holymoly

@Legalien. Thanks for flagging. It is hard to tell if any new conditions have been included here. I don't tend to use the parking bays but notice on page 12 that there are different parking charges for diesel vs other cars. I wonder on what grounds given ULEZ covers the entry into the zone for diesel cars. Hard to tie this to emissions when a car is parked up. Is this differential parking new and just buried in here?

@Legalalien. FOI info very interesting, txs. I see there are quite a few requests to Southwark that are a year old and not answered? How can Southwark avoid responding. One year and no reply?

Does this mean that Helen Hayes and Councillors has taken a side on this matter? I presume that there is some risk to Council and others if this method does not pass legal and equality challenges

very helpful - health practices, traders, residents' associations, sports associations. not just the random few objecting

SlartiB. thanks for the epetition link. Signed. Does this get debated at Council?

It is bad everywhere because the main closures in Phase 1 have made it so. Phase 2 build on these and have exacerbated them. But no escaping the fact that the Phase 1 closures in Dulwich Village, Melbourne Grove etc are a fundamental problem and need resolving. DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Traffic seems bad everywhere today so it can't be > a result of latest restrictions because they don't > run at weekends. > It's often bad at weekends anyway with all the > school sports events. > > Probably today Christmas shopping? Understandably > people still not using public transport. > > But if people are shopping locally (and hopefully > supporting small business) surely most people > don't need to drive? Unless they are buying > something huge.

What has happened to a Phase 1 meeting? Or is Dulwich Village junction being buried. It was a single initiative with its own period for objection.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please write to them if you?re in favour of the > closures (partly/fully) so they don?t just get the > wrong idea that a highly vocal and overlapping > group of people with multiple axes to grind are > necessarily the majority. And please write if you support a better way that achieves the goals and yet does not partition us East/West Dulwich. Too many historical examples of the social failure of that approach .....

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey Wrote: > >some people give focus to community roles and i'd > imagine statistically they're more likely to > participate in a number of things throughout the > community. Its not a massive conspiracy! > > Maybe not an active conspiracy but what I see is a > small number of local(?) activists create > overlapping groups, Clean Air Dulwich, Southwark > Cyclists, Mums for Lungs, Safe Routes to Schools. > Dul Soc Traffic & Environment C'ttee etc. These > activists claim to represent "local community" > and are engaged by local councillors and treated > as key stakeholders by the council who are happy > to accept these groups at face value and dismiss > or ignore the concerns of their own constituents > and Resident's Associations without questioning > whose these activists represent. > > At the meeting Katy Savage of Clean air for > Dulwich (Facebook group liked by 79 people, no > info where they are from) was happy to > condescendingly dismiss the 2,700 person petition > to reverse closures without mentioning that the > petition to keep the closures had received a > massive... 51 supporters. > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListD > isplay.aspx?bcr=1 . The narrative she is trying > to put over is that objectors to these road > closures, which are causing such disruption and > pollution to roads such as Lordship Lane and EDG, > are a vocal minority; in reality it is the > supporter and proponents of these these poorly > thought through schemes that are the minority. > > One of Ms Savage's arguments was that there was no > verification where the respondents on the petition > lived - if true, that is clearly a failure by > Southwark council. However, the DV junction > closure has always been justified by the > councillors as the outcome of the OHS phase 2 > consultation. That exercise had about 200 > respondents, mainly on line, and the council has > refused to say where they lived. According to > her views that consultation was therefore > meaningless. > > Note that OneDulwich who , with over 1,700 > supporters is very open about where those > supporters live see > https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters. It is > unfortunate that the local councillors are doing > all they can to misrepresent the views and > proposals of those groups who represent a > significant number of local residents and have put > in huge amounts of effort to analyse the situation > and suggest reasonable compromises. > > edited to make clear that the OneDulwich web site > shows supporters by postcode district rather than > actual address. SlartiB - a great post and reminder to see how our Councillors take seriously their responsibilities for evidence based proposals and inclusive representation from the community they were elected to represent. Our Ward Cllrs seem to be failing the community that elected them. Their Twitter accounts highlight the bias of their representation. Conundrum for them but equally for those of us electing them. I have lost confidence in Dulwich Ward Cllrs to represent our views and show how these can be progressed alongside environmental goals. I have no single conversation that I can highlight that shows me they have a broad interest and social understanding. How did we elect them I ask myself?

Submit questions anyway and note that the Council meeting has not been well publicised and that questions should be permitted.

There is a Council meeting this coming week and the Council will debate the epetition against the DV closures. The meeting will be online/virtual and starts at 4pm on the 20th Oct: You can ask to join the hearing of the epetition objecting to the Dulwich Village closures by emailing [email protected] and asking to join the Council hearing 20th Oct starting 4pm. You can read the agenda for this meeting on the following web link: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=6663&Ver=4

very clear FairGirl. Deserves an honest response but our Cllrs reluctant to admit any failure or bias...

I hear that Hillsboro' Rd is next closure coming up soon - probably a school street. that'll improve matters .....

Ahh Mr Edwards ... latest sighting

Southwark presentation this morning clarified that all the funding for this work is coming from TfL and not from Southwark. So as we have seen before, TfL as funding body will want specific outcomes - unclear what the range of specific outcomes will be. But for sure they will not want to permit any thing that impacts buses. This is consultation on Phase 3 - responses to be in by 29th March. Form at: www.southwark.gov.uk/ohs-dulwich The specifics of what is proposed are still contradictory on Southwark's own materials and so it was not possible to get informed answers to the access for residents for Area B and other Areas. We are described as ?Permit Holders?. Andy Simmons stated that residents would get permission to access. He was not clear whether all residents in areas A, B and C get access to all areas or just their own. When specifically asked, he stated that Teachers would not be given permits. Not sure that this is correct as they would need them to get in to park in Alleyns, surely? He also stated that Plumbers, carers etc would be permitted but under some sort of yet to be clarified arrangement. No clarity has been given on whether these Permits are chargeable for residents and/or for others accessing. He also mentioned that that they wish to offer CPZ in these areas as well ? so this all sounds chargeable access driven. See the diagram on the Consultation link above and I am now referring to that and another A4 document available today that had more detail. 1. Junction East Dulwich Grove and Townley Road Time restrictions here are proposed to be lengthy. 7-10am and 3-7pm with no turn into Townley from either direction, except cyclists. Not clear where the school buses will stop. Outside these hours, access is for Residents and other ?permit holders? only. Not clear who this covers ? whether all area A,B,C residents and which other categories of user. 2. Townley Road There is access for residents (Areas not specified) and other permit holders who can exit onto EDG during the restricted hours. The controls at Lordship Lane junction are not specified as restricted hours but permit residents in. They will permit non-permit holders in but these user cannot exit onto EDG and would have to go back out via Lordship Lane or Court lane. 3. Roundabout at Burbage Road and Dulwich Village This is not shown on the consultation map but it is intended for there to be two cameras on the Dulwich Village entry and Burbage Rd entry from this roundabout, that will prevent College Rd and Gallery Rd traffic using those routes. Residents/Permit holders will be allowed to go through. Other users will have to return to the South Circ. The major access restriction at Dulwich Village blocks access to all.