Earl Aelfheah

They haven't manipulated any process. There were challenges at the time, by the unelected, unaccountable 'One Dulwich', which failed. The council were voted back in after the changes were made, by the electorate who's job it is to hold them to account. Just because you don't like a change to road layout made many years ago now, does not mean there is a democratic deficit. Again, you need to read up on our system of representative democracy. Ultimately, the council can make decisions on behalf of the electorate, in areas for which they have been delegated authority. The electorate then hold them accountable for those decisions through regular elections. This is how it works. Obviously there are regulations and laws to ensure they don't step outside of the powers allocated to them, but there is absolutely zero evidence that Southwark have done this in relation to the Dulwich LTN. So it really just boils down to a handful of obsessives, who don't like a legitimate decision taken by the council years ago now. This is nothing to do with democracy. And 'One Dulwich' aren't holding anyone to account - under what powers exactly? We don't know who they are, or how they're funded, yet they claim to speak on behalf of the community. Dulwich Square is not going to be ripped up and returned to a queue of idling cars. It's not what the majority want, and it's not what the council were elected to do.

The electorate hold the council to account, not opaque lobby groups. You talk about lack of democracy, and the will of a supposed majority to narrow the pavements, remove seating and planting from the square and return it to a queue of idling cars, but I don't believe for one second that it is the wish of most locals. Again, it's the electorate who hold the council to account. The electorate decided to vote our councillors back in.

You have no evidence that it became a 'major displacement route', by your own account. You claimed there had been massive displacement onto other boundary roads, until the data showed that there wasn't. It's telling that you have no data you can point to, except data that doesn't exist (and which to your mind is the only data that matters). Ever feel like perhaps you're looking for a way to prove what you already believe? They monitored the roads for a year post implementation I believe. A full year of data to assess and compare pre and post implementation and with traffic pre-covid. What do you want? That they monitor every road indefinitely, so you can pick through it to find something that might prove your pre held belief? Do be serious.

It's interesting that you think 'the only fact that matters' is that you can name a road which wasn't monitored; ignoring all the ones that were, and dismissing all available data.

So where do you draw the line. You think they have to monitor every road, no matter how far away? every road in the postcode, in the borough, in London? They monitored a good number of roads in and around the LTN and showed a fall in traffic overall, across the wider area. To claim it showed the opposite is simply untrue.

Yes, exactly why I stated that it was only a correlation, the point being however, that pollution did not increase on surrounding roads. It fell. So when people claim that pollution rose, they are wrong. When they claim that traffic didn’t fall across the wider area, they are wrong. Wrong on matters of fact, not opinion. So some opinions and anecdote, versus peer reviewed, data based research?

No evidence of this at all. In fact the data shows that traffic did reduce across the wider area post LTN implementation and air quality has improved (although this is only a correlation).

This sounds like it's straight out of a dystopian novel. For the love of all that’s holy, someone replace it with idling cars.

You do realise that the square is here to stay right?

Which measures? Are we talking about the Dulwich LTN, what happened in Lambeth, or the CPZ. You see I don’t think it matters for some on here. They’re against any change. And that's the problem. If you're still talking about the square, (and whether you approve of Southwark council or not), it’s just not true that they’ve cheated anything. They held multiple consultations and won challenges mounted by One Dulwich. @exdulwicher lays out the history very well above. I don't need to forget 'what they've done'. I think it's great - the square is a great improvement. I think you on the other hand would be well to try and heal some of your 'wounds' over it. I really don't think that so many years on your continued obsession is likely to be doing you much good.

To you personally? What did he promise? Did he whisper 'it's all a secret conspiracy' as you slept?

Pretty sure they didn't say FOR ALL (and certainly not at the volume your capitalisation suggests). At some point Rocks, you are going to have to accept that Dulwich now has a nice pedestrian area where the used to be a line of traffic. It's literally been years since the layout was changed. It's actually a nice space, you should go and have a sit there and enjoy the sun.

The data shows that traffic did fall across the wider area. Don't think I've said anything much about the CPZ - except to point out some facts about what a consultation is and isn't and how our system of democracy works. I don't really have any strong views on the CPZ. I'm not disputing this - but are you able to provide a link to where they have said this and exactly what they've said? It seems like a silly 'promise', as outside of the usual consultation procedures there is no duty on them to prove a majority (of who exactly) are in favour of such a scheme.

Did they say this? If so, it's a silly thing for them to say, and no, clearly they don't have evidence for 'majority support' whatever that means (a majority of who?). You keep asking the same question about it, but surely you should be directing it to the councillor in question? No, I'm fairly sure it doesn't, but Penguin does seem to believe otherwise.

At least years later Rockets has taken it on the chin and is not still absolutely obsessed with it

I can't find anywhere where it says there must be majority support as a matter of statutory guidance or law. Some councils clearly do have a policy of only installing CPZs where there is clear majority support (probably because they know how politically contentious parking can be), but I'm not sure this is a legal requirement of consultation. Again, i could be wrong, but I haven't been able to find any evidence that it is a legal requirement.

Like I say, there is no process of consultation that you would have considered adequate, except one that resulted in keeping a queue of cars where the square now is. But luckily the improvements did go ahead and the village is a lot better for it. This many years on, your continued obsession with it really does feel quite unhealthy.

What patterns of behaviour? You have been obsessed with reversing the improvements to the village for several years now. You have never demonstrated any issue with how people were consulted over the changes and I don't believe there is any process that you would have been happy with, except one that kept a queue of cars where the square now is. This many years on, it's also irrelevant. We've had local elections since and councillors were returned to office. Most of the objections made in regard to the consultation by Southwark seem to be based on the idea that it should have been treated as if it were a referendum. That's kind of like criticising an elephant for being a poor cat.

It is not clear. This is just more conspiracy nonsense That's because a consultation is not a vote. They just need to make reasonable efforts to engage and give appropriate consideration of the feedback, before making a decision. But they are still accountable for the decision, not those who have responded to the consultation. This is actually the most ridiculous thing about the whole case - were they able to demonstrate that they had considered the 53 page presentation (on which the judgement hinged), then they could still have made exactly the same decision and it would have been entirely lawful. It will be interesting to see what the judges directions are. Whether he instructs them to end the trail, or perhaps just reconsider the submissions, or something else.

🤣 Yes, I can't imagine they'd thank you for that. Sounds like keeping the car is probably the right thing for you.

If you think about the amount you spend on keeping and using a car and how infrequently you use it, you might be better just getting the occasional Uber. We often underestimate the cost of owning a car, as opposed to using a cab. There is actually a name for it in Psychology ('the taxi meter effect'). It's likely you're spending at least £1000 - £1,500 a year on keeping a car (£500 on insurance, £200 on MOT and service / repairs, £180 on VED, Then the ULEZ fee each time you use it, plus fuel, plus depreciation... maybe minimal in this case). If you put that in a separate 'pot' and used it to cover the occasional Uber, you may find your needs more than covered.

Exactly. Sunak's draft guidance was little more than a NIMBYs charter and a desperate last stand. I don't think it was relied on in this case though, and I don't believe it's legally binding in any way. The issue in the Lambeth case is that they couldn't demonstrate that they'd taken account of a 53 page presentation, before making a decision. I really don't think you're right about this. Again, I stand to be corrected, but I suspect you've relied on the AI summary Google generates, which from what I can tell, refers not to any legal requirement, but has scraped information from Richmond councils guidance which it applies to itself. As Mal points out, Sunak issued draft statutory guidance, his "Plan for Drivers," which included around 30 measures to try and make it more difficult for local authorities to try and improve road safety (in a nakedly populist last stand before he was booted); Richmond have decided to make it local policy. My understanding however, is that it is not legally binding statutory guidance or legislation. Again, if I've got that wrong, please do point me in the right direction.

Yes, whilst also opposing every single intervention to actually improve pedestrian spaces, add pedestrian crossing etc.

There are some people who just predictably and consistently oppose any change.

'The LTN lobby'. LOL someone can’t just have a different opinion to you, they have to be a ‘lobbyist’ or an ‘activist’ or a ‘secret councillor’. 🙄