Earl Aelfheah

I finally tried Chilli & Garlic - really good and amazing value. Highly recommend.

No. Defence has nothing to do with local councils. Councils in London (and across the UK) have a legal duty to maintain public roads and footpaths to ensure they are safe for use, including for pedestrians and cyclists. There is also a duty on London boroughs to promote public health and sustainable travel. This duty is reinforced by legislation like the Health and Social Care Act 2012 TfL and other organizations provide funding and support for boroughs to implement active travel projects. So one very much is their business, the other obviously, is not.

It's interesting (and instructive) that people think that allocating vast amounts of space to private motor vehicles for both transport and storage is not a choice. But that (much smaller) allocations of space for pedestrians and those travelling on bicycle, is a choice. Both are a choice and both involve trade offs. To suggest that it's not the role of government to think about it, betrays an assumption that the dominance of most public spaces by motor vehicles is simply the 'natural order'. It is not. ...and a reminder that the majority of households in our borough don't own / have access to a car. I think it's perfectly right for our representatives to allocate a greater proportion of space to people getting around by foot, bike and bus.

It's a legitimate policy aim. There is a social cost to private car transport and to inactivity, the cost of which is borne by the public purse. Also, public bodies have responsibility for maintaining roads, for transport, infrastructure and the public realm. That means deciding how public space is allocated, maintained and improved.

I think we can all agree that Lambeth failed to follow a lawful consultation process. The fact that you see all and any attempts to improve road safety, reduce traffic, pollution and increase active travel as part of a single cause / project is a big part of the problem. This scheme and the way the consultation has been undertaken tells us nothing about the many successful schemes elsewhere, or ULEZ, or bus lanes (which help move people more efficiently), or the increase in bike lanes (which have led to a huge increase in the numbers commuting into central London by bike), or any of the other broad range of things you regularly rail against.

Have you managed to identify the mystery root?

A few years ago I think

Wow, this thread is really bad tempered. Does any conversation about local roads always have to return to a small change to road layout at the junction of Calton avenue made half a decade ago? There are many, many threads on that already for the obsessives and conspiracy theorists. I don't like the idea of having right turns onto those two roads (I agree it would be dangerous), but it's interesting that people are objecting on the ground that it might increase traffic on 'their street', whilst also moaning that there has been 'displacement' from others. Seems a bit of a nimby argument imo. Malumbu is correct about 20mph. In roads with heavy traffic, slowing down improves traffic flow. This is why we have variable speed limits on motorways, lowering speeds when traffic starts building up, it helps get things moving again. The AI summary actually explains the reasons for this very well.

It's just the small section of road between scylla and Nunhead Lane from memory The bit outside the Angel Oak pub

That rubbish is a health and safety issue. It could easily fall on someone walking underneath it.

A town square would be nice. Perhaps we could pedestrianise North cross Road and create a square at the junction of Lordship Lane. Can't imagine there would be any objections / controversy. This is probably true, but the issue is not so much the level of the rent, but the degree to which it is sustainable in the context of the local market. The Landlords locally do seem to have squeezed rents to the point where places can no longer survive in many cases. Think the furore was largely manufactured tbf.

James McAsh is favourite to replace him?!

Romeo Jones isn't by the junction. It's opposite Gail's which is constantly packed. It's sad that it's closed, but not sure one can blame a 'drop in footfall' caused by the changes to road layout introduced half a decade ago. A lot of new businesses have opened in the last few years, yes, some of them chains. The trend for chains is very unlikely to be related to reduced footfall though (often chains set up where footfall is highest, something they will research). It's to do with wider consumer trends and as you say, increasing rents / business rates / costs. Honestly, I can't remember the last time I went into Romeo Jones, but it was not because I couldn't cut through calton avenue to get there by car, saving maybe 2 mins; did many of their customers really arrive by car and in a terrible hurry - parking where?.

I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone has made that argument have they? I don't know, but suspect they've figured the costs of cancelling at this late stage are greater than the costs of losing another legal challenge. I agree that if so, it's putting commercial considerations over legal process.

An example of Lambeth behaving badly tells you nothing about 'all councils'. ...I'm not defending Lambeth obviously.

My view is that it's really, really poor behaviour. Unfortunately some people are rubbish.

No 'tactics'. Again, this is the language of conspiracy. Lambeth failed to consider a 53 page presentation before making a decision. This is the matter on which the whole case hinges. Were they able to show that they had considered it, they could still have reached the same decision quite lawfully. There is no evidence of Southwark failing to consider feedback before making a decision in a completely different matter, in a different location, 5 years ago. You may not agree that they gave sufficient weight to certain views at the time, but that's kind of irrelevant to the legitimacy of the decision. They don't need to make the 'right decision' (as that is a matter of opinion), they just need to consider representations and then act within the range of reasonable responses. Ultimately the decision is theirs. Again, this really just comes down to you not having got the outcome you wanted. There is no evidence of 'foul play' or 'shadowy cabals'. It's nonsense. And I think we all know that there is no process you would be happy with, except one that resulted in your preferred outcome, fairly or not. There are legitimate criticisms that may be made of the process of consultations (some of which I have made myself), but I have seen no evidence that Southwark acted outside of their powers. I'm not a supporter of the council as it happens. I just have no time for conspiracy theories and constant misinformation. What they did, was improve an area of the Village with some fairly timid changes to road layout and some nice landscaping. Suggesting that it's a massive scandal akin to what happened at the post office is just ridiculous. You may well ‘never forget’, but the conspiracy you rail against isn't actually real.

I don't think anyone really believes that there is any consultation process which Rocks would have been satisfied with, unless it had resulted in the outcome he wanted. Clearly there were failures in the way Lambeth consulted over the trial scheme in West Dulwich. There is no evidence at all that the Southwark scheme was unlawful. And it was challenged relentlessly (and still is, 5 years on).

As I’ve said, I don’t think these consultation processes are helpful as currently constituted. I would much rather they used proper market research techniques, and representative sampling, to get a better sense of the broad sweep of local sentiment. But the decision would still be for our representatives to make. It would never amount to a yes/no vote, nor should it imo. Rocks account above is massively inaccurate. Likening it to the post office scandal is just hysterical nonsense. Btw, for those of you interested in a summary of the phase 3 consultation (rather than accepting some of the stuff presented on this forum as though fact), it is here https://services.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/42203/OHS-Phase-3-Consultation-Summary-Report.pdf And for a general timeline of the various consultation activities leading up to the proposals: https://services.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-streets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

…except Pebs, Rock’s account is not remotely accurate. They did You absolutely could say whether or not you supported the changes. But again, a consultation is not a referendum with a yes/no vote. When they (much later) consulted on options for landscaping the square, they did not hold a second consultation on the existence of the LTN itself; that they'd already consulted on, having implemented it years earlier. You moaned about this at the time, but of course it wasn’t an opportunity to revisit a decision already made, just because you didn’t like the outcome the first time. It’s just a fact. 5 years on, you’re still obsessing over a change made perfectly legitimately. You may not like the changes, but suggestions that the decisions made were illegitimate, or unlawful, are simply untrue, and of course you’ve provided no evidence for them. Again, insinuating malpractice or illegality, with absolutely zero evidence of either. This is just tin foil hat stuff. To liken a decision you personally don’t like and are obsessed over to a serious scandal that destroyed many lives is just sad. You really need to get some perspective. Of course you try to suggest that a totally unrelated issue, with a different scheme, in a different borough is somehow related. But it’s not. Just read the judgement. Again, it’s just innuendo and nonsense. You cannot provide any evidence of malpractice in relation to the Dulwich LTN. You are just fixated on it, because you didn’t get your way. Again, tin foil hat stuff. Southwark council are many things, but not a shadowy cabal. You really need to move on.

🥱

You fundamentally misunderstand how representative democracy works. A consultation is not a yes no vote, as ex-Dulwich points out. What one can’t make up is your absolute refusal to accept a change that happened 5 years ago. There is nothing undemocratic, illegal, or underhand about how the changes were implemented. If there was I’m sure they would have been stopped by those unhealthy obsessed with preventing the improvements. The square is here to stay, so people might want to start coming to terms with it.

Clearly not. Again, Google 'representative democracy'. 🫠

Those still obsessed with the square aren't really concerned with our system of democracy of course. Their issue is that they didn't get their own way. If they could change the outcome, they would happily do so even if it was clearly against the wishes of the majority (which I believe it would be). It's been 5 years and still they want to overturn a decision which was made by our democratically elected representatives, properly, legally and legitimately.

Start a thread in the lounge if you want to discuss changing our democratic system. There is no point in criticising our current system for not being something it isn't, and does not pretend to be. It's one thing to say an elephant makes a poor household pet, another to say it should be a better cat. By the way, I think you massively overestimate how many people want to see the square ripped out and returned to a queue of idling cars. I suspect the majority of locals would be extremely upset were it ever to happen. Just because there are a number of very loud objectors does not mean they are the majority