mockingbird

worth a read https://www.onlondon.co.uk/paul-wheeler-why-londons-road-wars-are-tearing-labour-apart/ and in the context of increasing evidence that Southwark consultations are not worth the Commonplace (or other media of choice consultation method of the moment) they are written on

Listening to Maajid Nawaz LBC London this afternoon. Length session on LTNs with many callers giving their views. Replay should be on catch up later https://www.globalplayer.com/catchup/lbc/uk/b8FPiKG/ between 3-4pm

What about our local Ward Councillor who has clearly taken a view and is not representing all constituents? Quote from twitter feed: Other cities that Dulwich isn't, Copenhagen, Oslo etc Since when did Dulwich become a city? https://twitter.com/search?q=richard%20leeming&src=typed_query

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The council spent about ?25,000 commissioning an > independent third party report into the benefit > and impact of closing Melbounre Grove at EDG, as > well as other alternatives, and that report noted > that it was a very bad idea to proceed with a > closure. > > But some people now know better of course. Is there a copy of this report?

ab29. This might help. The Southwark site seems to have two levels to log in. One is My Southwark and it is possible that you changed the password for that. When you are on the petition web pages, you also need to register and this is different to My Southwark. So look for that first and create a sign in for it or ask for a password reset from that link (not My Southwark). All very badly put together. Another potential problem that I can see is that as you move from this page: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/have-your-say/petition-scheme by clicking on the 'create or sign a petition' link, the pages move from being secure with the padlock sign, to insecure with the open padlock sign. A pc may block this so perhaps try from another device, phone perhaps, if so.

hoorah. I am amazed and encouraged to see that local groups are talking to each other. And that there is a common voice to address these LTNs. well done. Signed

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/05/grant-shapps-tells-councils-stop-abusing-250m-fund-meant-green/ this link to Shapps article should work

Copied from Melbourne petition thread as relevant here: I will sign but perhaps a mirror E-petition can also be replicated on Southwark's own petition site at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/have-your-say/petition-scheme Petition scheme A petition is a statement about a local issue, supported by the signatures of local residents or those directly affected. A member of the public or a councillor can present a petition at a local community council meeting, the cabinet, to other council committees or council assembly. All petitions sent or presented to the council will receive an acknowledgement from the council within 10 clear working days of receipt. So what is within 10 days? The Southwark AGM! Need to get signatures going quickly over the weekend though http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=6772&Ver=4

I will sign but perhaps a mirror E-petition can also be replicated on Southwark's own petition site at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgepetitionlistdisplay.aspx?bcr=1 Petition scheme A petition is a statement about a local issue, supported by the signatures of local residents or those directly affected. A member of the public or a councillor can present a petition at a local community council meeting, the cabinet, to other council committees or council assembly. All petitions sent or presented to the council will receive an acknowledgement from the council within 10 clear working days of receipt. So what is within 10 days? The Southwark AGM! Need to get signatures going quickly over the weekend though http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=6772&Ver=4

Check appendices 1-4 http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023654&Opt=0 The correct holistic picure is shown on Burbage and Turney. Townley and DV are incorrect as they omit the Turney and Burbage closures (must have been an earlier version). So Areas B and C are truly kettled.

The impact of these extended proposals are immense. Just take a look at the displacement that this will cause. Blocking off Townley to EDG, Dulwich Village from College Rd, Burbage and Turney. hopskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark have just published proposals on their > next Covid ETMO measures in case you haven't seen > it. > > Decision > page:http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDelegated > Decisions.aspx?&RP=0&K=0&V=0&DM=0&HD=0&DS=0&Next=t > rue&META=mgdelegateddecisions&DR=09/08/2020-23/08/ > 2020. > Scroll down and look for the two links - Batch 2 > and Batch 3 (top and bottom of list currently) > > Here is the link?for the Area B/C Dulwich scheme > additions:http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssu > eHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023654&Opt=0 > > Jaw dropping mess and implications. Our Cllrs > have obviously been supporting these for some > time.....

Please add your comments also to the Our Healthy Streets Dulwich thread as they are so relevant to the debate and should not be overlooked.

And this year long 'consultation' was founded on a tiny Phase 2 sample who apparently said 'they wanted it' which led to a Phase 3 OHSD single consultation on fixed closures for Area B. I am bemused that you believe the Council and Cllrs statements despite their continuing attempts to suppress disclosure of the details! That's how they push silly schemes through on their political agendas. KatyKoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The council ran a year long consultation - didn't > you know? it got one of the highest responses ever > in a Southwark consultation - over 2000. There > were lots of posters around advertising public > meetings, and leaflets, street stalls etc. Would > have thought you being so knowledgeable on the > subject you might have attended some of the > meetings?

Thank you Snowy that is what is stated in the Traffic Mgmt Regs. There is NO process or requirement to consult on experimental orders other the police. Written objections can be made during the first six months of its operation. Wulfhound - the item that you point to does not say that a consultation occurs. snowy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mockingbird Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > wulfhound Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > Experimental Orders do not require > > consultation > > > but to make them permanent after the stated > > time, > > > that DOES require consultation. > > > > > hi wulfhound > > You state that making experimental orders > > permanent does require consultation after the > > stated time. Can you advise where the > regulations > > state this? > > From the amendments to the Transport Act related > to covid that I?ve previously posted. Technically > they need only consult emergency services to make > any changes that the government (via Department > for Transport)has directed them to do.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Experimental Orders do not require consultation > but to make them permanent after the stated time, > that DOES require consultation. > hi wulfhound You state that making experimental orders permanent does require consultation after the stated time. Can you advise where the regulations state this?

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unlike OHS, this programme is a trial - they can't > make it permanent without a full consultation, at > which point those affected will be able to report > their lived experience of the outcome. Incorrect - Experimental Orders do not require consultation and therefore the whole concern about Southwark taking advantage of C-19 measures and avoiding disclosure of the OHSD results and impacts

If you get rebuffed by Southwark for an FOI request and told to resubmit ? refuse! Quote the ICO guidance that gives them leeway on timeframes but not the right to refuse your FOI. Ask for a reference number for your submission: https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/policies-and-procedures/2617613/ico-regulatory-approach-during-coronavirus.pdf Extract from ICO guidance below and the reminder to Counciles that they need to have proper record keeping : Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations: This unique crisis has required quick decision making and innovative uses of data, including geolocation and geospatial information. There has been, and will continue to be, intense public interest in understanding how and why decisions were taken and how information was used. V2.0 15 April 2020 5 We will take an empathetic and pragmatic approach to our role regulating access to information regulation, recognising the importance of transparency, especially where people have seen their civil liberties impacted. We recognise that the reduction in organisations? resources could impact their ability to comply with aspects of freedom of information law, such as how quickly FOI requests are handled, but we expect appropriate measures to still be taken to record decision making, so that information is available at the conclusion of the emergency. We do not expect this will impact on the ability to take and progress actions that are necessary. 1. We will continue to accept new information access complaints. We will take a pragmatic approach to resolving these complaints, keeping engagement with the public authority to a minimum and being guided by them as to whether they are able to respond to our requests or require more time to do so. 2. We will recognise that the reduction in organisations? resources could impact their ability to respond to access requests or address backlogs, where they need to prioritise other work due to the current crisis. Organisations should recognise the public interest in transparency and seek as far as possible to continue to comply with their obligations for particularly high-risk or high profile matters. 3. We understand that there may be extreme circumstances where public authorities have no option but to temporarily reduce or suspend elements of their information access function. 4. We encourage public authorities to proactively publish information they know will be of importance to their communities. 5. We will continue to emphasise and support the importance of proper record keeping during a period of time

If you get rebuffed by Southwark for an FOI request and told to resubmit ? refuse! Quote the ICO guidance that gives them leeway on timeframes but not the right to refuse your FOI. Ask for a reference number for your submission: https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/policies-and-procedures/2617613/ico-regulatory-approach-during-coronavirus.pdf Extract from ICO guidance below and the reminder to Counciles that they need to have proper record keeping : Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations: This unique crisis has required quick decision making and innovative uses of data, including geolocation and geospatial information. There has been, and will continue to be, intense public interest in understanding how and why decisions were taken and how information was used. V2.0 15 April 2020 5 We will take an empathetic and pragmatic approach to our role regulating access to information regulation, recognising the importance of transparency, especially where people have seen their civil liberties impacted. We recognise that the reduction in organisations? resources could impact their ability to comply with aspects of freedom of information law, such as how quickly FOI requests are handled, but we expect appropriate measures to still be taken to record decision making, so that information is available at the conclusion of the emergency. We do not expect this will impact on the ability to take and progress actions that are necessary. 1. We will continue to accept new information access complaints. We will take a pragmatic approach to resolving these complaints, keeping engagement with the public authority to a minimum and being guided by them as to whether they are able to respond to our requests or require more time to do so. 2. We will recognise that the reduction in organisations? resources could impact their ability to respond to access requests or address backlogs, where they need to prioritise other work due to the current crisis. Organisations should recognise the public interest in transparency and seek as far as possible to continue to comply with their obligations for particularly high-risk or high profile matters. 3. We understand that there may be extreme circumstances where public authorities have no option but to temporarily reduce or suspend elements of their information access function. 4. We encourage public authorities to proactively publish information they know will be of importance to their communities. 5. We will continue to emphasise and support the importance of proper record keeping during a period of time

Many of us have already emailed Councillor Livingstone and Highways to object to the closure of Dulwich Village junction which has been heavily objected to throughout the OHSD consultations. If you haven't yet done so, the deadline is TOMORROW, MONDAY 15 JUNE. If you object to closure, consider that timed restrictions to motor vehicles at peak hours, as opposed to closure to them, is an alternative intervention that would deliver the objectives of the Post-Lockdown Highway Schemes while being easy and cheap to trial, and is likely to win community support. It will also not disadvantage sections of our society such as the elderly, less mobile, those needing support services and those still needing to shield.

In current times the Information Commissioner's Office has given some leeway on time to respond from Public Authorities. This has led some Councils to fail to respond - but their obligation to do so does not go away. It is deferred. See here for the Group monitoring this: https://www.cfoi.org.uk/campaigns/foi-during-covid-19/ In relation to the Emergency Orders being used by Southwark, if you wish to put in an FOI request for the orders or for information relating to the data supporting Our Healthy Streets Dulwich phases 2 and 3 - then do so. when you get a reply from Southwark advising they cannot respond, send it to the ICO, noting your concerns that Southwark is not transparent in its data for OHSD but is using that data to put forward the proposals for the C-19 emergency orders for Dulwich Village. And when you put in your FOI, do remember that our Councillors emails are subject to FOI. We may see yet more of their bias to certain outcomes and groups.

deleted

Looks like Southwark are putting double yellows on the southern corner of Woodwarde and Dovercourt. They?ve put bollards and no parking signs quite a way up Woodwarde and Dovercourt either side. Also Druce Good time to bury bad news? Woodwarde not agreed as far as I recall.

I have been asking for this data from the Council for some time, fobbed off with vague answers and no provision of the underlying data. This is serious in my view, ie that the Council has knowingly manipulated statistics to support the design proposed. Even more concerning if our elected Councillors are complicit in this.

welcome to our privileged healthy streets ghetto

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > a gated community? > > > That you can freely walk, cycle, scoot in and out > of - and still drive in and out from one end. Not > very gated then - cul-de-sac would be a more > accurate description. A cul-de sac does not have a myriad of permits, cameras and controls. Welcome to our healthy-streets ghetto......