Rockets

Of course it is (well unless Cllr Leeming and his cronies lose their seats at any point...;-)) but that doesn't make it right how the council got to this point. Trust me, if it wasn't something you, clearly, believe passionately in then you would probably have the same issue many of us have about the way the council manipulated the process. I am reminded of the Spanish Civil War Poster and Manic's song: If you tolerate this then your children will be next..... Be careful what you turn a blind eye to and be pleased that some of us are actually trying to hold those in power accountable for their actions.

Ha ha, a bit like the Guardian articles...there are differing opinions of what actually happened in Dulwich Square. Someone is Izzy, someone else is Joseph....there are very different versions of what actually happened that differ greatly from Ex's version of events..... I did chuckle at Ex's glossing over of what actually happened in in Covid.....their spin of reality is quite impressive: but did allow Southwark (and numerous other councils around the country) to rapidly deliver on Streetspace plans which all had live feedback consultation. Ah, I remember those days when Southwark closed off roads with the emergency Covid powers granted to them (no need for any consultations or resident engagement) to aid, ahem, "social distancing"....and it was purely co-incidental that they happened to close off the roads they had struggled to get closed during OHS consultations....

I expressed my view on this when it was discussed in another thread about the fact Dulwich has been ring-fenced by works for weeks...go check them out. I am sorry that you feel compelled to complain because your journey/s are now being interrupted in the same way many others have had to endure for months. Great news is though, for us cyclists, the impact is minimal!

Nah...not just to me....his blog and the SE22 magazine..... Oh I was only there today....most days I walk or cycle through it (I obey the red lights though) - probably spend a lot more time there than a lot of other posters who wax lyrical about it! And yes it is far more pleasant now than the line of traffic that used to be there...but then again an area's pleasantness isn't dictated by one small area within it and, since the imposition of the Square, other areas have had to soak up the displaced traffic and aren't as pleasant as they used to be. That's not what was promised or was planned but was utterly inevitable as all LTNs do is displace traffic. And at some point you're going to have to accept that the council/s cheated the system to get these measures in, have wasted huge amounts of tax payers money on these vanity projects and since they want in have been chasing the displaced traffic trying to move it on. All, seemingly, to try to an appease an aggressive and well orchestrated cycle-lobby. P.S. time does not heal all wounds and some of us have long memories and won't let you forget what the council has done....

Cllr McAsh did......

@malumbu has your account been hacked.....?

Did you deliberately miss of the FOR ALL part of your sentence, that's kind of important.....I think you probably did.... you can play the semantic game all you like but what was promised did not materialise.....but you know that....;-)

Councillors also said that if LTNs did not reduce traffic for all across the while area then they would be considered a failure........

But @exdulwicher our concerns about how the consultations were being run are very similar to many of the things raised in this case and many of which the judge had issue with..are they not? Clearly, by all of the reactions on this thread, this High Court decision has upset a few folks.....imagine what might happen if the learnings from this case are applied to others and more are deemed unlawful. Bottom line is some councils have clearly manipulate these consultation processes to ensure they can roll out their plans and keep the lobbyists happy. Many many people do not agree with the way councils have conducted themselves and they have shone a light on the underhand tactics used by councils. Hopefully councils will never be able to get away with it again and more people will now try to hold them accountable for their actions. Some never will because they have a vested interest in turning a blind eye and trying to demonise anyone who dares call them out. Already we have seen Southwark re-run consultations and change the way they do things - this has to be welcomed. Anyone who argues this is a bad thing is clearly putting their own motivations and agenda ahead of what is good, right and moral - but as we know sometimes people can't take a step back when they become obsessed with an ideological fanatacism....(cue the usual suspects saying "that's rich coming from you" because they somehow believe they have the moral high-ground)!

He wasn't assessing that - he was assessing whether the consultation was lawful. And he found glaring flaws but it did not pass the high-water mark for him to judge against them. That's the beauty of these things - it's often the smallest of details that trips people up. But, a bit like Gotti and tax evasion! 😉 I kindly suggest you refresh your memory and take a stroll down the old LTN discussion to remind yourself just how many of us had issues with the way the Southwark consultations were being run - many of which were, not surprisingly, flagged as issues the West Dulwich group had in relation to how Lambeth were running their consultations - many of which the judge had issues with too!

But @Earl Aelfheah you have to admit - the similarities are clear aren't they? Patterns of behaviour like this don't happen by accident.

I am when they are paid to do so. Probably yes as most are fighting against the wilful and wanton destruction of the democratic process by the officers trying to impose them on communities, often at the behest of active travel and cycle lobby groups, without any proper analysis on if they actually do what they are intending to do. Grand statements about area-wide reductions in traffic numbers for all being replaced by heralding a few extra cyclists using closed roads is not what any of us were sold.

What is interesting when you read the judge's summary is that he was criitical of the way the consultation was held but that it did not meet the high-water mark to make it unlawful in that regard. He cited issues with: The URNs on the outside of the envelope - but said that those who got the letter but lost the envelope could still contact the council The geographic boundaries were selected arbitrarily - but the judge said there were other physical notices and word of mouth Poor distribution of letters - judge said something clearly went wrong between the council drawing up the list, instructing the delivery of the letters and the letters actually arriving The LTN library event - the judge described the reporting of it, and the weight of feeling against the measures it as " a masterclass in selective partial reporting". Complaints about the way the 67.5% of people dissatisfied with the proposals was reported - “a minority of people who completed the survey were not in support of some part of this scheme …” when in fact "a majority of people were clearly not in support of part of the scheme" Difficulty in getting a meeting with Cllr Chowdury and claims that she said she would not do so because of “vehemently anti-LTN views” expressed by members of the group in the past. Judge basically said this was a he said/she said and did not determine that this was was a pre-desposition to the fact that an agreement Cllr Chowdury made to pass the 53-page document shared with her and others during a meeting that took place was not upheld as other council officers at another meeting said they had not received anything from her. The consultation unfairly shepherded respondents respondents so that they could only comment on how the proposals should be implemented, not on whether they should be. - judge said that "It is true that many of the questions required respondents to accept the premise of the question when responding". However he concluded that there were still some opportunities to enter free-text answers in which general opposition could be expressed. In addition it is plain that responding to the consultation form was not the only opportunity afforded to objectors to express their opposition to the proposals. So many of these issues are exactly the same issues many of us have had with the way Southwark has run it's consultations - letter snot being delivered, misleading reporting of the opposition to schemes, demonisation by the council of anyone in opposition to the measures, consultations that you can't reply no to......it's clear there may well have been a playbook these councils were following as they tried to manipulate the process as this can't just be co-incidence....

Its actually good to have well researched information on the authors of such Opinion pieces so you can determine what vested interest they have in that view point. Joseph is a Guardian journalist and Lambeth resident seeing the impacts of the LTNs first-hand. Izzy, on the other hand, is paid to promote LTNs - and an LTN gun for hire. She is an active travel campaigner who is a member of the LCC and is the sustainable travel campaign manager for We Are Possible who, you might remember, worked with Rachel Aldred's Univeristy of Westminster Active Travel Academy to publish the "most extensive study of LTNs" which showed that....wait for it..."streets within LTNs experienced a significant drop in traffic....". Well I never...if you close streets to traffic then you will never guess what happens to traffic levels within the streets closed to traffic.... She is the very definition of an LTN lobbyist....Peter Walker must have been too busy to pen the Joseph opinon rebuttal so they bought Izzy in.... I love where she points out that London's road have been the most congested in Europe for years. What she fails to mention is that, despite all the LTNs going in, congestion is getting worse not better - despite there being fewer cars on the roads! One wonders what might be causing that.... I think Joseph's Opinion piece is a far more realistic reflection of life with LTNs than Izzy's.

Has the pavement been widened there so M&S have somewhere to make deliveries to the store?

Yes. That brilliant and absolutely spot-on opinion piece! And I think the headline of that piece sums things up beautifully: Opposing LTNs doesn’t make you a ‘culture war’ petrol-head. Just look at what happened in Lambeth And on that - just because someone opposes LTNs doesn't make them a right-wing zealot - despite you desperately trying to make that connection at every opportunity. I read articles from the Guardian, Times, Telegraph and a whole range of media but I am smart enough to realise that each one of them skews their interpretation of the news to their readership's political and ideological leanings - so I fully understand why members of the pro-LTN/pro-cycling/active travel lobby would give an "exclusive" to Peter Walker. But by the same measure I understand why the Daily Mail would go to town on a story about an old lady being killed by a cyclist who avoided prosecution on the basis that "the speed limit did not apply to me as I am a cyclist". And I am also media savvy enough to understand why neither of them would cover the other one's story. My most trusted news source: the BBC. Why? Because it upsets the right and left in equal measure so it's clearly doing the right thing and as a left-leaning centrist that works for me! And if the BBC say the West Dulwich LTN is unlawful then that's what I am going to believe despite what a lot of folks on here like to claim! 😉

Some argue that all articles in The Guardian are opinion pieces....whether they have that tagline or not 😉

@march46 I think you will find there is a long list of evidence that many of those voicing their concerns about LTNs and cycling infrastructure have been saying that too little has been done for pedestrians with too much focused on cycling. I am not sure how you can conclude that people asking if we need three crossings in 100 yards are anti-pedestrian. Just out of interest, do you think there should be a pedestrian crossing on the Dulwich Village cycle track - maybe they can take one from the Melbourne Grove?

It's been a bad couple of weeks for the week for the LTN lobby - first the high-court ruling on the unlawful West Dulwich LTN and now the Guardian publishing that - surely there must be an LTN "exclusive" in the wings waiting to be posted.....

Has the Guardian been hacked - that's the best LTN piece I have ever seen in the Guardian. I may have to frame it ;-)? Clearly they are trying to re-balance their coverage after years of LTN "exclusives" trying to convince everyone they are great and working. One wonders if there was some frostiness in the Guardian canteen between Peter and Joseph this morning! 😉 Come on @Earl Aelfheah you love the Guardian's coverage of LTNs so surely you must lap this one up too? Anyone else think the worm is turning when even the Guardian goes in two-footed on a council and their LTN debacles..... This sums it all up: Ultimately, the main problem with the LTNs is that they are all stick, no carrot. For all the restrictions and the penalty notices, there has been almost zero improvement in public transport. There are no new bus routes to make travel easier; no extra trains; and in most of south London there is still no underground, a lack of investment that creates millions of unnecessary car journeys across the capital. Many people will, of course, have little sympathy with drivers, especially if they don’t own a car. Yet there’s a hypocrisy here. Because I can’t think of anyone, car owner or not, who doesn’t regularly depend on a personal driver: be that the Uber driver, the person who delivers the online shopping, or the local plumber or electrician. The time wasted in queues, the frustration and the extra fuel consumption are all outsourced to the little guy. There should be a way around this, but the first step would be to listen. Lambeth has been exposed for ignoring its residents. Those who oppose LTNs are not rabid petrol-headed rightwingers who want to burn up the planet: they’re mostly just ordinary people trying to go about their daily business whose life has been made miserable. They have a right to be heard. And those in power should remember: car ownership is not a crime. Drivers are not evil.

The perspective is very clear @malumbu - there are three crossings within about 100 yards of each other on a single stretch of road. I said that the new location makes perfect sense from a footfall perspective but that it probably makes one of the other two redundant - do you not think that is the case - if so what is the rational for your argument - perhaps you would like to share?

Surely a 100 yard walk would be better for active travel purposes.....! Gotta love the responses to my message but then when your world revolves around trying to turn every road into a permanent pedestrian crossing then what can you expect...........;-) Three crossings in such a short space is ludicrous and utterly unnecessary - I can't think of three crossings in such short succession even on streets like Oxford Street! I wonder if the same people would be so keen to see a pedestrian crossing put in on Dulwich Square across the cycle track which is clearly urgently needed - I doubt it as they would say it would hinder active travel growth!!!

And close to the controlled crossing at Oglander too - that's a lot of crossings in a short stretch of road - the new one does make a lot of sense in terms of location but will the council need to remove one of the others?

@Earl Aelfheah the Turney Road closure was the one Southwark asked TFL £1.8m for and TFL said….go away. So that had nothing to do with the consultation or listening to their constituents. Do you have any others where you think the council made significant changes based on consultation feedback? And I can assure you Southwark councillors masquerading as members of the public to pour scorn on those who dare oppose their plans is not a conspiracy theory…https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/exclusive-former-southwark-housing-chief-leo-pollak-broke-councils-code-of-conduct-but-no-action-to-be-taken/

Southwark councillors do have a history of masquerading as members of the public so I wouldn't put it passed them! 😉 Because it was clearly said with my tongue clearly in my cheek......!!!! Ha ha, they didn't propose the changes though did they - the original plans were so expensive they got laughed out of the room.....