legalalien

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.

The thing is, though, that the ward councillors have little real power - even if they do choose to use it to represent their constituents rather than promote the party policy line. So getting a couple of opposition councillors on DV ward for example won?t make a difference in terms of changing policy if Labour still have an overall majority. I?m going to vote for someone other than Labour this time to register my disappointment in the current ward councillors. Haven?t decided who I will vote for yet, whoever seems the most locally based / not a career politician / acknowledges that there are at least two sides to any argument, life is complicated, and that policy Puritanism is unhelpful.

Interesting, as were the linked articles, including about the ?emptied Spain? movement.

I don't think so - a bit of whataboutery? I tend to vote differently in local elections than for general elections - I expect more local accountability from councillors than I do MPs (although I am very much in favour of MPs being more accountable to their constituents and am highly supportive of backbenchers exercising their muscle against party HQ, whatever the party). I don't think the solution for conservative MPs or councillors is to resign - rather, it is to demand change. And ideally break the system of whipping which I'd like to see gone except in matters of supply.

Seems Lambeth are starting to collect commonplace feedback for a potential LTN in West Dulwich. Only read a few comments but it seems many of the residents there aren?t keen, having seen what happened in Southwark. Quite confusing as a number of pro closure and anti closure comments both show as red - I guess that?s because it?s generic input at this stage rather than a response to a specific scheme, so ?road is too busy now? and ?we don?t want our road closed? both show as negative comments. I wish they?d scrap commonplace, I think it?s unhelpful as it only engages a few people and not necessarily from a broad range of residents, and doesn?t stop multiple comments from the same people using different email addresses etc. https://westdulwich.commonplace.is/

What I?d like to know is whether LD village ward candidate Richard Wingfield is related to long term Labour councillor Ian Wingfield. Just because the LD pamphlet says he is frustrated with the Labour council?s lack of responsiveness etc. I?m guessing not. For the record, the LD pamphlet says they want to ?Make Southwark the greenest borough in London by protecting our green spaces, reviewing the impact of the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in Dulwich, investing in green transport and tackling congestion...? The Conservative one says they?ll campaign to reopen closed roads (and is just about the closure thing although it does talk about democracy, representation and accountability as key issues).

I think campaigning season has started in earnest. I?ve had flyers from both the Conservatives and the Lib Dem?s today.

The final version of the council?s 2022/23 budget is on the agenda for its next meeting, see https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50013955/Supplemental%20Agenda%20No.%201%20Tuesday%2001-Feb-2022%2011.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=9 Para A39 says that ?The department is expecting to reinvest significant income from the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhood in schemes to improve access around the borough including healthy streets and with the aim of tackling the climate emergency. This income is expected to be one off for 2022/23 only and the ongoing income from LTNs will be reviewed for 2023/24.? There?s an amount of ?4million listed as additional income from this source in the associated table. I?m not quite sure how revenue recognition works in the council?s accounts. Could this be PCN revenue already collected as cash but later recognised as income when it is formally set aside to be spent,or are they budgeting for a further ?4 million in fines for the next financial year? It seems to me that there?s a clear conflict of interest here, as the council is incentivised to make signage/ publicity around closures as poor as possible to maximise their budgeted revenue. On the bright side, the climate bit of the report says this: ?Within the revenue budget, there is income received from implementation of ?Low Traffic Neighbourhoods? across Southwark, which is supporting a range of environmental measures including those to help improve air quality. This is not considered a long-term source of income, as we anticipate that income received from fines will reduce as compliance increases.? On a related note, the table showing the LTN income has a column showing whether an equalities analysis has been done, which is marked ?Full Impact Assessment needed? (as opposed to ?undertaken? which appears next to some other items). The cumulative equality impact assessment (if you can make it through to page 156) says that the LTN income line item is ?Assessed as overall positive across all protected characteristics with risk of some potential negative for Age, Sex and Disability subject to an improved approach to be developed through the Movement Plan Update in 2022?, and ? The charges will apply to all people who contravene the rules equally and will not have any adverse impact on any individual group; and overall the assessment is a positive outcome for residents and the local community with significant improvements in air quality / environmental pollution. Full assessment being conducted to understand and mitigate against any perceived concerns from any protected groups.? There?s similar wording on page 162 in relation to disability, 175 in relation to sex discrimination and page 182 in relation to socioeconomic disadvantage. It sounds from this (to me anyway) that the council isn?t entirely happy with where it ended up on the equality assessment with the LTNs, which is promising for those whose concerns around the closures centre on age and disability discrimination - it would at least seem to open the door to some further tweaks to minimise adverse impacts on relevant protected groups. Whether there?ll be any impact on the Dulwich scheme, who knows? Council tax is going up btw. About ?1.28pw for a Band D property, including the increase in the GLA component of the tax, as well as the Southwark rise.

There?s a presentation on this at an upcoming scrutiny commission meeting, with a summary of what the service can and can?t do for people, which I thought I?d post as it?s quite useful knowledge to have https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s104899/Rerport%20Noise%20and%20Nuisance%20in%20Southwark.pdf

An interesting feature is that there is yet another General Exception Report for this decision (these are used when things don?t go through the forward plan publication process when they should. The notice says this: ?The decision is listed on the Forward Plan for a January 2022 decision. However, due to an administrative oversight, the report and appendices were not submitted in time to achieve the January decision deadline. The next Forward Plan to be published will be the April 2022 Forward Plan. This will significantly delay the construction of the proposed works which will potentially damage the reputation of the council.? Ie we stuffed up a bit, let?s use an exception policy so we don?t embarrass ourselves (and not for any substantive reason). Southwark do seem to have a generally high level of these kinds of notices. I?d be interested to know how this compares across different councils.

A wide range of minor road changes included in this notice (including some East Dulwich ones), including various yellow lines, removal of disabled bays following an audit of usage, and making permanent various school streets and pavement widening schemes. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IssueId=50028347&OptionNum=0 Also had a quick skim through the info re the cycle lane they?re putting in on Druid Street (used to live near there a long time ago). The equality para graph notes that ? The scheme will benefit the wider community by providing some separation between the northern residential side of the street, and the southern residential and commercial side.? Cycle lanes / transport policy used as a form of social engineering to keep different parts of the community apart? Surely not? But if you read more of the report it seems ?There has been historic tension between residents of the Arnold Housing estate on the northern side of Druid Street, and the businesses under the arches on the southern side of Druid Street, due to noise and disruption from loading, and disturbance from late night patrons of the breweries and bars in the arches.? I?m not quite sure how much a cycle lane, even one with a Rediweld Splitter Island, is going to help with that. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7562&LLL

Posted on wrong thread!

Here?s an extract from the council notification: ?When will the measures be implemented? The measures will come into effect at 00.01 on Thursday 17 February 2022, once all the necessary road signs, posts and other related highway works are in place. This is during most local schools? half term so we can minimise disruption. The changes and improvements Timed Restrictions: Hours of timed restrictions reduced from 5 hours to 2.5 hours (8.00 to 9.00am and 3.00pm to 4.30pm) Better Signage Additional advance notification signs along the main roads e.g. Dulwich Common, Lordship Lane, Croxted Road.?

I imagine they?ve chosen a 17 Feb date as it will take a while to get all the new signs sorted out, and presumably the signs on the south circular need to be signed off by TfL- if they have any sense they?ll take the time to do a better job of the signage than they did previously, as poor / badly positioned signage has been the cause of a number of complaints/ challenges to PCNs.