Artemis

I understand that home care companies will be allowed a maximum of 5 permits (which will cost £146 a year) per company for their staff to park when visiting clients. The Southwark website state that these permits can be swapped between staff (how this works practically for larger organisations where staff travel from home and more than 5 are operating in Southwark at any time is, as yet, unclear). Presumably these costs will need to be passed on to the client. I find it very disappointing that care companies, who already struggle to recruit staff, and the elderly, disabled or vulnerable are going to be burdened with additional costs and administration. Most of those receiving care probably aren’t in a position to drive themselves. The lack of compassion and consideration for those who cannot live independently without carers is troubling and I hope Southwark will rethink this position and allow carers to park without an additional cost or administrative burden.

I find that rather a distasteful post to make on the day of the Duke of Edinburgh?s memorial service. Perhaps many consider that the 95 year old Queen, who is unwell but has continued to serve the country at an age when most women of her age retired 35 years ago, deserves a bit of respect today, whatever your own views. I would not choose the day of a family member?s memorial service to make a public attack on that family, whatever my own views.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It is a one point measure, it has only had one > > measurement and therefore change cannot be > > calculated. A point measure is not a stretch. > All > > the schools have ED Grove buildings on this > road, > > the main entrance for Charter will be on ED > Grove > > when completed, the main entrance of JAGs is on > > EDG and it is the main route for children to > > travel. I would rather live in my 'ridiculous' > > questioning world than an appearance of blindly > > following dogma without question or inspection > of > > skewed data. > > I have actually called for local PT, bike > lanes, > > to keep school road timed closures and I > support > > road pricing. > > > > Telling people what they think, calling them > > ridiculous and misrepresenting their beliefs is > > called gaslighting, it happens a lot on this > > subject. > > The monitoring data for East Dulwich Grove Central > (near Tessa Jowell Health Centre), saw a 20% > decrease in traffic between Sept 19 and Sept 21. > The main entrance to ED Charter is in Melbourne > Grove; This is simply a fact. Your call to remove > the restrictions on through traffic would increase > traffic around the school. September 21, when there was a fuel crisis and people were unable to drive. Do you think that might have had something to do with any decrease Southwark claims?

Or if the owner of the deflated car had a medical emergency, or needed to provide urgent care to someone and was delayed by the fact that their tyres had been deflated. It seems a senseless, childish form of protest to me.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The exact date and number of the ED Grove Central > counter counts are 4 counts - 06/09/2021 > 13/09/2021 20/09/2021 27/09/2021. > > There is no other counter in this section. There > is one near Oxonian Street with 69 counts and > another old one near Dutch estate with two counts > from 2018 and it hasn't been used since - all From > Spectrum Spatial Analyst for Southwark Highway - > you can search for yourselves. > > A very worrying thing when looking at the site > that Southwark directs one to when looking for raw > data - the NO2 measurement stops after 2018 with > no monitors on ED Grove..I can only hope that this > is not the case. The nearest monitor is on Grove > Lane at Goose Green school and records an > astounding and toxic average of 47.9 but as it is > only one measure in that year I'm not sure how it > can be an average. > Is this really the data collection currently being > measured by the Council Wasn?t September 2021 the period when there was a fuel crisis and therefore traffic decreased considerably? I am puzzled why Southwark Council found this an appropriate period to use as a measurement.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You should try walking down ED Grove at 8:00am in > the morning - stationary traffic all the way down > the road, cyclists and scooters on the pavement - > just an unpleasant walk now, used to love my walk > to Herne Hill station - now some mornings I feel > very asthmatic. So many school kids walking to > school in this pollution too. I can't understand > what this Council is thinking, it's obviously > diverting traffic onto other roads. > Road pricing yes, better local public transport > yes, but making dirty air ghettos - no! Yes. Yet again and again we are told that the LTNs have made walking ?easier? and ?better?. I never found any difficulty walking around the area (if I go for a ?leisure? or ?exercise? walk, I would choose a park - if I need to get anywhere for practical reasons, it?s very difficult to limit the journey to one of the LTN roads as everything ?useful? (shops, medical centres, public transport) inevitably involves going on or via a road that now has more traffic. Therefore, walking it smellier, more unhealthy and worse. In my view.

ed26 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > There is currently a Traffic Regulation Order > on > > it specifically preventing it. You can't just > go > > "oh that doesn't apply for a few days", there is > a > > legally binding process to go through. > > If that is the case then the contingency planning > should have highlighted this as a risk and given > the Council the power to suspend the cameras as > required. It just highlights the fact that the > various road closures and bus gates have not been > thought through properly. Exactly this.

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Disagree with suddenly removing filters from > streets which have been made safer - to suddenly > have through traffic rushing down say Melbourne > Grove, where the school kids are, would be > dangerous. I don?t understand why it would be dangerous. Normal road rules would apply. No more dangerous than delays to emergency services and increased pollution locally because of traffic jams, I wouldn?t have thought?

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok, you don;t like him, we get it. But if you have > two hours notice and you don't have a magic wand > or extra roadspace waht do you suggest is done? > This is about an unexpected event at a hitherto > unknown location. Can a council have a plan for > every location? I doubt it. Sometimes, it is just > bad luck. I think it?s not unreasonable to expect that before putting in road measures that put a strain on roads regardless of any (very foreseeable) issues, you would think about what would happen when such issues occur and consider whether your road measures are sensible. That?s a policy decision and made by LB Southwark. However, I think it?s fair to hold the view that having councillors immediately go ?it wasn?t me, not my fault!? doesn?t help the situation - at least the council might acknowledge that their closing/limiting access to roads could have a knock on effect when issues occur, rather than their immediate reaction being to distance themselves from the problems. It would be good to have elected representatives? immediate reaction being ?Something has gone wrong, we can put in the mitigation procedures we planned for?. But then they haven?t put in any mitigation plans (eg suspending road measures in case of emergency).

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Leeming's helpful comment stating that we should > all 'remember' Thames Water are to blame, not the > Council, is pathetic. > > Aren't the Council meant to liaise with utility > companies to manage situations? It does not invite > confidence in this council to be concerned about > managing anything, other than their own political > careers. The issues on Croxted Road have been blamed variously on LB Lambeth and on TFL by councillors. Never Southwark Council?s fault. It?s like dumping some manure in your neighbour?s garden and complaining about the smell. The ?accountability? Nolan principle doesn?t seem to register.

Agreed - I have the same issue and the publishers are being very good about it, but it must be damaging them.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/disabled-parking/parking-with-a-blue-badge?chapter=2 Hi @spider69 - you need to follow the process in this link - hope that helps.

Apology accepted- you quoted my words, which is why I took it personally. However I appreciate your response. I do have concerns about any council removing responses simply because of similarities (rather than, say, fake email addresses, which I haven?t seen held up as a concern). It seems perfectly feasible that a lobby group might suggest appropriate responses to its members to achieve their desired joint objectives without anything sinister going on. I should point out I don?t say this from any personal knowledge- I responded to the consultation independently of any group. I would be interested to know the exact reasons why any council removed responses- one hopes the removals are fair and legitimate.

@exdulwicher - you quote my words and then say ?there?s a certain irony in the anti-groups complaining that the council are undemocratic while simultaneously rigging the survey??. Are you suggesting that I have rigged a survey, which would be fraud and a criminal offence? If so, I would request that you withdraw that comment as it is untrue and deeply offensive.

What are Rockets? options, in your view, ed_pete, given that Southwark asked for our opinions via consultations and interminable follow up feedback requests, and have roundly ignored all of them, as well as failing to take account of the vast bulk of the Equality Impact Assessment? If you can suggest any way in which Southwark will listen to the majority of respondents, I?m sure we?d love to hear it. In my view, Rockets? integrity is far from undermined - he/she is continuing to ask questions which many of us would like answered. I for one would like to understand what the point of a consultation was if the views of the majority are not followed. You can argue the semantics of ?what is democracy? as much as you like, but if we weren?t to expect that the majority view would prevail, the consultation seems to have been a waste of valuable time, money and resource, paid for by our own council tax. Is that acting in the best interests of constituents? I would suggest not.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Calton Avenue and Court Lane gridlocked - no I > > don't think so. > > Heartblock I have video of my youngest son walking > alongside gridlock the entire length of Calton > Avenue on his way to the village infants - he was > 6 - I videoed it because it had already been going > on for a while and was steadily getting worse. He > is now a teenager. These levels of gridlock - > hours am and pm - continued up until Lockdown - so > that's about 6 years of worsening gridlock with > enraged drivers frequently speeding along the > wrong side of the road to get past it and pulling > out at Townley road on the wrong side of the road. > I have seen video of that and witnessed it myself. > A serious accident waiting to happen. > > The village junction was also gridlocked in all > directions - from Calton, Court lane and Dulwich > Village. Again there is plenty of footage online > to show this, an entire neighbourhood witnessed it > and council data to backs it up. > > Denying this ever happened throws into doubt > anything you might claim is happening now. > > And it had F all to do with an imaginary class > war. It was never a significant problem until Southwark start messing around with the junction. But even if it was a problem, why is it now OK to shift the problem to Croxted Road and East Dulwich Grove (which were polluted anyway)?

I am so very sorry to hear this. My condolences to you and your family.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Heartblock - you hit the nail on the head. > > The pro-LTN lobby seems to just want to point > fingers and name-call rather than engage in the > debate and we know that is the first sign that > someone realises they are losing the debate and > don't have any responses..... > > And DC - according to the responses to the > council's consultation it is, indeed, an > overwhelming majority..... And I think we still haven?t had an answer to the question of what the point of the consultation was if the majority of respondents? view hasn?t been reflected in the plans? There is a lot of ?it wasn?t a referendum/it wasn?t a vote/lots of people didn?t respond so it?s actually not a majority? chat, but if that?s the case, what on earth was the point? Southwark said they would listen to the respondents. If they did, why did they then go ahead with a plan that doesn?t reflect what they heard?

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In Dulwich the majority of state schools have a > catchment of less than 1km. Even with toddlers > thats less than 20 mins walking. Even for those > with a 1km catchment there is usually a closer > school than that. So why is it that whenever > topics like this come up people start talking > about school busses? We live in a densely > populated part of London with multiple local > schools. No one needs a bus for primary school. > At secondary, absent SEN, kids can make their own > way there and would be helped massively by far > fewer people driving. > > > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Of course it must be great to have the nanny > walk > > all the kids to school while one cycles to > one's > > job in the City, very Calton Avenue/Gilkes > > Crescent - things are very different from some > of > > the Mum's I met while doing a cleaning job for > > some extra cash. > > > > Life was time-poor and cash-poor with the need > for > > many multiple journey's as well as travelling > to > > cleaning jobs that started at 5:30 am to then > go > > and do their carers job and take children to > > school/shop for food. I was lucky as I could > walk, > > although walking to work at 4:00 in the morning > is > > interesting.... > > > > Just condemning people who have very few > options > > to choose in life is one way of looking at this > > issue, but maybe trying to provide public > > transport links, school pick-up buses and help > to > > not rely on a car is another. But to talk about the catchment area of state schools is ignoring the elephant in the room: the fact that Dulwich has four of the largest private schools in London with catchment areas of considerably more than 1km. That traffic is not going away.

Carers who visit my elderly relatives have reported that the LTNs have caused significant delays to journeys to visit clients. My elderly relatives are more dependent on access to cars than I (able bodied, younger and able to drive) am. They can?t drive themselves, but their support network (family, carers, medical professionals) have been negatively impacted by the LTNs.

But as I said before - if there is nothing that a single council will be able to do in isolation that improves traffic, surely there is an argument to say it IS better to do nothing, if the ?something? you can do is making things worse? Tackling the climate crisis is not going to be solved by installing measures that have a negligible positive effect in some roads in the area, and a not insignificant negative effect in others. Perhaps instead Southwark should use its energies to lobby local schools to think of ideas to reduce the number of car journeys to their premises and to lobby central government to introduce measures that discourage car use and tackle the massive increase in online shopping. Heartblock?s ?dropsy? analogy is spot on. Do you really think the majority of respondents to the consultation who want the LTNs removed DON?T want a solution to the climate crisis and are just being selfish? Or do you think they have the intelligence to realise that the aims of the measures are simply not being achieved by the measures?

But a hard intervention in one small part of a metropolis, which doesn?t link up with policies/interventions in the other parts of the metropolis and relies on public transport (which the Council cannot control in isolation) may simply not work. It doesn?t logically follow that if government policy is not achieving aims of reducing traffic that individual councils will be able to achieve it - in fact, if it?s in the ?too difficult/too expensive? pile of central government, is it realistic to expect Brave Little Southwark to succeed where central government has failed? What can Southwark do about the huge increase in online shopping which is one of the major reasons that traffic is increasing? Nothing, in isolation. While we?d all like to reduce traffic, it doesn?t mean that it?s realistic to expect an individual council to be able to do it. And I?ve seen absolutely nothing to suggest that ?hard intervention? in Dulwich is actually working - in fact, all evidence points to the opposite.

I think it?s a feasible position to hold that you are not anti-LTN if specific LTNs work and reduce pollution/improve air quality. But perhaps the one in Dulwich isn?t fulfilling that aim. There seems to be a very simplistic argument going on - you are either pro-LTN or anti-LTN as a general principle. However each needs to be looked at in the context of the particular configuration, the local public transport options, the local/specific displacement of traffic etc., surely? I would be pro-LTN if I thought they fulfilled their objective. In Dulwich, I don?t think they work. But that doesn?t mean I don?t think they are in principle a bad thing - they might work if they are better thought out, consider local pinch points/transport options/variables (such as schools with large catchment areas). On Twitter, people who have clearly never been to Dulwich are wading in and saying that LTNs are inevitably a good thing. But if they haven?t been properly thought out and cause more pain than benefit, maybe they aren?t working in that particular area. To have a ?pro-LTN/anti-LTN? stance should surely be decided on a case by case/area by area basis? They aren?t inevitably a good thing or a bad thing in my view - it?s where they are and the nuances of a particular area and the particular restrictions implemented that make the difference.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is all coming across as the groups that shout > loudest should dictate how policy is developed and > implemented. Now that would be undemocratic! I > expect a retort that this is exactly what the > militant cyclists are doing, in an unholy alliance > with the militant Dulwich villagers living in > their leafy/gated communities. > > It reminds me of the coalition government, big > society, and proposals that government policy > could actively involve citizens through the cloud. > I don't think that ever saw the light of day. No - it?s coming across as questioning the point of a consultation when the wishes of the majority who responded (as everyone was entitled to do) have not had their views reflected in future plans. Not the same thing. If the majority wanted the roads to remain closed, I would have been disappointed, but would have accepted the result. Because that?s my view of how a democratic society should work. It?s not, as we have established, a referendum, but I?m still struggling with the effort and expense of going through a consultation where the wishes of the respondents and the Council?s plans are so divergent.

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually - with respect back - no - it came up > before I posted - hence the post. Apologies if I?ve missed something - I was referring to your rather surprising claim that ?a great deal of? anti LTN people were Reform Party members - I found it a little disingenuous to ask people to be more apolitical when you have just said something so political - not to mention inaccurate and inflammatory.