legalalien

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.

I note that the post box address for the Lambeth enforcement department is in Winchester - as usual council actions being taken by teams remote from the situation on the ground (admittedly less significant than scheme design being carried out remotely but there is a theme).... Slightly tongue in cheek, from a quick look at the regs the requirement for consent seems not to apply to CLASS E An advertisement relating specifically to a pending Parliamentary, European Parliamentary or local government election or a referendum under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000(1). (See reg 1(3), reg 4(2) and Schedule 1). Would writing ?Vote Labour Out in May 2022? on the sign solve the problem I wonder? Also, it?s worth noting that the council have discretion effectively not to enforce these regs if public amenity etc is not affected (see Reg 3(3)), so it?s not a simple case of saying that ?of course the council should enforce the law). Regs here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/783/contents/made

One of the Colston 4 was on Politics Live yesterday and suggested that their main defence had been based on the decision in Ziegler that sometimes, depending on particular circumstances, the human right to freedom of expression can provide a lawful excuse for breach of criminal law, there the active obstruction of a highway. Would be interesting to see how that argument stacks up here where there?s no obstruction at all? https://caat.org.uk/news/the-ziegler-case-direct-action-the-law/

DKH I agree about the LTNs not going away. It may be just me, but I won?t be voting on the issue of LTNs, I?ll be voting based on the behaviour of local councillors during the process around the LTNs, in light of the extensive opposition from local constituents.

Although, DKH, I suspect that it's also true that people who are pissed off about something are more motivated to vote in local government elections - so there may be some truth in One Dulwich's claim!

That's true. Loose language.

According to t'internet male brown voles can be up to 20cm (head and body) as opposed to 25cm (head and body) for a rat: https://www.discoverwildlife.com/how-to/identify-wildlife/how-to-tell-the-difference-between-a-brown-rat-and-a-water-vole They're a lot bigger than your field vole. https://www.mammal.org.uk/species-hub/full-species-hub/discover-mammals/species-water-vole/

The Times figures seem to come from this report, which is quite interesting reading - DoT monitoring seems to be focusing on the data from the trials, but as the report points out the bigger risks and casualties are coming from illegal private use and there needs to be a way of capturing that data https://www.pacts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/PACTS-The-safety-of-private-e-scooters-in-the-UK-Report-3.0.pdf The committee has an ongoing spreadsheet on its website https://www.pacts.org.uk/assessing-the-safety-of-private-e-scooter-use-in-the-uk-pacts-research/

Interesting article in today?s Times about e-scooter injuries and in particular the fact that anyone injured while illegally riding an escooter on the road or footpath may not be able to sue for personal injury -there?s a test case upcoming. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/74594ca8-7002-11ec-9b00-681c4404af37?shareToken=a14fe97a19a18bfaf4e75cbfe47fdc0d 91 serious injuries and nine fatalities last year seems a lot for a mode of travel that is only in the limited trial phase.

I don't remember actually as I'm not in GG ward, plus as a non-driver I don't have an interest in parking there (and self confessedly, pre-COVID, paid little attention to local politics :) The points being made about councillors sound very familiar...

Well, you're never going to get a councillor who agrees with you on everything, so the best thing to hope for is one who has the ability to be objective about their own views and prejudices and recognises their obligations to fairly represent those who don't share their views, and gives airtime/ proper consideration to positions that they don't instinctively agree with. I don't know whether James is that person or not, but that's what I would hope for. That's the point CPR Dave makes above.

The LTN issue might be *the* issue locally, but I suspect that in other parts of the borough infill housing and the poor state of council stock may be a big factor. It will be interesting to see what happens given turnout in these elections is generally so low. Agree that candidate selection is critical, in local elections I generally vote for the candidates rather than on a party basis, so often end up voting for candidates from different parties.

We?re getting off subject from the LTNs again, but would just like to say that while I?m a critic of the cabinet style of government and whipping arrangements that seem to be operating, my observation from watching the various meetings on YouTube is that there are still one or two Labour councillors who still seem to prioritise representing their constituents over toeing the party line and I?d put Cllr Renata Hamvas (who sometimes appears on this forum) on that list. I seem to recall her and Cllr Mills being told off by the powers that be for daring to discuss some housing issues directly with constituents without a housing department minder being present.

One Dulwich could stand in the DV/ GG seats, but even if they won them, the reality is that they wouldn't have sufficient power to do anything about the LTNs. The ward councillors don't control what happens in their wards. The way the system works means that the party with the majority has all the power. As with central government. So electing them would send a message to Labour locally/ "punish" existing councillors, but probably not enable a change in policy. But even given that, I would favour having some independent ward councillors who could at least act as an "awkward squad" and better represent the variety of views held within the ward rather than follow the directions of the party whip. Easy for me to say that and expect some unknown people to step up and stand, of course. Both LDs and the Greens favour the LTNs in principle, I believe. It will be interesting to hear what if anything they have to say in the build up to the elections.