Rockets

@exdulwicher sorry I think you are manipulating what the point of a consultation is - which is (per the LGA): Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set. What Southwark have been doing by not offering a mechanism to say no is to say: you're getting pizza, what flavour do you want. The council have made the decision BEFORE the consultation - that's not in the spirit of consultations at all and the LGA guidance is clear that councils have to listen to people BEFORE decisions are made. But they did not did they? Think back to the CPZs. No options just what time do you want them to run and then they were forced to run it again with a yes/no response mechanism and lo and behold what happened.... The continued defence of the council by some is laughable and the way folks are trying to twist and distort what actually happened is quite shocking.

Ha ha, of course.....representative democracy is all about forcing people how to answer....honestly, you could not make it up....

Who have repeatedly used consultation mechanisms where you cannot say "no" to their plans.....long live democracy hey!!!! 😉 #makesyouthink

@first mate you're absolutely right because there was zero mention of anything to do with LTNs in any materials distributed by Labour in the run-up to the election - they seemed to be very focused of ensuring that votes were garnered not on local issues but national issues. They were leaning in very heavily on the a vote of us is a vote against the Tories. And when I read people trying to lean-in on the "it's been in for years, move on" narrative I do laugh to myself because that always seems to be the message of people who know there is something to hide...... Yes but you do realise don't you that the consistent accusation against Labour councillors in both Lambeth and Southwark (in relation to Brockwell Park and LTNs etc) is that constituents were left with legal recourse as the only path open to them as the council refused to engage with them - is that co-incidence or, as was presented to the High Court, was there an amount of prejudice applied to those who challenged the councils? I mean there's a huge amount of prejudice on here to anyone who dares challenge the council's way of thinking but if the council are doing it as well that is hardly democratic is it?

Under democratic powers for people to have the right to challenge the powers that be. You, clearly, think that is a bad thing. That's your prerogative but this notion that somehow once elected a council or government can do whatever they want and the public/electorate/constituents have no democratic recourse is beyond nonsensical. Just think of all of the scandals that governments would have been happy to sweep under the carpet but people kept fighting to expose their wrong-doings. It's called accountability. Some clearly want none if it involves a subject/action they are passionate about - that's fine. Some others aren't happy turning a blind eye.

But they were not given a mandate to manipulate process and you can't use it as a free pass. The catch-all of "we have/they have a mandate" is often used by politicians, councils and councillors to cover a multitude of sins and lest we not remind ourselves they, very deliberately, did not dare mention LTNs or any of these plans in their election hustings or materials..... And I would disagree with you - people hold councils to account during a term. You may be happy to turn a blind eye but be thankful someone is looking out for standing up for parts of the electorate. If some on here had their way there would be no opposition at all and the council would be given free reign to do what they want.

I think this is your hope. I very much suspect that actually the problem you have with OneDulwich is that they are holding the council, and those pulling the council's strings, to account and shining a light on the manipulation that has been in play for some time. There are clearly a group of supporters of the council who hate the fact there is any opposition to these measures and are going out of their way to try and demonise anyone who dares challenge them. And then they claim to have the democratic moral high-ground - it's actually laughable but very reflective of the way some people behave nowadays, happy to scream about supposed shadowy funding sources but no actual argument to the points OneDulwich raise. Clearly OneDulwich is doing a brilliant job. Let's be honest, if there were no groups like OneDulwich or the West Dulwich Group then none of this would have ever come to light and the council/s would have got away with. It seems some people would be happy if that were the case - I am glad I am on the right side of the democratic process in this case.

I think the point you're missing is that our local authorities are happy to siphon off the amenities we pay for for commercial gain at the cost of local residents. Both Peckham Rye (and Brockwell Park more so) become partly unusable because of said events and it seems both are ignoring the input of locals who have to live with the disruption/post event damage. And it is not clear where any revenue generated from these events is going to or if they are actually generating any revenue for the council at all. As someone who uses Brockwell Park a lot I can tell you the disruption to that park was awful last year so much of it is closed off. And as Fishboy points out you lament the old free festivals but these are supposed to be being funded by this type of event - but where are they? Dulwich Park festival was massively curtailed this year so how come it's fine for the council to roll over for commercial festivals but community run events are suffering? Do the councils not have their priorities a bit mixed up? Anyway, I have always hated inner-city "festivals". Give me a proper in the wilds of the countryside miles from anywhere festival any day of the week....

But I think there are striking similarities between the way Lambeth has managed the Brockwell events and residents therein and the way Southwark has with Gala..... It's how it pastes when you take text from another website (BBC) and is a good way to show that these are someone else's words and not something written by the author!

Well you know why that is don't you? Because the council refused to monitor Underhilll.......one of the local councillors at the time did say they were asking for it to be monitored after residents complained about the increase in traffic. Surely even you can agree that Underhill would be a likely displacement route for traffic looking to cut the Grove Tavern corner heading towards the A205? If you remember post-LTN the traffic began tailing back past Court Lane from the Grove Tavern along Lordship Lane so a lot of traffic diverted along Underhill.

@Earl Aelfheah the council's dashboard didn't exatcly give a particularly rosy picture of traffic on a few of those roads it was monitoring before the dashboard abruptly stopped being published....

@Earl Aelfheah we've done this conversation to death so not point repeating it but if you are not monitoring Underhill, which became a major displacement route post-LTNs, you have no idea whether there is an area-wide reduction in traffic. I think the rational from the council was that Underhill wasn't in the immediate vicinity of the LTNs so would not be a displacement route...which is, of course, utter tosh.

Brockwell Park event organises seems to think the High Court ruling is something they can swat away by making a new application...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0jy97l7kno Interesting comments from the Lib Dem Lambeth leader.....this is oh so familiar.... “This court ruling is a damning indictment of how Labour-run Lambeth has ignored local residents and mismanaged our cherished public spaces. Labour tried to sidestep the full planning process, excluding residents and an environmental impact assessment. For the second week running, their approach has been overturned in Court. It’s an embarrassment for Lambeth Council.

Some would say it was the council's opinion that traffic fell across the wider area - you know, as well as everyone else does, that if you aren't monitoring all of the displacement routes across the area then you cannot make any definitive claims. The council weren't (Underhill) and that is the only fact that matters.

Those letters really show some of the problems. So you have: Lambeth Living Streets saying: LTN's are brilliant, just look at all the evidence from Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman that says so Joan Twelves, ex-Lambeth council leader and chair of Kennington Park estate RA: they've made our lives awful and created displacement Graham Clews from Lewes: everyone who opposes LTNs are culture war petrol heads and we must not let the High Court stand in the way of progress Richard Aldwinkle, One Dulwich: hurrah to Joseph, the community is being ignored as council's push measures that are socially unjust due to displacement. So there we are then.....pretty much a full-house in the game of LTN trope bingo from both sides! 😉

Err, no. I think what you'll find is happening is that councils are all treating these processes in the same way to force their plans on constituents. The West Dulwich one is the first "gotcha" moment. And lo and behold the next week the very same Lambeth council is found to have been doing similar things in relation to Brockwell Park. These are patterns of behaviour demonstrating contempt to the voice of local residents and ultimately these councils are demeaning the office they hold. Let's be honest, if Reform were behaving in the same way in an area you weren't passionate about I suspect you would be leading the charge against them.

Ha ha, but to be fair @march46 those in support who wrote that article are only pointing to "evidence elsewhere" in reports written by activist researchers and commissioned by those who are trying to prove LTN are a success...you know the usual suspects. When you're suggesting research works by the likes of Anna Goodman (wasn't it in West Dulwich where she was filmed tearing the poster down) and Rachel Aldred are the "facts" people should look at you're on a sticky wicket.

How long is the Gala, and potential new event, disruption….this could be key from the article on the High Court challenge against Lambeth… Under permitted development rules, a temporary change of use is allowed for a total of 28 days each calendar year, but the Brockwell Park festivals run over 37 days and were due to begin on 23 May.

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......

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........