slarti b

I thought sports clubs weren't allowed to open until April 12.

@DulwichCentral

You said that Negating the of validity of experts (fed up with experts?) when one doesn't like what they're saying is a dangerous thing in the 'post truth' world.

It depends whether the experts are telling the truth. In the OHS world Council officers and Councillors (experts?) assured us that

- traffic through the DV junction had increased by 47% when it fact it had slightly reduced.

- 54 respondents in a consultation area of several thousand showed "strong support" for radical measures

- traffic along Calton Avenue had increased when their data was based on inaccurate counts

They produced presentations implying 50% of traffic evaporating rather than being displaced onto the Dulwich Village bypass roads.

This OHS world definitely sounds post truth to me.

@otto, @snowy, @malumbu[provided you answer the question :-)]

Coming in late to this but can you tell me what peer review means in an academic context since you seem to claim some knowledge in the area.

I work in a consultancy and we peer review our proposals and reports; that means that someone senior, other than the author, checks for false claims, accuracy, mistakes, typos etc and ensures the proposal is reasonable and will address the issue. However, we don't peer review to ensure objectivity. We don't insist on including comments that a competitor has more experience in that sector or that an alternative approach with a different supplier may be better.

In the case of an "academic" report what will the peer reviewers do, are they just checking arithmatic or are they prepared to challenge the underlying logic and assumptions? indeed will the public even know by whom it has been peer reviewed?

I looked at Alldred & Goodman's published "academic" report on the Waltham Forest mini-Holland, a so called longitudinal study, and noticed the following points.

- The results were based on an initial random sample to which the response rate was so low they had to get additional repondents from a self selecting TFL cyclist and Oyster database

- The respondents did not represent the demographical profile of the area they were studying

- Although it was claimed to be a longitudinal study, 50% of the respondents dropped out after 1 year.

- Their questionnaire started with a biased leading question

Would a peer review look at these factors and say these factors undermine the conclusion or would it just check to make sure the statistical calculations are correct?

@DulvilleRes

Badly planned and implemented LTN's, as here in Dulwich, which displace traffic, result in longer journeys and create extra congestion, are not going to solve the climate crisis, indeed may even make it worse.

Improving public transport, extension of ULEZ, measures to encourage EV use will help.

What a deceitful and disingenuous tweet.

For almost a year now, C'llrs Leeming and Newens have been brushing off concerns about access for Blue Badge Holders, carers and less mobile residents and insisting that it was not possible to introduce any exemptions. Now they have contradicted themselves, presumably because of public pressure.

It also raised an interesting question as to how the council will apply this exemption. OneDulwich have pointed out how other councils have used technology and on-line applications to develop a database of exempted vehicles. Again, C'llrs Newens and Leeming have always claimed that this was impossible for Southwark; now it seems it can be done.

Sadly it seems we cannot rely on anything our Councillors tell us.

@Dulwich Central

I am still waiting to hear from you about why the OneDulwich expos? of the DV Councillor's secret working Group (set up "to help run the OHSD consultation") is deceitful.

And whether you think that the Councillor's claims of a 47% increase in traffic was deceitful.

btw you complained to Trevor M about the number of OneDulwich supporters. Well, I looked at the info on the OneDulwich map (reluctantly released by the Council under FoI) and counted how many people within the OHS consultation area supported closing Calton Ave 24\7 in the online consultation. The answer? 54 people (20 of them from Calton); the council called this strong support.

Compare this to the (freely available) information on the One Dulwich web site which shows how many in the consultation area oppose the 24\7 closure. 1,008 people; local councillors dismiss this as a vocal minority.

Clearly neither you, nor our councillors, understand data and numbers.

An interesting idea and I can see real benefits, but the council would need to work out where to divert displaced traffic. Looking at the map there is a clear alternative, Melbourne Grove, which could become the Lordship Lane bypass, just as Croxted and EDG have been turned into the Dulwich Village bypass.

Obviously it would be necessary to remove the existing road-humps and other traffic calming measures on Melbourne and probably stop on-street parking. But I am sure the Melbourn Grove residents who previously supported closure of their own road will be happy to make this sacrifice in the cause of Active Travel.

@Otto You must have missed my smiley when I suggested RahRah lived in Calton ;-)

But RahRah completely avoided my response to his suggestion that Dulwich Village should re-open 24\7. As I pointed out, "Closing Court Lane and Calton by themselves will just divert traffic onto Dulwich Village, EDG and Lordship Lane"

Closing a road such as Calton 24\7 has knock on impacts elsewhere which RahRah doesn't seem to want to acknowledge.

@Otto Are you agreeing with RahRah that Dulwich Village should be re-opened, which was the starting point of this exchange?

@northern, Dulwich Central seems to have disappeared in a huff once people started asking him\her questions.

But thanks to him\her for highlighting that news piece by OneDulwich. Some pretty revealing information that, if true, would undermine the whole OHS consultation and our local councillors even more.

Anyway, I am sure DulwichCentral or one of the councillors will be able to deny it if the story isn't true. But watch out for some wriggling with words!

rahrahrah Wrote:

> I am completely supportive of Carlton Avenue and Court Lane being filtered, but do not understand the rationale for Dulwich Village road being closed at certain times of day?...

Rahrah, are you one of those nimby's from Calton who voted to close their own street to traffic but didn't want closures elsewhere? Since you can't spell Calton properly, maybe not. :-)

Closing Court Lane and Calton by themselves will just divert traffic onto Dulwich Village, EDG and Lordship Lane, as we saw last year. All of these have schools and many pupils walking on the pavement. On the other hand it is great for Alleyns, presumably why the private school dominated SRS people are so keen on it.

To avoid this massive displacment along the boundary Roads any clsoures need to be timed to protect school children and for a minimal amount of time. That is what One Dulwich supports and first put forward 4-5 years ago during the QW7 consultation.

@DulwichCentral

Is this the news flash from OneDulwich you were complaining about earlier? https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/why-was-dulwich-chosen-for-an-ltn

In that article One Dulwich claims:

- there was an informal working group set up to "help run the OHSD consultation process? consisting of local councillors, Safe Routes to School, Living Streets, Dulwich Society and Calton Ave residents Association

- the working group was provided with the confidential interim results of the phase 3 OHSD survey, results that have still not been published.

- the working group helped review and suggest changes to the presentation put forward at the Phase 3 meetings (where the discredited claim of a 47% increase in traffic was used repeatedly)

I can see why you are upset; if any of these claims are true it would totally undermine the whole OHS consultation process, faith in (current) local councillors to represent their constituents and indeed, confidence in any consultation carried out by the Council.

So which of those claims are disingenuous, devious, or deceitful? really looking forward to your response.

edited to say I am really, really, really looking forward to your response. Or are you just trying to discredit an organisation with over a 1000 supporters in the OHS consultation area?

Dulwich Central

But creating a square wasn't an an objective of OHS was it ?

Have a look at the OHS slide presentation where it sets out the guiding principles, including, for example "minimise inconvenience for local journeys". Where in those guiding principles does it say to create a "Dulwich square"?

And thanks for reminding me about the consultations. Those were the ones where our local councillors started by saying something had to be done because of the massive, 47% increase in traffic through the village, and the big increase in traffic along Calton? Neither of which were true. Oh well, I hope the forthcoming consultation is fully transparent, objective. and based on accurate data.

edited to add btw I am still waiting to hear from you about these "deceitful and devious" claims from OneDulwich

@Trevor Moore

Completely agree with you about this fixation on turning the lower end of Calton Avenue into a square, it was never mentioned as an objective on the OHS consultations but seems to have been an objective all along.

Also your comments about Safe Routes to School. For an organisation dominated by the local private schools they seem remarkably unaware about the impact of their support on the displacement roads, not just EDG and Lordship Lane but also Croxted and Half Moon, all of which have state schools on.

But I can see why Alleyns is keen on these measures. Calton Ave is (temporarily?) closed and Townley\EDG junction is closed for 5 hours a day which makes it a lot easier for parents to drop children off near the school. And less disruptive alternatives, such as cycle lane on Calton would stop staff and pupils parking there. Doesn't helpchildren walking to eg the Charter though does it.

DulwichCentral,

You seem upset, which News flash is this and what does it contain that is disingenuous, devious and decitful? ( nice alliteration!!)

Is it as deceitful as the council's claimed increase of 47% in traffic through Dulwich Village that lobby groups still trot out?

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I tried and failed due to Southwark's woeful system of rolling out (or not) charging points. Unless, y'know, you have your own driveway.

Didn't legalalien post the minutes of the Soutwark environment scrutinee committee where they proposed banning on street parking for all cars except electric vehicles? Great for those nice big houses in Calton Avenue with their own driveways where they can keep their own petrol cars. And even better they have moved all that nasty school run traffic onto EDG and Lordship Lane.

Perhaps our local councillors could help by supporting local businesses rather than handing out golden pay-offs to colleagues who have resigned after having been found out abusing their constituents under false names on social media.

James McAsh, what is your opinion on that, how did you vote last night?

@legal

Just watched that section on the golden pay-off to Cllr Pollak. Absolutely disgraceful. I thought it bad enough that his fellow Labour councillors supported the appalling behaviour but where else would a self admitted "serious error of judgement" , aka bullying and harassment, be rewarded with a ?5,000 pay off funded by council tax payers.

But as, with our Dulwich Village Ward Cllr Leeming, winner of a prestigious "Rotten Boroughs" award from Private Eye for abusing a constituent, it seems this is par for the course for our local Labour party.

@Northernmonley, So if the raw data agrees with the analysis that The largest online response in favour of closing the junction by far was from Calton Aveneue, would you agree that is not a fair representation of the local residents, ie those in area B&C?

Anyway, in terms of presenting data in a certain way, it looks like Southwark Council are the biggest culprits. Thank goodness we have FoI to help get at the real numbers.

And from the viewpoint of the forthcoming area review, I hope Southwark make sure it is independent,unbiased and open.

@Northern, Seems like you don't want to accept that the consultation was rigged by Calton Avenue residents? It would certainly make sense from their point of view.

Anyway, if you disagree with OneDulwich's analysis of the public remarks in the commonplace map you are free to carry out your own. :-)

@Northernmonkey. OneDulwich may share it in dure course. In the meantime what do you think of the results they show, essentially the closure of Calton Avenue and displacement of traffic onto EDG and Lordship Lane was largely driven by ... Calton Avenue?

@Northernmonkey

"the council should be much more transparent - this should also include having an FOI log so that once data is released via this mechanism it is publicly available"

I completely agree with you. Perhaps you can write to teh councillors and the cabinet to suggest this?

@NorthernMonkey

The fact that there was a very small number of respondents to that Phase 2 consulation is public knowledge. It is astonishing the council should use that minority feedback to claim strong support for radical measures such as closing Calton\DV junction. It will also be interesting to see if we find out how many of the respondents actually live in teh consultation area.

Re the the detailed map data data, the OneDulwich web site says is based on an FoI request, perhaps you could do one yourself? Personally I think the council should be much more open about publishing the data backing up their conclusions but I can see why they try and hide it.

@DulwichVillRes

Something not to lose sight of is that those in favour of them aren't necessarily a vocal minority - I've seen no data that backs that assertion up.?

Those in favour aren't a vocal minority? Well, they are certainly a tiny minority.

The justification to close Calton Avenue came from the OHS Phase 2 consultation. According to Southwark Council this showed "strong support" for "radical action" to close Calton Avenue / Court Lane.

So, from Southwark's report, how many people supported that closure? - 164. Not sure how many people there are in the (undefined) consultation area but I would guess several thousand. That sounds like a minority of supporters to me.

But, you may say that consultations should be based just on the percentage of responses rather than the number of people in the consultation area? Well, though the report does it best to conceal that (no graphs) Only 39% of the total respondents supported the closure, not at all convincing support eh?

And where do those minority (both absolute and relative) supporters of the road closure come from? From an analysis of post codes it seems to be an unholy combination of affluent residents in Calton Avenue\Lower end of Court Lane and a range of activists spread thinly across (and outside ) the borough, probably egged on by Soutwark cyclists or similar.

You said "?I personally am strongly in favour of them exactly as they are - they have in my view vastly improved quality of life in Dulwich Village. "

If, like many of the closure supporters, you live in Calton Ave or near the DV\Calton Avenue, that is fully understandable from a purely selfish viewpoint. But have you ever thought about the roads that now have to put up with all the traffic that no longer disturbs you ? Roads such as East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane, Croxted Road?

ab29 Wrote: >Slarti, who are the 2 councillors obsessed with this new vanity project (Plaza)?

Our local Dulwich Village Ward councillors, Cllr's Newens & Leeming, who seem intent on ramming through a scheme which has caused massive division in the Ward and displaced traffic onto Roads like EDG, Croxted and Lordship Lane.

I am naive enought to think the Councillors should be representing all their constituents and trying to reach an acceptable compromise rather than pushing the agenda of minority pressure groups and sending agressive, abusive emails to local who raise valid issues and concerns. Sadly this does not seem to be the case.

As mentioned above, I don't think this should be a pure party political issue; it was interesting that some of the Councillors, at the Scrutiny meeting last week, especially C'llr Burgess, acknowledged issues around disruption, traffic displacement, delays to emergency services and carers. But these are ignored by our representatives.