legalalien

There is a new takeaway related to Heritage and it is very good, as an aside. Expensive but worth it for a special treat. The Dal Makhani is amazing.

It?s up there with those ? frivolous bicycle ways? innit. https://daily.jstor.org/the-moral-threat-of-bicycles-in-the-1890s/ Also found this article about jaywalking an interesting read https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DO you think that having 2 Tories in a borough of > Labour would 'do something to break the > stranglehold' - having to form alliances rather > than having Lib Dems who could join their natural > grouping of Lib Dems on the council? I?m in two minds about this. I get the ?larger group, more bodies on committees? thing, but also conscious that LDs would be subject to a LD whipping operation so that local councillors? ability to speak out for their own particular ward might be compromised more. It would be interesting to understand what degree of control conservative HQ has in practical terms over individual councillors in councils where they are in a tiny minority. PS as a qualified solicitor who runs sometimes I think that?s absolutely a ringing endorsement!! 😆

Much as I support the "Vote them Out" sentiment, I'm not keen on this initiative either. Doubtless supporters will say that various of the groups who have campaigned for the LTNs aren't entirely transparent either - but it would be better to take the moral high ground and stick to principles of openness etc. The job of comparing parties' policies locally would be better done by local newspapers. Although I'm not sure anyone reads local newspapers much, so there may be a gap in the market. I'm intrigued to know about the local notorious characters. I've only been here 15 years (about ten minutes by Dulwich standards) and haven't come across them yet as far as I know - obviously I don't move in the right circles!

I'm slightly confused. The update says that "The largest overall traffic reduction has been monitored in both the Dulwich (-14%) and Walworth (-18%) areas as of September 2021". and then "In November 2021, we again collected traffic data from nine of the roads surrounding the Dulwich Streetspace scheme. The monitoring showed a further 7% reduction in all motor vehicles compared to pre-scheme levels This is a sustained reduction from monitoring carried out on the same roads in September 2021". If pre-scheme is 100% of traffic, and September is down to 86%, then is November down a further 7% of the original (so now 79% of pre-scheme), or is it down by a further 7% of the 86% figure, or has it gone up slightly from September so is now 93% of the original figure? Given it says "further" reduction then it must be one of the first two interpretations? Or is it the case that there's two separate measurements, one of the Dulwich area generally, and one of the nine roads? I'm also not sure what "overall net traffic" is - what is it "net" of? Is something deducted? Or do they mean aggregate traffic or perhaps average traffic levels?

I don't think the Devolved Highways funding (which I think this is) works in quite the same way as the Neighbourhoods Fund funding. Whereas the latter is essentially ?10 per councillor, there seems to be more of a pooled approach o the former. See https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105533/DHB%20South%20Decision%20Making%2022-23%20FINAL.pdf.

Thought I was imagining things for a minute there! Anyway, posted it in the Lounge now.

Am (with some trepidation) venturing into the Lounge as I think the admin might be unhappy that some of the posts on the LTN in ED thread might be too generic for that section of the forum. Those who have been following the council?s transport policy might be interested in reading this report by Cllr Rose and officers in response to the Environment Scrutiny Commission?s recommendations in its Air Quality Report, prepared for a meeting next week. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105848/Air%20Quality%20report%20briefing%20note.pdf. Note this against the background of a review of the council?s Movement Plan (setting out its transport policy) currently being carried out with a view to aligning it with the council?s climate change strategy. Some interesting points around - the target for traffic reduction: the committee asked for a viability assessment of the target to reduce traffic by 90% by 2030. The response refers to a current target of 50% of pre- pandemic levels and says that ?As part of the review of the Movement Plan targets will be reviewed considering applicability (all traffic, local traffic), deliverability, and ability to monitor and ensure delivering of the ambition, coordination with other work areas.? I?m not quite sure what this means in concrete terms. Also not quite sure where the 90% figure came from. The 2019 Movement Plan says ?our aim is to reduce trips made by car/motorbike to 13% by 2041?. Might be a new target suggested by the committee itself? - looks like some more detailed consideration has been given to the viability of switching the entire council fleet to electric. Relatively simple for light vehicles, more difficult for heavy and specialist vehicles (for example, currently no such thing as an electric gully sucker).Also ?Whilst it is certainly feasible to acquire electric vehicles for many of the fleet replacement requirements, detailed consideration needs to be given to the required charging infrastructure, its location and the expected associated costs. The scale of the requirement and the task of installing charging infrastructure on such a large scale should not be under-estimated.? - cycle hangar roll out has increased, but still a waitlist of 9000. ?There are no plans to increase the current hangar space charge to users (currently ?40 per annum) or reduce the current level of council subsidy (currently ?20 per annum). However, this may be required to be reviewed dependent on the costs to the council of future cycle hangar provision, maintenance and management.? ( this in response to a recommendation that cycle parking should be kept cheaper than car parking ?by space?). I?m not sure how many cycles fit into a cycle hangar and whether that?s currently the case? - it would be difficult to implement variable parking charges based on size and weight of vehicles as it isn?t easy to get the info from DVLA (as it is for emissions based charging, currently in place. ? There are other potentially more effective means of managing kerb space in relation to varying permit pricing which will be given consideration in the short to medium term.? (Not sure what they are). Always interesting to see what happens when high level aspiration targets bump up against practical considerations and (in the climate space particularly) the hard reality of limited financial resources. For anyone interested the report on the upcoming review of the Movement Plan, prepared for cabinet last month, is here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s104619/Report%20Movement%20Plan%20update.pdf

Did my post earlier this morning about the council report on the environmental t scrutiny commission recommendations get deleted by admin? It was specifically relevant to the LTNS as it deals with the Movement Plan and the council targets for traffic reduction. And the summer consultation on the Movement Plan. In case it did get censored I?ll start another thread in the Lounge. It def was posted, as I went back in to edit it.

Interesting read- report prepared by Cllr Rose/ officers for next week?s Environment Scrutiny Committee?s meeting, responding to some of the committee?s recommendations in its most recent Air Quality Report. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105848/Air%20Quality%20report%20briefing%20note.pdf Looks as though the revised Movement Plan, which has all the traffic policy including low traffic neighbourhoods etc is going to be consulted on in summer this year. More detail on the Movement Plan and upcoming consultation in this report delivered to Cabinet last month https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s104619/Report%20Movement%20Plan%20update.pdf - one recommendation was for a review of the viability of the Council target to reduce traffic by 90% by 2030. The reponse refers to a target of 50% of pre- pandemic levels in the Streetspace plan and says that ?As part of the review of the Movement Plan targets will be reviewed considering applicability (all traffic, local traffic), deliverability, and ability to monitor and ensure delivering of the ambition, coordination with other work areas.? I?m not quite sure what that means in concrete terms. (Also not sure where the committee?s 90% target comes from. The Movement Plan report refers to the most recent Climate Change Strategy as saying car journeys should be kept ?to a minimum?, but given the intention to move to SMART targets in that strategy I suspect a figure will be put on it.) - on the recommendation around switching the entire council fleet to electric, it looks as though some proper analysis has been done (good) and while some of the lighter vehicles are easy to switch, that?s not the case for the heavy/ specialist ones (there are for example no electric gulley suckers). Also ? Whilst it is certainly feasible to acquire electric vehicles for many of the fleet replacement requirements, detailed consideration needs to be given to the required charging infrastructure, its location and the expected associated costs. The scale of the requirement and the task of installing charging infrastructure on such a large scale should not be under-estimated.? - cycle hangars - speed of roll out increasing, but waiting list around 9000. ?There are no plans to increase the current hangar space charge to users (currently ?40 per annum) or reduce the current level of council subsidy (currently ?20 per annum). However, this may be required to be reviewed dependent on the costs to the council of future cycle hangar provision, maintenance and management.? - variable parking permit pricing - current system based on fuel type more practical than charging based on size and weight because the relevant vehicle info isn?t easily available from DVLA. ?There are other potentially more effective means of managing kerb space in relation to varying permit pricing which will be given consideration in the short to medium term.? ETA I think the 90% might come from the target in the 2019 Movement Plan to ?reduce trips made by car/motorbike to 13% by 2041?.

I've just seen the video for another "reimagined" junction at Herne Hill, the design of which seems to have been commissioned by the Herne Hill Forum - does anyone have any idea by who exactly, or who funded this? It looks like a recipe for absolute disaster. Where is the motor traffic coming from West Dulwich and heading towards, say the hospital or East Dulwich going to go when the Dulwich closures are in place? Either South Circular/ Lordship Lane or.. Dulwich Road towards Brixton and then ...somehow through the various LTN closures there? Am I missing something? I gather that the HHF plan to consult (not sure who or on what basis?) AFTER the May elections so it doesn't become a political football? I can't see how Southwark, Lambeth or TfL could agree to this, given their statutory duties to manage the network.

I?ve attached a screenshot of the twitter post. Kissthisguy that?s true, you could probably add Safe Routes to Schools to the potential overlap list as well. I?m not sure what the legalities are as opposed to the ?right thing to do? considerations. Something to idly ponder. CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LA, does that mean that they admit that they > applied for funding and that they were awarded > funding and then decided they didn't want it after > all, but only once t was too late for someone else > to be granted that money, or possibly that they > never applied for it but the council embarrassed > them by awarding them some money anyway? > > It doesn't make much sense or seem equitable > whichever way it is looked at tbh

To be fair to CAD I think I saw on their Twitter feed that they turned down the ?500 funding awarded. The core problem here is not CAD - the problem is the councillors have (in my opinion- not everyone shares it) given their views too much weight, and that there is insufficient transparency (and also possibly too much apathy / not paying enough attention by constituents until it is too late). Is there a register of local councillors having free lunches / coffees with lobby groups like there is in central government? If not, why not? It?s the principle of councillors representing all constituents, and a big improvement in engagement that needs attention as I see it.

Ps - gotta love google - looks as though ?500 was awarded in 2020/21 round. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/12226/South-NsF-Decision-Award-Tables-2020-21.pdf

Sorry, by using the ?Real..? I was trying to distinguish between the original ?Clean Air for Dulwich? group which applied for funding in 2020 and which I think are the ones associated with the Clean Air Dulwich Twitter account, and the bogus?or- otherwise ?Clean Air for Dulwich? making the 2022 application. I don?t think anyone is out there calling themselves RCAFD! From past experience groups do seem to get funding without having been at the presentation evening, I guess that may be in cases where they?re applying for funding from multiple wards, whose break out sessions are held simultaneously. Not sure what happens if the group is unable to attend altogether.

If you look back at the 2020 funding application for "Real Clean Air Dulwich" it seems to have been in the name of "Clean Air for Dulwich" https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s87448/Appendix%201.pdf So you can see why there might be confusion. From memory the council isn't keen on paying money into individuals' bank accounts for this sort of thing. slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CPR Dave Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > I think "Clean Air Dulwich" also sometimes call > themselves "Clean Air for Dulwich" > Do they? As far as I can see they are a Twitter > group with a web site (well, actually a web page) > both of which call themselves "Clean Air > Dulwich". > > As far as I can see, CAD are not an incorporated > organisation of any kind. They look to be a small > anonymous group of local activists who overlap > heavily with groups such as Mums for Lungs and > Friends of Dulwich Village Junction (sorry > square). But I guess the main point is they are > chums with and support local councillors Newens > and Leeming, which presumably is why Newens and > Leeming were happy to pay them ?6k of taxpayers > money without carrying out the due diligence they > were meant to do.

One more point for the timeline - there was a "Funding Workshop" (online zoom call) on 8 December, at which applicants were invited to give a 2-3 minute pitch to relevant ward councillors. I was actually on that call. My memory is a little hazy, I definitely recall some of the applicants that were there, but I don't remember anyone from Clean Air For Dulwich giving a presentation.

Link here

We don't actually know if they are yet - I think the announcement is tonight? The list I linked to earlier is the potential list of applicants. So let's see.

I?m not quite sure what the issue here is. The crowdfunder said it was for things like leaflets and pamphlets and legal advice and any residue would go to the stated charity and it seems like that is what has happened as regards the first bit, I?d expect them to decide whether there?s any other action to take before distributing the funds to the charity? You seem to be hinting that it?s being spent on Mr Rates? campaign or something - which is heading towards libel territory, I would suggest. If you?re just saying that you think getting a legal opinion was a waste of time - we?ll, that?s your opinion but it was an express reason for soliciting donations in the first place. Getting proper advice and deciding not to launch expensive legal proceedings is more sensible than launching proceedings that aren?t going to go anywhere and ending up having to pay the other side?s legal costs?

Speaking of funding, the south multiward meeting to allocate local funding is tonight. You can see the projects that local councillors will be choosing between here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7277

I would be interested to know whether it's just the LD councillors in the Village Ward or whether it extends to other wards eg Goose Green as well. I thought the leaflet that I received was quite well written.

Presumably the size of SUVs is only an issue if they are overused (for short journeys) and under occupied. One of the big criticisms of local traffic has been that there is only eg one person in a car. If you want people to carpool for, say, the school run, for people coming in to the area to private schools (or, close to my heart, to get children and their equipment to sports fixtures in far flung places inaccesssible by public transport) then they?d need bigger vehicles? Otherwise you?d get more smaller vehicles which is worse? I don?t think it?s always as simple as ?big vehicle equals bad?, although sometimes it doubtless is. But the tyre attackers have no way of knowing.

I like "the incumbent Labour councillors, ******, back their continued use." Why have their names been blanked out in the article :) . Probably they were going to mention the names of the candidates in the upcoming election - not sure if the Labour candidates have been selected yet? I don't think judicial review was ever really going to be the solution, it's very process focused and the outcome is usually that the council has to make the decision again - which doesn't get you very far. But pointing out the flaws in the process does increase political pressure, if enough people become aware of them. In terms of the moneys - just looked at the GoFundMe page and it said that "Any residual funds will be donated to the Ella Roberta Family Foundation to improve the lives of children affected by asthma in South East London."

I was interested to see how a citizens? jury worked.