first mate

They did not in their manifesto state that they would achieve their commitment to clean air and healthy streets by imposing LTNs and CPZ on residents who, when consulted about these, said they did not want them. What they did say in their manifesto was they pledged to put residents at the heart of decisions to make changes to the area they lived in.

@Earl Aelfheah said: Its' your opinion. I would point out that they have made a clear commitment to their 'streets for people' strategy, which is well supported by the public." 'Well supported', in your opinion. I would point out that multiple consultations have delivered clear majority opposition to key elements of their 'streets for people' policy namely LTNs and CPZ.

It's a sad day when the party you trusted to stay true to its manifesto pledges does anything but.

The consultation showed a majority against LTN and CPZ. The consultation was launched by an administration that made an election pledge to put local residents at the heart of decisions that affected them, especially on design and changes to their area.

@Earl Aelfheah "A majority did support the aims of the scheme". What are you basing that on, the same majority that rejected the LTN and CPZ? Southwark Labour were voted in on an election/manifesto promise and pledge they would put residents at the heart of decision making on design and changes to their locale...outright rejection of a majority view on LTN and CPZ conflicts with that pledge.

The consultation and various surveys are the only tools we have to identify the level of local support for the LTN and CPZ. You refer to 'majority' support for the 'aims' of the Streets for People agenda, and seem very happy to cite that as a valid indicator, but then reject the LTN and CPZ consultation majority against? Remember also that in their manifesto, Southwark Labour made a big deal of putting residents at the heart of decision making about the design and changes to their area. This was a pledge, a promise. Instead, it feels more like 'we hear you, but we do not agree, this is what we think should happen, so suck it up.

@Earl Aelfheah Clever use of words; you are rather good at obfuscation. The fact is the majority did not support the Dulwich Village LTN or CPZ; they opposed it. The consultation is the closest thing we have to decide what locals wanted in regard to those specific interventions. Whether or not a majority of locals supported the 'aims' of the Streets for People Strategy, it is clear they did not support the imposed interventions meant to realise those aims.

Sydenham Hill had 20mph and speed cameras long before the road narrowing proposal. It just does not add up. Your rationale seems another sleight of hand to avoid admitting the road was narrowed to install a cycle lane (at some expense, no doubt) and for which there is no evidence base for usage, other than anecdotal -some saying they use it, others they never or rarely see it being used. BTW I was not implying this was your sleight of hand, I am aware how the council framed it all, but with 20mph and speed cameras already in place, it raises questions. It seems a big part of the case in favour was incidents involving cyclists and a point about some drivers getting frustrated- narrowing the road without a cycle lane would surely increase the risk to any cyclist as some drivers would be even more frustrated.

I think it possibly does matter. Some good data on cycle usage would help settle this debate. At the very least it would be helpful to know if the intervention was justified, because that might influence thinking on other potentially similar interventions. If the cycle lanes are currently little used by cyclists, it makes a nonsense of the notion that it was necessary to narrow the road and install cycle lanes to protect cyclists from speeding cars; unless you are arguing that cyclists used the road much more, before the cycle lane was installed?. Also imposition of 20mph predated the cycle lane by some way. Overall, it is not a coherent rationale.

@Earl Aelfheah said: It’s simply not true that no one uses it. I think it is used but I have rarely seen it used, this weekend was the first time in ages I saw one cyclist out early Sunday morning. The largest number of cyclists I have ever seen over there was in a photo for a piece about hill cycling in London and this was on the steepest part of the hill, from the Horniman to Kirkdale, where there is no cycle lane. I would assume, but cannot be sure, they continued to the cycle lane itself. Do you know of reliable data indicating frequency of use and in what number?

Anyone that knew for a fact that a load of dumped cars were the primary reason for loss of parking on their street, would not express this as "could well in part". Weasel words! Is the proposed ED CPZ up for discussion, I wonder.

Still not been able to find the 'disappeared' consultation report, at least I know the date it was available on. Others have contacted Southwark and had no response, so I wonder what has happened? Why would a report be published and easily accessed online and then not?

Cllr McAsh commented on the Council's reluctance to frame its traffic management activities in that way, he mentioned there were internal sensitivities about it, but he seems happy to be much more upfront.

@Malumbu Not only 'unnecessary journeys' as you frame them, but any and all journeys. It's good we can finally call it what it is - a local war on motorists, spearheaded by our own councillor and cabinet member, Cllr McAsh.

Nice in theory but not practical for some. I do like felines as well, so happy for those to stay too.

Okay, makes sense, so if the graphic shows a cycle hangar with dyl's extended one side they are probably just showing a new cycle hangar. But, it also does look as though they look for any excuse to slot in a few more feet here and there.

I watched an online discussion between Cllr McAsh and a street planner. Cllr McAsh stated that it had been felt within the Council that they could not be upfront there was a war on cars, that this had to be kept quiet because it could lose votes. But once in his current role he had decided to be frank and clear that there is...led by him. He also said that his response to residents who had complained to him about the impact on street changes turning relatively short car journeys into long ones, was 'that is the point'. In a nutshell, he quite deliberately intends to make car journeys as unpleasant as possible.

Are there examples elsewhere in East Dulwich, where a few feet of double yellows are placed randomly along the street ( no dropped kerbs but around cycle hangars)?

Exactly. Not only that, it only takes a tiny number of residents to ignite a full-blown consultation for CPZ yet if the result is a majority against, as has been the case almost every time, those views are ignored. In the consultation results report for Melbourne Grove South (which has subsequently 'disappeared' online) it said that a majority had not answered the question on what times of the day they would like CPZ controls to operate, so they went with the minority who did answer. My guess is people did not answer the question about times because they knew it was a trip trap question, with no option to say we don't want any time, because we do not want a CPZ at all. Any answer giving a time would be misinterpreted as a 'vote' in favour.

@DulvilleRes said: "If the residents of Melbourne Grove vote for a CPZ, they are likely to see a very positive transformation." Interesting you refer to it as a vote. The consultation report I saw briefly online ( now seemingly disappeared) showed a majority of ED residents against CPZ...again. If the majority of residents in the revised plan 'vote' against CPZ how likely do you think it is that CPZ will be imposed anyway? At a much earlier CPZ consultation the whole of Melbourne Grove (both North and South) returned a majority 'vote' against CPZ. So the council decided to divide the road and treat it as two separate streets, enabling them to get CPZ in. I wonder what sleights of hand they may get up to this time? Some of the proposed street changes seem to involve random, short bits of double yellow lines, plonked at points along the street. Never seen that before.

I guess the thing is, since I saw what was written we can compare that with what comes out, when the report is released. I am still trying to understand if they are intending to hold another statutory consultation for the reduced CPZ they were proposing in the document I saw. What was odd though was that it sounded like a decision already made, as they were stating October as a start date for the CPZ.

Around ten days ago there were around 6 Mallard ducklings and the same number of Canada Goose goslings. Today, not one to be seen 😥

Yes, but Cllr McAsh is the person in charge of Streets for People and he is very clear that he wants to rid the borough of as many cars as possible and make car journeys as slow and tortuous as possible. The mechanisms available to him to achieve his 'vision' are LTNs, double yellow lines, CPZ and - perhaps this is too far-fetched, allowing multiple street and roadworks to all happen at once. Is it likely that the man currently set to be Council Leader will have overseen botched consultations opening the door for legal challenges? Hmm. As for Cllr Rose, she is now in charge of damaging parks.

It may well be my poor search skills. I cannot say categorically that is has disappeared, only that a few days ago I found it but now cannot- you'd think it would be relatively easy to find. I am kicking myself for not saving it.

That heron is a fearsome predator. Are there any babies left?