legalalien

The delayed presentation/ interrogation of Cllrs Rose and Burgess about their respective portfolios is on the agenda for next Monday?s meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7273&x=1 A good test of whether the LDs can come up with some properly incisive questions to ask - which for me is key to my vote in May. I?d like to see some properly thought out detailed questions about the whereabouts of raw data, choice of data points and presentation of data, for example.

On a related note if anyone is visited by canvassers, worth interrogating them about parking policy as well as LTNs, from earlier discussions the borough wide imposition of a CPZ is something planned but being put off until after the election. Was interested to see that the countryside charity is now also on a mission to reduce residential parking in London - even front garden parking. We have to be in compact cities to save the countryside, among other rationales. https://www.cprelondon.org.uk/news/why-boroughs-need-to-re-assess-parking-policy-now/

I think they will be moving planters and putting in cameras so that emergency services can go through. Strange they?re having to do this when the emergency services were consulted from the outset and were perfectly happy with the closures. Oh that?s right - they weren?t.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5082b26c-8b4e-11ec-b5fe-7fe087ff87b5?shareToken=47431d423f6127b3a144c4987c05d80b Another interesting article in the Times today, with more safety concerns and a small amount of digging around about mis-selling. Pedestrians - keep your wits about you! Apparently they?ve banned escooters on the Parliamentary estate.

I found ?improve traffic conditions? a bit ambiguous, I have to say. It might for example mean putting a bike lane down East Dulwich Grove, heedless of any effect on congestion.

I?ve just been skimming through a planning application for a new building in Rotherhithe as it?s interesting to see how Southwark?s ?car free? borough policy feeds through to some of these https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105163/ROTHNEWROAD_VG_%20final%20V7.pdf Interested to see just how little provision is made for ?visitor parking? (cars or cycles) to these new developments, and also the interaction between the council and TfL on modelled changes to local trips. Here, looks as though Southwark allowed for a small increase in private vehicle journeys and TfL have come back and told them that ALL trips have to be allocated to sustainable travel modes. I?m not sure what that means for any disabled residents. Southwark seems to contemplate two disabled parking bays but these are only ?potential?. Many of the new developments seem to be taking a similar approach. If public transport was perfect and convenient everywhere I guess this might work, but. Given the current financial state of TfL and the question mark over the Bakerloo Line extension (not relevant to this particular devt, but is for all the ones on the Old Kent Road), I do wonder what will happen.

There?s a full press release here with a bit more info (cutting edge wood effect floors!) interesting to see that this route is nearly back to pre-pandemic levels. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2022/february/new-green-productivity-boosting-buses-introduced-but-no-more-will-be-delivered-until-a-long-term-funding-deal-is-secured

I haven?t seen the leaflet. Re socioeconomic equality, as I understand it that part of the Act isn?t in force however Southwark has adopted it as part of its constitution. To great fanfare, which is why I?m not impressed that they seem to think that a brief mention of it in decision making reports, rather than a proper analysis, is sufficient. It?s whatever the equalities equivalent of green washing is. Was disappointed that the LDs didn?t make more of this when they tried to call in the decision tbh.

They?re protected characteristics rather than groups I believe: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics So the protected characteristic of ?age? would capture children as well as old people. ?Race? is also capable of capturing ?white British? in particular circumstances but generally it?s the interests of minority groups that are likely to be overlooked and require specific attention. From a quick scan of the EHRC webpage, ?There are no express requirements to undertake engagement under the specific duties for England (and non devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales). However, case law states that consultation/involvement/engagement may still be important in ensuring public authorities understand the impacts of some types of decisions on different people.? More info about this and impact assessment type stuff here https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance-faq/specific-duties-faqs-england-only.

I could be wrong but I think heartblock is referring to TfL's FoI responses/ position on the DfT benchmarking exercise. See for example, https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1884-2021. It doesn't sound as if DfT or TfL have particularly comprehensive data, reading some of the emails on there.

Or as I said to the canvasser yesterday- I haven?t decided who to vote for yet but I have decided who not to vote for. I can?t not vote as the importance of voting has been drummed into me from a young age.

Had a LD canvasser this evening. Useful discussion. Still undecided.

Kissthisguy I think you mean ?of course SOME people?s views evolve..?. Some people?s views patently don?t, which has made conspiracy theorists of us all. Which is why I think votes may boil down to how much voters feel they can trust individual candidates.

If you say so. I looked at the ones here, and as I say, I have no insight into the residents association. Although in light of your comment I?ve now looked at their website. This does mention resident permits but that seems to be in response to a council proposal for such permits? http://dulwichra.org.uk/index.php/dulwich-village-ra-submission/ https://dulwichalliance.org/posters/ I personally like it when people modify their views, particularly when they are trying to represent people. In fact I expect them to, to some extent.

I'm pretty sure that the Dulwich Alliance poster said "no to 24/7 closures" and said nothing about "yes to permits". I just googled it to see the image. So I think you might be mistaken about that? Is anyone on here from DA who could advise? I can see a One Dulwich image with "yes to permits". Did the DVRA suggest timed restrictions, or resident permits? I don't know the answer to that, btw. Personally I don't care if Clive Rates personally supports timed restrictions and or resident permits, as long as he understands the difference between his personal preference, and the need to represent the views of residents. Not understanding that difference seems to be what has gone wrong to date. Am hoping the LD and Conservative canvassers might call by so I can see the whites of their eyes and decide how to vote!

Goldilocks - I could be wrong, but I think it's One Dulwich who were/ are campaigning for timed closures, coming out of the Our Healthy Streets consultation - I'm not sure that Dulwich Alliance are? I know One Dulwich are members of DA but I don't believe they are the same thing, DA include several local residents' associations, and I think Clive Rates (the conservative candidate you mention) as involved with one of those residents' associations?

Out of interest, does anyone have a feel (or better still, some data) of what proportion of cyclists ride the main part of roads rather than using segregated infrastructure where available? Obviously it will vary from road to road. Where segregated infrastructure is put in, and then data on increased cycling numbers is recorded, are those numbers based on the number of cyclists using the segregated infrastructure, or the number of cyclists overall? If overall, then this doesn't necessarily tell you whether it's the change to the infrastructure that has caused an increase in numbers, or some other factor? Does segregated infrastructure help protect beginner cyclists from more experienced cyclists / is that part of its point (if I was an experienced cyclist in London and there was a sudden influx of slow newbies I might well support getting them out of my way, I suspect)!

Just had a visit from Cllr Leeming. He says they have tried to balance all interests and that he?s getting it in the neck from cyclists who aren?t happy with the reduction in hours of closures. Was in the middle of making lunch so decided not to engage. Although I wish I?d asked why we don?t have any ward meetings. Do councillors get access to the full version of the electoral roll rather than the published one that has names anonymised on request? Felt weird that he knew my name, I don?t think I?ve had canvassers call me by name before.

Many of those with massive 4x4s locally have off street parking as well, so wouldn?t be hit by the charge, I guess. I wonder if they?ve considered width restrictors as a way of getting people into smaller cars? Could ?small traffic neighbourhoods? be a thing? I guess it would be problematic for emergency services, but no more so that planters in the middle of the road?

The hellebores in our garden are flowering like mad and I?ve seen a couple of small bumblebees. Which seemed odd, but having googled, apparently winter-active bumblebees are increasingly a thing? https://www.bwars.com/content/winter-active-bombus-terrestris-data-gathering Some interesting bumblebee info https://www.nzbct.org.nz/bee-informed

I wasn?t going to watch the overview and scrutiny meeting regarding next year?s budget but looking at the summary minutes I?m tempted to find out who said what, and whether the LTN income was mentioned. This appears: Parking charges - In accordance with our ambition to tackle the climate emergency and create Streets for People, OSC recommends that vehicle size and /or weight is incorporated into the criteria determining the cost of a resident parking permit. This is in order to increase revenue from larger/heavier vehicles which take up more space and have a greater negative impact on our roads and public spaces. Interesting one as sometimes people have larger vehicles to facilitate car sharing / pooling (of course sometimes they don?t). Some other interesting minuted items eg a recommendation for more large scale negotiated events in parks to raise revenue. Not a fan of that. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7006&x=1 .

Maybe, but I'm still going to vote on local issues. Voting on the basis of approval of Labour at a national level could equally be seen to condone the behaviour of the local councillors, and I'm anxious not to do that. I think there's a reasonable acceptance that some local seats are determined on the basis of controversial local issues, and it's not as if there are any conservative MPs locally who are going to misconstrue the message being sent by Dulwich electors and change their behaviour as a result.

On a related note, proposed updated parking and traffic protocol - the parking officers are a force for good and saving the planet! https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50028429 If you live near a school street, note ?18.Consideration will also be given in the short term to the feasibility of expanding the scope of school streets to also include the designation of some adjacent streets thus creating a safe zone for access to and from schools. Changes that result from this feasibility work will be communicated locally, within any existing schemes, and reported alongside any further changes in 2022 as highlighted by key strategies such as the Movement Plan Update.? Appendix 1 seems to be the ultimate source of answers to ?can I park here??. Appendix 2 clarifies exemptions available including to LTN and school street restrictions (note special programme to tell teachers and health workers to get on their bikes). Updating the exemptions in time for the introduction of the revised Dulwich scheme seems to be a key driver for this revised document. I love the fact that the equalities assessment identifies motorists as the ?key users? of the enforcement service. I doubt they see it that way! Note there are cross refs to the Dulwich Streetspace eqia in this doct.

Worth a read, council proposals for semi-pedestrianisation of / public realm improvements to Liverpool Grove in Walworth (at an eye watering cost of ?750k) - I imagine we might be seeing something similar in relation to the closed Dulwich junction in due course. Apart from the familiar situation where early stage, online design consultation has been hijacked by a large number of out of area respondents (this is what the documents say - they ended up having to do additional consultation to try and get some local input late in the piece, and that input was less positive), there are some detail issues that people might want to start thinking about sooner rather than later. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7569 For those like me who don?t know what a porphyry sett is, it?s basically cobblestones to slow down cycles/ escooters/ mopeds. (Sound expensive and allegedly not a trip hazard, I remain unconvinced on that, but slowing down the cycles bombing down Calton would be a good thing? https://www.stonemarket.co.uk/product-cropped-porphyry-setts)

Council is consulting to close Townsend Primary in Walworth - this is what the process looks like https://townsendprimary.co.uk/ Quite stressful for all concerned. As mentioned upthread, the schools in the Dulwich planning area are generally oversubscribed(compared to the Elephant area where there has been significant demographic change due to development) but there are some eg DKH, Ivydale which seem to be on the council?s watchlist.