legalalien

Consultation on double yellow lines on Abbotswood a road in case anyone is interested. Closes 31 January. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/abbotswoodroaddoubleyellowlines/

Compulsory reading - council?s vision for its transport policy going forward and its plan to revamp its Movement Plan which is the agreed document that informs detailed transport decisions going forward. No surprises, they are quite keen on a relatively car free future (while noting that a lot depends on central government giving TfL lots of dosh for public transport). It?s on the agenda for next week?s cabinet meeting (1 February), the deadline for public questions at that cabinet meeting is tomorrow (Wednesday) https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s104619/Report%20Movement%20Plan%20update.pdf https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s104619/Report%20Movement%20Plan%20update.pdf The monitoring report looks interesting. Particularly like that the only metric used to assess whether everyone is satisfied with their local area as a place to live, is how many people live within 400m of the strategic cycle network! Not planning to read the whole thing in detail - first impression is it?s a real mix of generic UK data, material cut and pasted from various central sources, a few specific bits of local data (lots on PCNs) and some notes where things aren?t being measured. (Anyone interested in reading the docs - suggest you save them locally, they?ll probably be taken off the website once they realise people are reading them, based on past experience...)

This. Things are worse for those who walk and use public transport but don?t drive. I?m tempted to have more delivered as walking is less pleasant (now not pleasant at all a lot of the time). Artemis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You should try walking down ED Grove at 8:00am > in > > the morning - stationary traffic all the way > down > > the road, cyclists and scooters on the pavement > - > > just an unpleasant walk now, used to love my > walk > > to Herne Hill station - now some mornings I > feel > > very asthmatic. So many school kids walking to > > school in this pollution too. I can't > understand > > what this Council is thinking, it's obviously > > diverting traffic onto other roads. > > Road pricing yes, better local public transport > > yes, but making dirty air ghettos - no! > > Yes. Yet again and again we are told that the > LTNs have made walking ?easier? and ?better?. I > never found any difficulty walking around the area > (if I go for a ?leisure? or ?exercise? walk, I > would choose a park - if I need to get anywhere > for practical reasons, it?s very difficult to > limit the journey to one of the LTN roads as > everything ?useful? (shops, medical centres, > public transport) inevitably involves going on or > via a road that now has more traffic. Therefore, > walking it smellier, more unhealthy and worse. In > my view.

??.the issue becomes who are people more annoyed with?. True, but a sad indictment of the state of politics.

It?s an alliance involving One Dulwich and various residents associations and traders groups - if anything I would have thought that would be likely to make it less party political rather than more? That?s assuming One Dulwich itself has some sort of political affiliation. It might or might not? march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich Alliance isn?t a separate group though, > it?s an ?alliance? of One Dulwich with a few other > groups. So the claim that One Dulwich was ever not > politically motivated is dubious.

Update on Wood Vale traffic calming measures https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50026426

Back on the subject of political groups and the allocation of committee places: it seems that some councils include ?solo? independent councillors in their calculation to allocate spots, but Southwark is not one of them, there has to be a ?political group? of at least two councillors in order to be included in the calculation. However, I think two independent councillors could declare themselves a ?group? for this purpose. See https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/FACTSHEET%20-%20Proportionality.pdf And regs here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1990/1553/contents/made. So, further to my previous post, I think two councillors *just* concerned about LTNs could stand as independents, declare themselves to be a ?political group? and potentially get themselves on a committee (or two). But still couldn?t do much in reality. Given some of the posts above regarding factionalism in the local Labour Party, I wonder whether post- election, councillors on the left of the party might declare themselves a ?political group? for this purpose to ensure they have plenty of representation on committees, if internal Labour politics didn?t already yield that result. I suspect this would be prevented by party rules and a whipping operation though! Always good to learn something new about the operation of local government.

I?ve mentioned before that I tend to try to vote for the person not the party in LG elections ...so if either of CR or TH convince me that they?ll genuinely try to listen to and represent the views of all constituents in my ward then I don?t care if they are Tory or not. The chance of a Southwark wide swing putting the Tories in charge at Tooley Street seems quite slim, and I think a few dissenting voices would be a good thing. I don?t have a view on these particular candidates yet though. Maybe be they?ll turn up here at some point or hold a meeting to tell people their thoughts. Do we know who the candidates for other parties are, yet?

I believe the two candidates referred to on LBC are Clive Rates and Tristan Honeyborne (sp?) who are standing on a conservative ticket. Because of the way the Southwark constitution works, to have any chance of getting on a committee (where you could at least get your voice a bit better heard, even if you?ll be continuously outvoted), you have to be part of a formal political grouping of two or more councillors. So it makes sense for even relatively independent councillors to stand on some sort of party ticket. I don?t know how formal a ?new? political grouping would have to be or how hard it would be to set it up. You get a flavour for how it works from this doc https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s76604/Report%20-%20Calculation%20of%20Political%20Balance%20proportionality.pdf

Interesting piece on Sky about how poorly the changes to the Highway Code have been publicised https://news.sky.com/story/highway-code-revised-cyclists-given-priority-in-new-rules-as-drivers-ordered-to-keep-15-metres-distance-when-overtaking-12521747 Highway Code revised: Cyclists given priority in new rules as drivers ordered to keep 1.5-metres distance when overtaking

I thought the new "give way to pedestrians waiting to cross" rule only applied to junctions that vehicles/ bikes were turning into or out of. So they wouldn't apply where the vehicle or bike is going straight ahead - I don't think. unless there's a zebra crossing? Although from this document, the driver version of the rule doesn't seem consistent with the pedestrian version of teh rule tbh. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1041273/the-highway-code-alteration-to-the-highway-code.pdf

Interesting discussion around the oversupply of primary spaces at Cabinet this week - listen to the council officer from 37 mins onward. The situation with the reduction in numbers at a few schools now is only the beginning, it seems - there will be more mergers, closures, reductions in intakes. That said, at this stage Dulwich is not where the capacity problems are most acute.

I think the BBC article says initially a small daily fee but that the Mayor says in the longer term pay per mile will/ should be a thing? https://cities-today.com/london-mayor-calls-for-pay-per-mile-driving-charge/

I?m all for a user charge. Cynically, the LTNs increase mileage so I imagine the mayor will want more of them to maximise the revenue raised by any new pay per mile scheme...

I've nearly been taken out twice by the same woman and her child on Woodwarde, in the closure times where there are no cars on the road to be seen. And there's another lady who rides her cargo bike down half moon lane on the pavement, again not during peak periods, and has forced me to step into the road several times without so much as a nod or a "sorry".

is this maybe what you saw Rockets? I have a practical question. when I walked past JAGS on Friday one lane was temporarily closed, and it seemed (need to go back and check) that there was a traffic counter level with the bus stop (and at that point in time the closure). If an eastbound car has to swerve around a closure or a bus, and travels eastbound in the westbound lane (ie on the "wrong" side of the road), does the counter count it as an eastbound vehicle or a westbound vehicle? If the counter can't tell, then it doesn't make sense to locate counters near bus stops?

I?ve come across a number of north Londoners over the years who have mistakenly assumed that the South Circular resembles the North Circular - which in general it doesn?t. Cue lots of late arrivals to sports fixtures south of the river.

Ex-D, Personally I'm in favour of road user pricing, and a requirement for online businesses to make a minimum per delivery charge (that might help nudge people to rationalise the number of deliveries they have and stop the business of ordering multiple sizes of things and sending back the ones that don't fit, for example). I take the point that successive governments have been unwilling to bite the bullet on user pricing. I could live with a series of smaller LTN areas that enabled gradual change - I think what has been done here in Dulwich is too ambitious and is trying to be all things to all people, and in the particular circumstances, the 24/7 closure of DV is at the heart of the problem. I think the last point is quite unfair to local residents who have expressed concern about the consequences. Plenty of people know people who live on the affected boundary roads, and can see the unfairness both in particular circumstances and generally, without a sudden "deep commitment to racial justice", as you put it. Do you really think Southwark are going to properly monitor and tweak their plans - particularly after they will (undoubtedly) have started an expensive build out at the junction? I don't have any confidence that will be the case. (I'm also still not confident that the "benefits" being trumpeted by Southwark are real, given the way they've been choosing to present the data and the unusual background circumstances during the pandemic. Let's see.)

At least we didn?t have that Philip Normal chap who has just resigned as a Lambeth councillor. https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2022/01/philip-normal-resigns-as-lambeth-councillor-after-shocking-social-media-posts-revealed/amp/. The Oval ward has an LTN, but is now down two out of three councillors as apparently one of the others is missing in action. New cycle hangar going in on Cornflower Terrace: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7540

Overview and Scrutiny meeting tonight - Cllr Rose unable to attend (to be interviewed re her portfolio) as unwell. Cllr Burgess apparently decided not to come either as her portfolio is closely related - apparently an email sent to committee members late yesterday to that effect and no objection. Cllr Chamberlain suggested that was very late notice, he hadn?t been aware and that Cllr Burgess? clean air portfolio was an important stand alone issue that he?d have liked to ask questions on. She wasn?t there (chair says she was unavailable anyway) so seems is postponed to an unspecified future date. One way of avoiding scrutiny I guess. Similarly,the committee is only now approving minutes from 3 March last year when most of the current committee members weren?t even there - that?s how far behind the minutes are. Again LDs expressing concern.

See attached message from Cllr McAsh in this month?s SE22 mag. Interesting re Labour selection etc. Can someone explain the political leanings of those who are ?Labour and Cooperative? members in two or three sentences? I?ve read the history of the alliance but still not sure what it means in practical terms.

Ex-D - I interpret your post as saying that because the Dulwich scheme doesn?t go far enough it can?t and won?t work - it has all the features you mention - timed (now reduced timed) closures, people rescheduling their journeys (with congestion before and after the timed closures), confused drivers following buses and each other through bus gates. Can we agree the scheme is poorly designed, even though we teach that conclusion for different reasons, perhaps?

Just to add, here is a link to the petition. Given it was started by the local ward councillor, it's difficult to accept that there weren't serious plans in place to reduce intake and switch sites. I see that Cllr Hamvas signed it as well. https://www.change.org/p/keep-ivydale-school-as-a-2-site-school

The trees on our street were collected on Monday I think, they left mine, presumably because it?s on the large size (not a monster but I guess it might be six foot one or something). I?ve paid someone to come and take it away. There are an awful lot about the place, I agree.

Update - schools admission arrangements are on the agenda for next weeks Cabinet meeting and looks as though they are now also consulting to reduce the reception admission number at Ivydale from 90 to 60. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s104236/Report%20Admission%20Arrangements%20for%20Community%20Primary%20Schools%202023.pdf ETA: seems the situation with Ivydale is fast moving. this article on 7 Jan suggests the reduction in intake and a move back to a single site is proposed; followed by a petition launched by the local Labour councillor, and a denial from the cabinet member that the reduction is happening https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/new-nunhead-school-building-to-close-four-years-after-it-was-opened/ Then today Southwark News reporting a Uturn and the fact that the report prepared for Cabinet will be "urgently updated". https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/ivydale-nunhead-school-not-considering-cutting-intake-in-southwark-council-u-turn/ The documents on the website appear to have been updated from the ones I linked this morning - the link is no longer working and the replacement documents don't refer to Ivydale.