Rockets

cwjlawrence Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @dougiefreeman thank you so much for your > thoughtful and detailed post. I suspect that > we're actually very well aligned and after exactly > the same outcome which is a cleaner less polluted > East Dulwich in which we can all live. > > I don't think that there is anything in your post > that I disagree with, apart from the fact that I > think we all need to be affected very > significantly. Please excuse the turn of phrase, > but the journey of travel over the last 30 years > has been towards greater of car journeys and > therefore the infrastructure of the city has > adapted to the use of cars which will be difficult > to unwind. Despite what some of the pro-closure lobby would like to try and lead people to believe the two camps on here are not too far apart. Per Dougie and you Chris, we all agree that something has to be done but just that the council is making a complete mess of their ham-fisted attempts to find a solution. It is clear that the most damaging closure has been that of the DV junction and I would suggest that the council needs to address that one immediately (and address it does not mean make the problem even worse by closing DV to through traffic or closing Townley Road as is their current suggested solution). I think the problem is that each of the councillors is pursuing their own personal agenda and giving scant regard to the impact further down the road (pardon the pun!). Perhaps if the council had had the guts to actually have dialogue their constituents instead of hiding behind Covid as a reason for zero communication then they probably wouldn't find themselves in this mess.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > @serena2012 a fair enough, I do think there > are > > > legitimate criticisms of the way the council > > has > > > gone about this and the way that they are > > > measuring the impacts. I don?t doubt that > there > > > are many with genuine concerns. But there are > > at > > > least as many who are simply annoyed that > it?s > > > harder for them to drive short journey and > use > > > side streets as cut throughs. > > > > > > The Village changes are challenging, because > it > > is > > > such an affluent area - it?s east for people > to > > > cry foul. Rye Lane less so though. And across > > > London, we are now seeing car journeys > increase > > to > > > above those of pre lockdown levels, due to > > people > > > wishing to avoid public transport. This makes > > it > > > more urgent to create some spaces which are > > > ?relatively? congestion free, so that there > are > > > alternative routes for those wishing to walk > > and > > > cycle. I?m confident that the local LTNs have > > led > > > to fewer car journeys. I know I can?t prove > it > > > (this is where the council should be doing a > > > better job collecting the data) but I see the > > > number of kids walking down Melbourne Gtive > and > > > Carlton Avenue to school. I see it and my own > > > experience is that I?m using the car less > too. > > > Those campaigning to ?get rid? of LTNs aren?t > > > offering much by way of realistic > alternatives > > and > > > I don?t consider ?spreading the pain so that > > all > > > areas are congested? to be an alternative. > > > > > > Apologies for typos- typing on the go > > > > Rahrahrah - at last, something we can agree on. > I > > agree too that the LTNs have led to fewer car > > journeys but, paradoxically, Covid was already > > doing that as people reassessed their transport > > means in light of the pandemic. Yet the numbers > of > > people able to make the change aren't > sufficiently > > high enough to have a positive macro impact on > the > > rest of the area as traffic is funnelled down > > fewer roads. > > > > Look at that data I shared on the Waltham > Forest > > LTN. There was a 28% increase in traffic on a > road > > 3.1 miles from the LTN after it went in. Surely > > the only rational explanation for that is the > > displacement from the LTN is creating a > > displacement tsunami? And remember that Waltham > > Forest LTN happened well before Covid so you > > cannot pin that increase on that. > > > > And stop defaulting to the weak "get rid of and > > not offering alternatives" narrative. There > have > > been plenty offered on here - none of which the > > pro-closure lobby is seemingly keen to discuss. > I > > wonder why? > > > l/waltham_forest_the_suburb_that_pioneered_the/ That Reddit post is another classic example of the pro-closure propaganda that can be readily found (and often referenced by councils and councillors) but is not base don fact. It's only when you scratch beneath the surface and analyse the council's own data that you can get a handle on what is actually happening and it appears to me (unless you live in the closed area) that there is a definite negative impact on the wider community. Just look for yourselves. Do as I did and look at where the "boundary" roads are that Waltham Forest council has acknowledged have had an increase in traffic - the one that is 28% is 3.1 miles from the closures. 3.1 miles away (that's from Dulwich to the Oval) and they are feeling the negative impact of the closures. https://enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/work-in-your-area/walthamstow-village/comparison-of-vehicle-numbers-before-and-after-the-scheme-and-during-the-trial/ So, unless the council plans to ringfence the whole of Dulwich or every car disappears then the displacement problem will persist. Lewisham have seen sense and are amending some of the closures and I think Southwark should follow suit pretty quickly thereafter.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > slarti b Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Can any of the pro closure people, > > Rahrah,Northern, CJR Lauranc, tell me which > roads > > in the local area you believe cars and other > motor > > vehciles should be allowed to use, and any > > conditions on that use, eg delivery or access > > only, not during school hours etc? > > There are currently no roads that motor vehicles > can't use. There are a small number of streets > which are filtered - you can still drive a car > down them, just not cut through. Ha ha - filtered! Love it. They're closed. Or did I miss the Road Filtered sign on the front of them! ;-) I am also a real fan of the the "you can still drive a car down them, just not cut through". What you mean to say is you can't drive down them if you want to get to somewhere they were built to get you to!!! ;-)

It's the displacement tsunami in full effect....remember Waltham Forest LTN seems to have caused a 28% increase in traffic on roads 3.1 miles way....

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are we looking at the same picture? There are > cars parked on both sides of the street - the > jewson lorry wouldn't be able to get through as > there are cars on the left and queueing traffic > coming towards it. Agree its stopped - but this > doesn't mean it was delivering to Charter - more > that it just can't progress and cars were inching > through gaps like they used to do every day on > these roads. > > Do you really want 11 year old children trying to > cross through that? > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > first mate Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > The slight irony is that very large > delivery > > > > vehicle may well be for the Charter School > > > build. > > > > > > > > > Or simply cutting through from the Jewsons > next > > to > > > ED station. > > > > Err, the lorry has stopped, the cars are trying > to > > go around it - the grey car in the foreground > is > > going around it. I suggest the lorry was > waiting > > to deliver to the new Charter School (maybe > they > > didn't realise the rules regarding deliveries). > > Yet more wilful manipulation of fact by the > > pro-closure lobby. > > > > Meanwhile....1.30pm yesterday afternoon on > > Lordship lane...and that is definitely not how > it > > used to be.... Yes we are. Maybe I am wrong but I thought there were dropped kerbs at that point of Melbourne Grove meaning cars would not be parked on the right hand side there? I saw it as the lorry is trying to turn into Charter and cars are trying to go around it whilst cars wait to filter back the other way when those cars have cleared. Given the position of the on-coming cars it doesn't look as if they think they will need to go backwards and they would have seen that lorry coming from a long way off - most people give way to lorries that size! Doesn't this go to highlight how subjective this has become? You see it as one thing, I see it as another. No I do not want to see any 11 year old trying to cross there but nor do I want them to be breathing in fumes as they walk to school alongside the gridlock elsewhere as all you have done is moved the problem elsewhere. Actually if you want measures to protect school children then make it a school street and have timed closures - would that not have been a better way to go about it?

peckhamside Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well said Malumbu. > I will not be signing. > Car drivers- I'm sure some of you could be > walking. > I will be inconvenienced by closure of P.R. East > side but it is a small price to pay for health and > safety. But what if, as is happening throughout Dulwich at the moment, it makes roads other than those closed more polluted and less safe and, what if, the large majority of people can't switch to walking? A lot of us are doing our bit and walking and cycling more but aren't convinced enough people will be able to make that switch to avoid the inevitable displacement tsunami caused by these closures. Do you think all the traffic using Peckham Rye East Side (especially those turning right onto East Dulwich Road) will just stop using their cars or will they try to find a route via backstreets?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The slight irony is that very large delivery > > vehicle may well be for the Charter School > build. > > > Or simply cutting through from the Jewsons next to > ED station. Err, the lorry has stopped, the cars are trying to go around it - the grey car in the foreground is going around it. I suggest the lorry was waiting to deliver to the new Charter School (maybe they didn't realise the rules regarding deliveries). Yet more wilful manipulation of fact by the pro-closure lobby. Meanwhile....1.30pm yesterday afternoon on Lordship lane...and that is definitely not how it used to be....

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That comment was made in respect on one specific > scheme, not all permeable barriers generally. I > appreciate that the article is not clearly written > in that respect. > > You guys need to understand the hard facts about > consultation in this context. The central > government gave an extremely short window to > councils to access money for experimental and > COVID-related measures. They were not allowing > councils to go through their normal processes. > Doing the consultation would have meant the > experiment wouldn't have happened because there > would have been no money. The experiment is > ongoing. The time to take decisions is once the > experiment is finished and there is actual data. DKHB - Sorry you're wrong. Have a read of the documents. Emergency services (Fire, Police and Ambulance) have indicated they will not support schemes which promote hard road closures, as they will increase response times. Their preference is for camera enforced closures without physical prevention for vehicles. They also requested that emergency vehicles are exempt from the bus gate.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @serena2012 a fair enough, I do think there are > legitimate criticisms of the way the council has > gone about this and the way that they are > measuring the impacts. I don?t doubt that there > are many with genuine concerns. But there are at > least as many who are simply annoyed that it?s > harder for them to drive short journey and use > side streets as cut throughs. > > The Village changes are challenging, because it is > such an affluent area - it?s east for people to > cry foul. Rye Lane less so though. And across > London, we are now seeing car journeys increase to > above those of pre lockdown levels, due to people > wishing to avoid public transport. This makes it > more urgent to create some spaces which are > ?relatively? congestion free, so that there are > alternative routes for those wishing to walk and > cycle. I?m confident that the local LTNs have led > to fewer car journeys. I know I can?t prove it > (this is where the council should be doing a > better job collecting the data) but I see the > number of kids walking down Melbourne Gtive and > Carlton Avenue to school. I see it and my own > experience is that I?m using the car less too. > Those campaigning to ?get rid? of LTNs aren?t > offering much by way of realistic alternatives and > I don?t consider ?spreading the pain so that all > areas are congested? to be an alternative. > > Apologies for typos- typing on the go Rahrahrah - at last, something we can agree on. I agree too that the LTNs have led to fewer car journeys but, paradoxically, Covid was already doing that as people reassessed their transport means in light of the pandemic. Yet the numbers of people able to make the change aren't sufficiently high enough to have a positive macro impact on the rest of the area as traffic is funnelled down fewer roads. Look at that data I shared on the Waltham Forest LTN. There was a 28% increase in traffic on a road 3.1 miles from the LTN after it went in. Surely the only rational explanation for that is the displacement from the LTN is creating a displacement tsunami? And remember that Waltham Forest LTN happened well before Covid so you cannot pin that increase on that. And stop defaulting to the weak "get rid of and not offering alternatives" narrative. There have been plenty offered on here - none of which the pro-closure lobby is seemingly keen to discuss. I wonder why?

My goodness, when you scratch a little deeper the Waltham Forest results are shocking. So when I looked at the ?bordering road? that has seen a 28% increase in traffic on Google maps it looked a very long way from the LTN area. Here?s the location they saw the 28% increase: Shernhall Street - traffic count North of Maynard Road, approximately outside the Methodist Church 7,231 9,276 2,045 28 per cent increase That measuring point is 3.1 miles away from Ramsay Road which is the northern most street in the LTN area. 3.1 miles away and they were feeling a 28% increase in traffic which makes you wonder what the increases are within half a mile of the closures. It?s basically like saying the Oval will feel a 28% increase in traffic from the DV closures. Even the street with the lowest increase (Hoe Street 2%) is 4 miles from the northern most closure point. It is growing clearer and clearer to me that all these great examples the pro-closure lobby cite are in fact anything but and the information being presented to the public is being manipulated by the councils and planning departments to try and create a positive message when none exists. A bit like a bomb being dropped somewhere the blast zone and damage travels a long way from the epicentre. Can any of the pro-lobby provide anything to counter this?

Interesting that the pro-closure lobby cites what is happening in Waltham Forest as a shining light of the LTN yet go to their Streetscape site and things don't look too rosy....well very rosy given the overwhelming red comments submitted... https://newhamwalthamforestltn.commonplace.is/schemes/proposals/give-us-your-feedback/details Also it is worth looking at the numbers from Waltham Forest themselves. 5 of 12 surrounding streets experienced increases in traffic when they did the trial. This dropped when the trial was made permanent but on the 3 border roads traffic increased on all of them. https://enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/work-in-your-area/walthamstow-village/comparison-of-vehicle-numbers-before-and-after-the-scheme-and-during-the-trial/ It's amazing what happens when you do your own research. Also very interested to hear what the maximum amount of traffic "evaporation" was seen in any of the 60 schemes worldwide that have the median average of 11%. Even Living Streets posted an article last year that said the following.... In half of the case studies, there was a 11% reduction in number of vehicles across the whole area where roadspace for traffic was reduced, including the main roads. https://www.google.com/amp/s/londonlivingstreets.com/2019/07/11/evaporating-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-on-main-roads/amp/

dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Around 1220 ambulance with blue lights flashing > today going down grove vale indicates right to go > down Melbourne grove, can?t so continues to drive > still indicating right in the end has to go via > lordship lane traffic to eventually get to a house > on east dulwich grove near green dale. > > This is the real life affect of these closures. "Collateral damage" or "Not due to the closures". I wonder which one the pro-closure lobby will categorise this as?

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rah x 3 talks sense. .... if you happen to be so inclined to the stuff they talk.... I think the majority actually want all road users to be considered and not have a lot of roads closed to one section of road users....now that's sense! It seems that anything other than an A road is considered by Rahrahrah as a side street and somehow should be for the exclusive use of cyclists only....

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t live in one of the filtered roads. I live > just off Lordship Lane (apparently one of the > negatively impacted streets, although it doesn?t > seem much different to before the lockdown to > me... I know, I know, others will swear it?s > completely changed). The roads which have seen > significant increases in traffic over the last few > years are back streets NOT main roads. This is the > result of apps and sat navs. There is research by > tfl showing this. I am in favour of the LTNs > because I have seen more people walking and > cycling and I think that?s positive. I myself am > walking more and I think this has to be a good > thing. I don?t buy it that if you remove the > filters it will improve the main roads. I just > think it will be surrendering to the idea that > cars have a natural ?right? to dominate almost > every public space, and it can?t be challenged. I am afraid you are deluding yourself if you think traffic in Dulwich is not worse since the lockdowns went in. Even one of your most vocal supporters in the council Cllr McAsh admits there are problems being caused by the closures. Or perhaps he has turned to the dark side?

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Can anyone show any scheme which has > SIGNIFICANTLY reduced motor volumes? The best even > the most pro-scheme lobbyist can show is a maximum > of 11%. > > NO IT ISN'T! > > Back on page 41, I posted a link to a > meta-analysis study which had looked at 60 traffic > reduction schemes worldwide to assess various > measures and outcomes. > > Obviously very few people actually bothered > reading the thing and someone asked about overall > reduction - I copied and pasted an extract from > the report which stated a MEDIAN (not a maximum) > outcome across all these various schemes in > several different countries of 11%. In fact the > exact phrase I posted is here: > > The mean average was a reduction of 21?9% and the > median ? which is a better measure of central > tendency here, given the variability of results ? > was a reduction of 10?6%. > In other words, in half the cases, over 11% of the > vehicles which were previously using the road or > the area where > roadspace for general traffic was reduced, could > not be found in the surrounding area afterwards. > > Now in that context, median is kind of the best > statistical tool to use (rather than mean) because > it takes account of outliers. Depending on what > the scheme is, where it is, the control measures > introduced etc, it showed a wide range of outcomes > but this time, you can actually go back and read > it yourself because it's very clear that the 11% > figure has been held up as some kind of absolute > gold-plated figure for all schemes everywhere and > it's "only" 11% (and therefore not worth doing??) > > > What's even more telling is that the meta-analysis > got shouted down as being: > old / out of date (apparently science done before > 2000 is no longer valid?!) > flawed (go, on, tell me HOW it's flawed, I'd love > to hear it) > biased (no it's not, the whole point of > meta-analysis is that you're looking at previous > studies and studying their methodology, not the > original raw data) > > And yet all the people saying that the study was > rubbish simultaneously grabbed the 11% figure that > came from that same study like a dog with a bone > and now won't let it go and are twisting it to > their own ends. Ex- we understand that of the 60 LTN programmes analysed globally the median average was 11%. Do you have any other stats that show average traffic reduction that would lead anyone to believe we could expect "significant" reduction from these measures? And significant would need to be far higher than the 11% median.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What that post also misses, is that almost > everybody is in favour of traffic reductions and > addressing pollution/climate issues. > But what they also are in favour of is a strategic > approach which those affected are informed of and > included in, rather than instantaneous measures > which are ill-thought out, exclusive, and simply > turn alternative roads in to rat runs. > Sooo lazy to label anyone who complains about the > current problems being caused as trying to prevent > progress on pollution/traffic/improvements. > It's not a binary situation save the world/kill > the world, people just want things done sensibly. Spot on. But it is convenient for the pro-closure lobby to label anyone who has an opinion that differs, even slightly, from theirs as some kind of pollution and congestion advocate. How many times have we seen the usual suspects claim people are suggesting no nothing?

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thought for the day from the London Cycling > Campaign (under a picture of Calton Avenue in > their free guide for local authorities on how to > win their constituents over > (https://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/fi > les/13729/original.pdf? > > ?Increasingly often, those against schemes use > localised negative impacts, or even potential > negative impacts, to try and derail or delay > progress. They say that schemes will worsen > pollution or congestion at one or two spots, on > one road, or, most emotively, outside a particular > school. > It is entirely right that we do not tolerate > worsening air quality in school classrooms, or for > hospital patients, and it is right to aim to > reduce congestion that is one of the causes of > pollution. But if a scheme will, or is very likely > to, significantly reduce overall motor traffic > volumes, and therefore overall pollution levels, > even if it also causes isolated negatives, should > that derail the scheme? > Those who say yes are doomed to oppose > just about all progressive schemes. The ULEZ > expansion, for instance, will likely worsen > congestion and pollution outside the currently > planned expansion zone. But does that make it a > bad idea overall? Every scheme that takes bold > steps to reduce motor traffic has some negative > impacts. No scheme is perfect, but opposition to > such schemes rarely, if ever, present any better > ideas. The result of this opposition, indeed the > aim, is to delay schemes by years, to dilute and > weaken them, or to see them abandoned entirely. > Instead, if a scheme is likely to, or does, worsen > congestion or air pollution, it is crucial to > commit in advance to mitigations, to developing > and delivering further schemes as needed. The > climate crisis alone demands that we move forward > fast, fixing issues as we go. So, monitor the > impacts of any scheme you build, mitigate any > problems, and roll out the next scheme, learning > as you go. The alternative is to continue to do > nothing, or very little, in the face of growing, > catastrophic crises.? Interesting comment here: But if a scheme will, or is very likely to, significantly reduce overall motor traffic volumes, and therefore overall pollution levels, even if it also causes isolated negatives, should that derail the scheme? Can anyone show any scheme which has SIGNIFICANTLY reduced motor volumes? The best even the most pro-scheme lobbyist can show is a maximum of 11%.

Could it have been a makeshift entrance to an Andersen shelter? Our garden has a section of grass where the soil is a lot shallower because during the war someone had put down a concrete/hardcore base for their shelter.

Cllr McAsh. The council is organising public meetings online such as this https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/empowering-communities/community-conference so why can it not organise an emergency meeting to discuss these closures?

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No support for physical road closures by the > emergency services > https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/police-and-am > bulance-service-wont-support-hard-road-closures-as > -new-road-changes-unveiled/ > > It's about time the council paused and listened to > the concerns of the public, businesses and > emergency services ....this was the downfall of the Loughborough Junction closures. It is clear the emergency services are acknowledging that these closures are impacting their ability to do their jobs. Didn't the council plead that they cannot afford cameras? Or are they resistant because it becomes difficult for them to rationally argue against timed closures with cameras?

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets ? no, I don?t use Amazon, etc. and never > have delivery food or Ocado, etc. I don?t take > taxis or Uber. Utilities don?t need to come here > and most deliveries (95%, I?d say) are brought by > my pedestrian postman. It?s called putting your > money where your mouth is. Give it a try, and > encourage others. Please let us know where this 1950s enclave is where you live! Not sure there has been a pedestrian post person in East Dulwich for a while - well certainly not since the Silvester Road sorting office closed. Our postie drives to the end of our road and then delivers the mail. Do you grow your own food too or only buy food grown on the premises you can walk too? ;-) In all seriousness I think everyone is analysing how things get to them. In my youth I used to work in a supermarket on a Saturday and once got taken to their distribution center and was horrified (and this was long before people were aware of climate problems) that fruit grown in Kent was sent to Birmingham for processing and packaging and then sent back to Kent to be sold in a supermarket less than 10 miles from where it was grown.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What do people think will actually be achieved by > allowing cars to fill up side roads as well as > main ones? Do they honestly believe that the > traffic on main roads won?t just increase to > previous levels again within weeks? Is it just a > the case that they want every road is dominated > with traffic in some strange idea of ?fairness?? > How will this help anything? But rahrahrah you contradict yourself as you advocate closing roads that is, in fact, causing smaller roads to become more congested. I just don't get it and don't understand why you can't see what is actually happening. It's really time the pro-closure lobby opened their eyes to see what is actually happening since these closures went in. This is Loughborough Junction repeating itself.

..duplicate post

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually it looks as though the orders are > experimental orders under section 9 > > https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3579196. > Looks like a mid Dec deadline for objections? > > The government guidance is here > https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/realloc > ating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory > -guidance-for-local-authorities/traffic-management > -act-2004-network-management-in-response-to-covid- > 19. > > It does sound as though some of the consultation > requirements may not have been met in all cases - > but not sure what this means in practical terms. > > ?Authorities should seek input from stakeholders > during the design phase. They should consult with > the local chiefs of police and emergency services > to ensure access is maintained where needed, for > example to roads that are closed to motor traffic. > Local businesses, including those temporarily > closed, should be consulted to ensure proposals > meet their needs when they re-open. Kerbside > access should be enabled wherever possible for > deliveries and servicing. > > The public sector equality duty still applies, and > in making any changes to their road networks, > authorities must consider the needs of disabled > people and those with other protected > characteristics. Accessibility requirements apply > to temporary measures as they do to permanent > ones.? Ooooh, good catch. Southwark quoted experimental not emergency in their submission - that could become a big problem for them. These are not experimental as they were previously planned under OHS so they have merely used the order to fastrack an existing plan - and that's a big no no. Cllr McAsh also admitted they had not consulted shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets: there's a difference between Emergency > and Experimental. > > https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making- > traffic-regulation-orders-during-coronavirus-covid > -19/traffic-regulation-orders-guidance-on-the-traf > fic-orders-procedure-coronavirus > > A lot of what is being used at the moment is > Emergency under the new legislation (linked > above) > > Experimental exist already: S9 of the RTRA1984 > although they're not used as frequently as they > should be - in terms of cheap traffic control > they're very good but a lot of people complain > bitterly with the "WE'VE NOT BEEN CONSULTED, IT'S > UNDEMOCRATIC!" rant and most councils can't be > bothered dealing with the fallout (even though > it's something they're legally allowed to do as a > democratically elected authority). I just clicked on the link and one of the first things I saw was this: Bringing forward (or postponing) works that are required in any event is in itself unlikely to meet the test in regulation 18(1). And then this: Works needed to put a coronavirus measure in place. For example, works needed to suspend parking bays, widen the pavement or install the cycle lane. Surely given the DV closures were planned as OHS then they fall foul of this? Also, throwing planters in isn't adding any of the above is it? I think all of these closures might fall foul of the law the council thought enbaled them.