northernmonkey

Its quite clear that the fairer way for this to work would be for the Charter Schools to remove their sibling priority unless either sibling has SEN where this would make it necessary to take them to school. Secondary school age children are expected to travel independently - and if they could go to a local school this would be even easier. In addition, before TCSED was built, for those locally who didn't get a place at Charter North, the option was Harris Boys and Harris Girls. Why is it so crucial that siblings go to the same Charter School, but totally fine to split them up you you have boy / girl siblings otherwise? The sibling place priority encourages the behavior being complained about - where people with 3 - 4 kids move out once the first has a place but then continue to travel in for the next 10 years!

DKH northbound closed for resurfacing. EDG is diversion for busses

What are you asking for here 'Alleyns coaches access at the expense of local parents' - whilst there may be an argument for the coaches to drop off elsewhere, like the park and stride that has been discussed previously, its the 'at expense of local parents' that is confusing me - what need do 'local parents' need access for and how is this being denied? 4321 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As James Barber (who lets not forget closed his > own street in the first of the east-West closures) > said, Labour have created a school street for > Alleyns. Perhaps Cllr James Ashworth-McClintock > might tell us about his work to give Alleyns > coaches access at the expense of local parents?

Really - there's an empty cycle hanger? There are 1000s of people on waiting lists so if this is true, its excellent for them!

..

Has Moxons extended into what was 'next door ' yet - they said a while ago they had some plans to do something different from a restaurant in that space and know they've started to do nationwide delivery, but haven't been paying attention to it when i've passed by!

Would second Nimble Arts for that age - fantastic activities, kids are really looked after and mine have loved it. Hopefully they're able to run clubs this summer!

Both my kids play instruments and during lockdown have had more chance than normal to practice and so have been getting through more music than normal and whilst the weather isn't great that's likely to continue! I thought it might be useful to other people to share that not only is South London Music open for click and collect, but if you're not sure exactly what you're looking for and you email they can get suggestions out for you to consider, which is really invaluable as you can't go in to browse. Today my daughter decided she'd like a jazz piano book - I dropped an email to South London Music and an hour later have 2 new books from a selection that Rupert had picked out, all of which were suitable. I just told him instrument and approx level and he was able to pick out lots of great music. If you've not been there before its a real treasure trove of sheet music as well as selling instruments, strings , reeds etc.

I thought when i went past the other day it was just renovating - anyone know?

What a shame - not something that could easily pivot to home delivery but a real loss as a nice independent bar. I really liked it.

I only watched the second meeting, which probably explains why we have different views! Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I didn't watch the second meeting but I was told > informally there was a more fair choice of > speakers, not just one side.

Also - just on the comments of 'working out who people were' - it was a meeting where many people had cameras on and people had their names on the zoom link. Perhaps the council learnt from the first meeting in terms of managing the process? northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There were 2 meetings though -so its possible > people have different views depending on which > they attended! > > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > northernmonkey Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The East Dulwich meeting I was on wasn't only > > > residents at all. I seem to recall that there > > was > > > a process of one person from the streets with > > > measures, then one person from the streets > > without > > > measures for quite a large section of it - > > there > > > was someone from Hansler Road who spoke at > > length > > > and that woman who stood out by virtue of > > > repeatedly referring to her address by the 'A > > road > > > number' designation (which turned out to be > > > neither on a directly affected street, nor > one > > > that would be remotely impacted by the ED > > changes, > > > nor even in East Dulwich! > > > > Well I watched the ED access meeting led by > Cllr > > Rose and I remember distinctly the morning > meeting > > being crammed out with people who I know don't > > live in the area being discussed. And as she > had > > the host lead she managed to get in many people > > praising the scheme without a mention for a > long > > time of people living on these clogged up > roads. > > Northernmonkey tell us which road you live on, > or > > the postcode, to authenticate all your > comments. > > Oh go on! No one will be able to work out who > you > > are from just that.

There were 2 meetings though -so its possible people have different views depending on which they attended! Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The East Dulwich meeting I was on wasn't only > > residents at all. I seem to recall that there > was > > a process of one person from the streets with > > measures, then one person from the streets > without > > measures for quite a large section of it - > there > > was someone from Hansler Road who spoke at > length > > and that woman who stood out by virtue of > > repeatedly referring to her address by the 'A > road > > number' designation (which turned out to be > > neither on a directly affected street, nor one > > that would be remotely impacted by the ED > changes, > > nor even in East Dulwich! > > Well I watched the ED access meeting led by Cllr > Rose and I remember distinctly the morning meeting > being crammed out with people who I know don't > live in the area being discussed. And as she had > the host lead she managed to get in many people > praising the scheme without a mention for a long > time of people living on these clogged up roads. > Northernmonkey tell us which road you live on, or > the postcode, to authenticate all your comments. > Oh go on! No one will be able to work out who you > are from just that.

The East Dulwich meeting I was on wasn't only residents at all. I seem to recall that there was a process of one person from the streets with measures, then one person from the streets without measures for quite a large section of it - there was someone from Hansler Road who spoke at length and that woman who stood out by virtue of repeatedly referring to her address by the 'A road number' designation (which turned out to be neither on a directly affected street, nor one that would be remotely impacted by the ED changes, nor even in East Dulwich! FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Abe - the big issue for the council is that > they > > cannot rely on those benefitting from living on > a > > closed road to join and herald how "wonderful" > the > > closures are. Also on the Melbourne Grove > meeting > > they insisted everyone identified which road > they > > lived on in the ward so they ensured the > meeting > > was focussed on the comments of the most local > > residents (which is perfectly ok it just meant > > that it was dominated by those not living with > the > > displacement and allowed the council to control > > the narrative). > > > > I know of a lot of people who live in the > Dulwich > > Hill ward who are being impacted by the > > displacement and are taking this as their > > opportunity to be heard as they feel they have > > been overlooked as the council tries to > manipulate > > things. > > Afraid this was not the case, quite a few people > who spoke in favour of the LTN, and took it an an > opportunity to wang on about their lives, did so > without identifiying where they lived to the > Cllrs, people we all know who live quite some > distance from the ED LTN in question. Sure they > will also turn up at the Dulwich Hill meeting too > although they do not live in that ward either.

I love how everyone has internet access to post a conspiracy theory, but apparently no one has access to google to easily find out the answers to their questions: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/uuCoverPage.aspx?bcr=1 Questions, petitions and deputations are different processes with the way they are done (eg individually or collectively) being described in the link above. Members of the public doing one option don?t get a ?come back? on the other sections of the others, otherwise it would be more chaotic than Handforth Parish Council!

Turns out these are the minutes - they've just stopped adding any kind of summary of the deputations or petitions other than what the subject was and that the you tube meeting is part of the record. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Minutes from cabinet meeting on 2 Feb here > (includes the written answers to public questions > regarding the review process for Dulwich > restrictions. > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6666/ > Printed%20minutes%20Tuesday%2002-Feb-2021%2011.00% > 20Cabinet.pdf?T=1

Thats really frustrating for you. Just out of interest why now do you think that the comments won't be taken into account during the review? From listening to the youtube playback my take was that Cllr Rose's comments on the commonplace were related to whether they could be used in the way that they had been attempted to be reflected by Dulwich Alliance and that it was a rebuttal of their 'clearly Dulwich has spoken' line. However, (worryingly , yes Rockets) the review parameters are still not clear and I had thought that comments such as yours would be precisely the ones that they would need to consider as part of that review - where additional impacts have been identified. Have you been specifically told it won't be part of the review? Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks northernmonkey - no Dulwich Wood. And our > ward councillor (who is heavily involved in the > LTNs) was the one who directed us to use > Commonspace as the appropriate way to register > feedback. Hence some of the frustration when the > feedback on our road (Underhill/Melford) as > recorded on Commonspace is so clear and consistent > and we are still being told there are no plans to > even look at it as part of the LTN review.

Haha - whereas when I was a trainee, there was a definite danger in using the last version of anything and then clicking ctrl + paste. Suspect these will be updated!

Those minutes are incorrect - they have the right date but its not the minutes of the meeting I watched this week!

Siduhe - are you in Dulwich Hill ward? I ask because if so there is a public meeting on this issue - there's a separate thread on it. Would definitely be worth joining if so. I also think that comments on issues that need to be considered are exactly what the council said would be looked at and considered. I don't think that there are any pro LTN groups who think that there aren't additional things that need to be done as part of this - its just waiting for the council to work through these in terms of engagement / funding. Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be clear, I don't know what the "facts" are > here - DfT could be correct or TfL could be > correct or the facts may be entirely different. > But where I completely agree is that this emails > shows that no-one can sensibly rely on one set of > data to the exclusion of everything else, which is > why we need a clearly articulated and transparent > approach to monitoring and analysis in our local > area. > > I have, however, watched the changing narrative on > the Commonplace sites from the Council with > dismay. I was positively directed to leave > comments on those sites by our local councillors > to highlight some specific issues with the impact > of LTNs in my road - as were several of my > neighbours - and we all left similar comments > broadly in support of LTNs but expressing specific > points that needed to be addressed about spill > over traffic and the fact that cycling had become > far less safe on our set of roads as traffic was > using it as a cut through to the South Circular. > But now it appears that little of that feedback > will be taken into account as the overall > narrative isn't sufficiently positive. > > For my own part, it's the unwillingness at the > Council or pro-LTN group to even consider that > there are some adverse impacts of the current > measure and some changes that could be made to > help the rest of us that is really frustrating. > And I'm not talking about totally reversing the > LTNs, I'm just asking for some basic monitoring > which is across other streets that are being > impacted.

Which components of the report did you like? - was it where they used the comments given as though each one was made by a different individual when there is no means of knowing this from publicly available data, in reality many of them could have been made by the same people? - or perhaps it was where 1100 comments opposing were taken to mean that 'dulwich has spoken and its a no'? - looking at the population of the dulwich wards (gg, dulwich village etc) its in excess of 40k so 1100 isn't really a ringing endorsement for that view! Was it the bit where a group of people who opposed the changes analysed whether responses should be excluded from their analysis? I see that in that perpetuating the myth that this is analysis that puts the council on the back foot that it helps your narrative, but in reality this is a disingenuous analysis that doesn't stand up to any degree of scrutiny. It was however presented in a nice report so if you didn't bother to read it you could think it was credible. I think that opposition to schemes is understandable, its a change, and debating the points is healthy. However, I find such blatant disregard for any facts really hard to reconcile. Just in case its not clear - the 'Dulwich Alliance' report on the data is a work of fiction and hope and is poorly constructed to support their own arguments. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NorthernMonkey - yes I did read the report and I > am glad someone has done some area wide analysis. > I liked the way they combined both the East > Dulwich and Dulwich Village element linking the > two - which the council steadfastly refuses to do > and tries to divide and conquer by dealing with > each set of closures in isolation. > > The methdology makes it clear how they built the > report - you might not like it but it's clear that > the majority of comments left on the Commonplace > website (to which councillors have been > encouraging people to leave their comments as they > said it would be used to judge local sentiment) is > against the closures. > > Have you used the Commonplace website? Have you > seen how biased it is towards leaving comments > supporting the closures and measures? It's > actually quite difficult to leave anything other > than glowing praise for the measures so these > stats speak volumes. > > And remember, we were repeatedly told by both the > council, the councillors and the pro-closure lobby > that it was a "small, vocal minority" who were > opposing these closures. With each passing day it > seems they all got that assessment badly wrong. > > The Dulwich Hill zoom call will probably be a good > barometer for wider area sentiment over the > Melbourne Grove one.

Rockets - did you read the Dulwich Alliance 'report' on the commonplace? It wasn't' a report it was more of a 'here's some scenarios that could have happened that we've written up as though they're facts'. The inferences made are just that - unless of course the Alliance have been hacking into the computer systems of the council and stealing personal information. lets assume this isn't the case though and just that instead, they cant actually substantiate claims made. Finally - of course there are more negative comments on the commonplace - people who want something to change are more incentivised to comment. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In fairness, it was stated by the meeting chair > > that supplementary questions would not be > taken. > > Clive asked if he could make one, and that was > the > > chair's response. I had thought that much later > in > > the meeting the reason for the response was > > further qualified as Clive's question was > > submitted late in day and not as expected, or > > something like that. > > Do Clive and Cllr Williams have some previous - > the way Cllr Williams addressed Clive suggested > so? He was abruptly dismissive - as if he was > expecting it. > > I think the downgrading of the Commonplace was > that the Dulwich Alliance got to it first and the > council realised they had no way to manipulate the > data from then on. Either that or no-one had > looked at what was being posted and didn't realise > that the sentiment was, in the majority, against > the closures. > > I think the council are on the ropes on this one > and they can't make it go away. The Dulwich Hill > ward meeting will be very interesting as the > council can't expect a group of pro-closure > supporters from closed roads from turning up and > trying to filibuster the duration of the meeting > as the Melbourne Grove residents did. Dulwich Hill > is one of the key displacement zones and there are > not many who are benefitting from the closures.

Petitions can be presented to cabinet assembly and it is the presenter of the petition who gets to speak. Follow up questions were addressed to Bridget - you can't just decide to speak over people because you feel you haven't been given a chance to present your views! The petition was given and follow up questions were asked. Bridget did get a chance to speak about the petition calculations - perhaps she shouldn't have been the one to present the petition if Clive didn't think she did a good enough job? Anyway - he was told to write in with details so its not actually like he wasn't heard - just more that interrupting in that way wasn't appropriate. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I completely agree with your comments on the > > inadequacy of commonplace as a measure (in fact > I > > filled in a feedback form to that effect) - but > if > > the council is going to hold it out as its > means > > of collecting data, and in the absence of > ?proper? > > data, you can hardly blame people for trying to > do > > something with it. > > > > I?m not quite sure what I think the role of > > residents? associations should be in all of this > - > > I?d say to be conduits for communication rather > > than any of them coming out ?for? or ?against? > > based on their (probably) unscientific > perception > > of their residents? views. Our local one forgot > to > > include us for many years after we moved in. > Out > > of interest do residents associations have any > > formal standing with the council? > > Am I imagining it but didn't the council say that > they will be using Commonplace to assess the local > sentiment towards LTNs? I interpreted Dulwich > Alliance's publishing of the stats as a very > clever move to put the council on the back foot. > By the looks of the council's response (or lack of > it) it looks like it has been successful. > > Just watched the YouTube video and I thought the > representation from Hazel and Bridget was very > well done. Cllr Rose really needs to stop turning > to her right, it looks like she is reading her > responses from a pre-prepared script! THe points > Cllr Rose's made about the use of Commonplace > don't really stand much scrutiny as the stats > speak for themselves. > > Why was Clive Rates shut down so quickly by Cllr > Williams

I think that in terms of RAs their role should really be as an information conduit - another way for making sure that people can get involved if they want to - but it is the individuals on a street who should be responding, not the RA on their behalf. Its hard to get to a consensus opinion and there are certainly examples locally where an opinion has been expressed where no effort has been made at all to understand what residents think. As has been identified, there is a lot of info out there but getting at it can be difficult - the RAs should be a means of pushing relevant information that they are given out to members - the Dulwich Society can play a role in this too but neither should be expressing opinions on behalf of other people. On the other point - I'm not a commonplace fan either, its unsuited for this type of consultation, doesn't move anything forward if its not actively managed alongside a wider engagement process. However, in terms of 'can't blame people for trying to do something with it', that's where I don't agree - its wasn't an 'attempt' it was a blatant effort to willfully misinterpret to suit an agenda and get that mis-intrepreted report circulated as widely as possible! legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I completely agree with your comments on the > inadequacy of commonplace as a measure (in fact I > filled in a feedback form to that effect) - but if > the council is going to hold it out as its means > of collecting data, and in the absence of ?proper? > data, you can hardly blame people for trying to do > something with it. > > I?m not quite sure what I think the role of > residents? associations should be in all of this - > I?d say to be conduits for communication rather > than any of them coming out ?for? or ?against? > based on their (probably) unscientific perception > of their residents? views. Our local one forgot to > include us for many years after we moved in. Out > of interest do residents associations have any > formal standing with the council?