march46

No one has personally assured me. As I said above, based on the quote in the article I feel assured that the council is not going to be out of pocket. Your constant accusations and attempts to spin a conspiracy are tiresome @Rockets.

You don’t know, you’re speculating. I also don’t know, but based on the statement from Cllr McAsh - which clearly states the council will be reimbursed by contractors - I am assured that the council won’t be out of pocket. “The council will recover the full cost of the refunds from the contractors."

You seem to be set on the idea that the council is losing £500k, despite the statement clearly stating otherwise.

If… Pure speculation. The quote from Cllr McAsh very clearly states “The council will recover the full cost of the refunds from the contractors”

Pleased to hear you now agree regarding the council recovering the full costs. It sounded like you were (gleefully?) thinking they’d be out of pocket earlier. I’m not sure why anyone would celebrate the council having less funds to spend on active travel / public realm improvement projects. Thankfully it’s not true either way.

It’s pretty clear

No it doesn’t, re-read the quote above.

The article says the refunds will be reimbursed by contractor. "We are also strengthening our checks with contractors to make sure this does not happen again. The council will recover the full cost of the refunds from the contractors."

The word “potentially” is doing some heavy lifting here.

Big Bellies didn’t have permission.

Email your local councillors.

”In absolute terms, the study concluded, this meant that creating the LTNs prevented more than 600 road injuries that would have otherwise taken place, including 100 involving death or serious injury.” Powerful stuff, thanks for sharing.

Lovely video of the recent Bellenden Rd event. Hopefully it can be repeated and replicated elsewhere. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLp7GDoIlwq/?igsh=MWVvdHBidjg3ZmlnYg==

I wanted to share this important article because the discussions on this forum on cycling often slip into culture-war territory. The Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, warns that this kind of framing risks missing the real issue: active travel is a vital public health tool, especially for people who aren't currently active. A reminder of the importance of improving infrastructure and access. Worth a read. Chris Whitty says culture-war coverage of cycling could harm nation’s health | Health | The Guardian

With respect, it seems you’re wrapping yourself up in knots. What you are saying was in the ‘earlier, different document’ you saw (but can’t provide any evidence of) is the same as the publicly available document - the CPZ will go live in October, subject to statutory consultation (hoped to be done in June, but presumably this is a bit behind schedule unless anyone is otherwise aware?).

I can only guess, but it seems very likely it’s because the decision was still subject to call-in, and was not yet effective. Why don’t you email them if you’re still not sure? Not sure what you are hoping to achieve though.

The decision is only effective on 24th June, this is visible on the website. The attempts by some here to find smoking guns or ‘gotcha’ moments is quite impressive - if not a bit tiresome.

How is the wording I directed you to different? See above, the decision only became effective on 24th June. Hope that clears it up for you.

There is no ‘different document’. If you read the report carefully you will find what you’re looking for under ‘timeframes’. The decision was made on the 16th June, but will have been subject to a standard 1 week call-in period so only became effective on 24th June (see ‘effective from’ date).

What’s causing your confusion?

It was the same report (just hadn’t been approved at that stage). This document mentions those things if you read carefully. Page 5 of Appendix A shows the consultation responses, there is a clear majority on those three roads.

A different take - the roads where a majority of residents wanted a CPZ are getting one. The roads where a majority of residents didn’t want a CPZ aren’t getting one.

The report has been available online since 16th June. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=8364&LLL=0 There’s no evidence of any attempt to hide the report, the information is in the public domain and has been for some time.

I personally don’t feel unsafe in Dulwich Square, whether I’m walking or cycling. The only times I’ve felt concerned have been when drivers ignore the signage and act as though it’s not a pedestrianised area. That said, I’m hearing from parents at local schools that more children are now walking to school independently - which suggests the space has become more welcoming and safer for young pedestrians too.

Just curious - do you also raise concerns when drivers ignore road signage and enter pedestrianised areas, or about pedestrians who don’t wait for the green man? Or is your frustration only reserved for people travelling by bike?