliance for taking the time to do this - it shows how strongly people feel about this and it demonstrates that the council cannot just hope this issue goes away and are being forced, by their constituents, to be accountable. The pressure is mounting for the council to prove that the LTNs are 1) supported by the majority of the Dulwich community 2) are actually delivering what they promised they would 3) not impacting anyone negatively in terms of displacement and increased pollution I think the council will struggle to reach the threshold on any of the above points and from their actions I think they know that. And from your de-positioning of any resistance I think you know that too.

NorthernMonkey - yes I did read the report and I am glad someone has done some area wide analysis. I liked the way they combined both the East Dulwich and Dulwich Village element linking the two - which the council steadfastly refuses to do and tries to divide and conquer by dealing with each set of closures in isolation. The methdology makes it clear how they built the report - you might not like it but it's clear that the majority of comments left on the Commonplace website (to which councillors have been encouraging people to leave their comments as they said it would be used to judge local sentiment) is against the closures. Have you used the Commonplace website? Have you seen how biased it is towards leaving comments supporting the closures and measures? It's actually quite difficult to leave anything other than glowing praise for the measures so these stats speak volumes. And remember, we were repeatedly told by both the council, the councillors and the pro-closure lobby that it was a "small, vocal minority" who were opposing these closures. With each passing day it seems they all got that assessment badly wrong. The Dulwich Hill zoom call will probably be a good barometer for wider area sentiment over the Melbourne Grove one.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In fairness, it was stated by the meeting chair > that supplementary questions would not be taken. > Clive asked if he could make one, and that was the > chair's response. I had thought that much later in > the meeting the reason for the response was > further qualified as Clive's question was > submitted late in day and not as expected, or > something like that. Do Clive and Cllr Williams have some previous - the way Cllr Williams addressed Clive suggested so? He was abruptly dismissive - as if he was expecting it. I think the downgrading of the Commonplace was that the Dulwich Alliance got to it first and the council realised they had no way to manipulate the data from then on. Either that or no-one had looked at what was being posted and didn't realise that the sentiment was, in the majority, against the closures. I think the council are on the ropes on this one and they can't make it go away. The Dulwich Hill ward meeting will be very interesting as the council can't expect a group of pro-closure supporters from closed roads from turning up and trying to filibuster the duration of the meeting as the Melbourne Grove residents did. Dulwich Hill is one of the key displacement zones and there are not many who are benefitting from the closures.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I completely agree with your comments on the > inadequacy of commonplace as a measure (in fact I > filled in a feedback form to that effect) - but if > the council is going to hold it out as its means > of collecting data, and in the absence of ?proper? > data, you can hardly blame people for trying to do > something with it. > > I?m not quite sure what I think the role of > residents? associations should be in all of this - > I?d say to be conduits for communication rather > than any of them coming out ?for? or ?against? > based on their (probably) unscientific perception > of their residents? views. Our local one forgot to > include us for many years after we moved in. Out > of interest do residents associations have any > formal standing with the council? Am I imagining it but didn't the council say that they will be using Commonplace to assess the local sentiment towards LTNs? I interpreted Dulwich Alliance's publishing of the stats as a very clever move to put the council on the back foot. By the looks of the council's response (or lack of it) it looks like it has been successful. Just watched the YouTube video and I thought the representation from Hazel and Bridget was very well done. Cllr Rose really needs to stop turning to her right, it looks like she is reading her responses from a pre-prepared script! THe points Cllr Rose's made about the use of Commonplace don't really stand much scrutiny as the stats speak for themselves. Why was Clive Rates shut down so quickly by Cllr Williams

Do you need to email Fitzroy to get an invite? Have they changed the process from the Melbourne Grove one? Could be interesting given the displacement issues create on roads like Underhill due to the closures.

Malumbu - let's back up a little. What point are you trying to land with those links? One is a potted history of the Rambler's Association right to roam battle, one is an article on road usage (that I agree with entirely) and one is a link to a book. Are you not meandering a bit off-topic here - this thread is on Our Healthy Streets so I am not sure what point you are trying to make - there's a perfectly good debate (one which you fervently try to engage with but other than name-calling never actually do) here - you seem obsessed with trying to take the conversation away from the subject in hand. And on the subject of name-calling you're doing it again and descending into your usual dismissive de-positioning stance referring to "educating yourself". By default that suggests you don't think I am educated.

Local authorities are making such a pig's ear of these measures that they are turning the majority against them so you can scratch them off the "dirty work" list from here on in I suspect. This is going to cost votes and that, ultimately, is what decides the fate of any idea or plan. Those councillors who were the loudest advocates of the LTNs seem to have lost their voice over the last couple of months and don't seem to keen to grandstand over Dulwich Square and other areas - that is very telling. Even chief LTN advocate in chief Peter Walker seems to have moved on to other things.

@malumbu - good try, no cigar I am afraid....it's clear all I was hoping for was a return to some semblance of normality in relation to Covid - not traffic levels. I refer you to my earlier point... @Malumbu Your increasingly spiteful de-positioning of anyone who has a view differing to your own on this subject speaks volumes: it suggests you don't have a valuable contribution or rational argument for the points being raised so have descended to name calling and accusatory finger pointing at people you don't know anything about. A bit childish don't you think?

Has anyone else noticed that Dulwich Square is fast becoming a skate park.....am I the only one to think that this might test the community minded spirit of some of the Square's most vocal supporters.....?;-) I wonder how long it will be before the signs get changed to...Open To....bikes, pedestrians, buggies, scooters (but not stunt scooters or skateboards)

Ex- it will also be essential to see local data. National data demonstrates macro trends not local ones. It would be a foolhardy path for the council to follow if they try and model national changes to determine local impact. They had strips down for periods over both the lockdown and the much more relaxed lockdown so we know they have the data and we know that what many of us could see when we were walking around Dulwich on the displacement roads the council can see too in the data. More broadly, those national figures are interesting and validate how people are changing their habits but I would challenge that these changes will not continue once lockdown lifts. Yes everyone is walking and cycling more - why, because their world extends about 1 mile in each direction at the moment no further. Parents were working from home whilst their children went to school so more people could take their children to school on their bikes and get back home in time for their first work commitment of the day. It's why Dulwich Park/Peckham Rye/Brockwell Park are absolutely rammed as they are only option for most people in the locality to get some exercise and fresh air. Covid has been a massive catalyst for modal shifts in transportation but soon, hopefully, things will begin to return to some semblance of normality and those modal shifts will swing back when people's world's begin extending. That's why we saw the traffic chaos on the displacement roads when the first lockdown was eased.

@DulwichCentral - I think you will find that the majority of statements about awful traffic were before this latest lockdown. Of course the roads are much quieter now (although I hasten to add much busier than during the first lockdown) but the LTN displacement roads were beyond awful before we went into this lockdown. One wonders how the council will aggregate this into their monitoring and analysis because when life returns to normal things will return to being hellish on Lordship Lane, EDG etc etc. I am really interested to see how they present/manipulate this. The worm seems to be beginning to turn on LTNs.

@Malumbu Your increasingly spiteful de-positioning of anyone who has a view differing to your own on this subject speaks volumes: it suggests you don't have a valuable contribution or rational argument for the points being raised so have descended to name calling and accusatory finger pointing at people you don't know anything about. A bit childish don't you think?

Well done Dulwich Alliance - get an early blow in before the council has a chance to manipulate the figures - no doubt they will counter that the people on the closed roads are saying how great it is!!!! ;-)

Also I would hope that the council are reviewing the number of FOI requests they get and determining how they can communicate better - the two are inexorably linked. The catalyst for a lot of these FOIs is their utter lack of transparency and professional communication on this whole programme - they are acting like they have something to hide so people go looking for what they are hiding (and finding it if those emergency services communications are anything to go by).

...response to Covid-19....the High Court may bring this house of cards tumbling down....

But weren't the council and councillors telling us the delays to emergency services weren't happening and the emergency services supported the measures..? It's also very clear from those minutes that there was no, or woefully inadequate consultation, with wemegency services over these closures. Time and time again councillors told us the opposite, that emergency services had been consulted. It's clear these measures put people's lives at risk and the emergency services were telly the council so for a long time and the council seems to.in the main, ignored it and that cannot be tolerated. I know they replaced the planters with removable bollards in at Melbourne Grove but the DV junction is still immovable planters. This council is trying to hide things. They have created a monster for themselves..an informed public who are tired of being lied to and are now emboldened to dig deeper and push for proper answers and expose their lies.The council cannot bury things under the cover of constituent apathy anymore. It makes you wonder what else has been happening over the years...

This might explain why many of the cheerleading councillors are doing nothing on their social feeds. Many of them, who were frequent retweeters of content from the pro-closure lobbyists, seem to have stopped. Perhaps they know they are in trouble and are backpedaling quickly to try and distance themselves from them. Cheerleading and grandstanding is easy, being accountable less so.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > march46 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I see Dulwich Alliance are no longer listing > the > > Dulwich Picture Gallery as one of their > > supporters. Were they not aware they'd be > included > > I wonder? > > Yes I noticed this. Very odd. Does make one wonder > how genuine the whole thing is. Not sure how you question how genuine the Dulwich Alliance is on the basis of that...or is it you are just grasping at anything to deposition any organised opposition? Meanwhile it appears the council may have stopped responding to FOI requests...far, far more concerning if true.