legalalien

Yes I tend to agree kissthisguy. Problem with judicial review is that even if you're right about the process being flawed, the remedy is generally that the decision has to be made again, properly this time, and in the absence of extreme irrationality there's a high risk that the same conclusion will be reached. It's not the courts' job to interfere in the substance of decisions - they're not policy makers (or at least they're not supposed to be - we could have a whole new thread on judicial activism). Human rights etc is a different kettle of fish. Although even then, governments are given a fair bit of leeway in determining appropriate environmental policy and the case may come down to whether an appropriate process has been followed - see for example this case involving the re-routing of a Ukrainian motorway past someone's house https://www.ecolex.org/details/court-decision/grimkovskaya-v-ukraine-ce1179ed-9c69-48f6-8440-792058a58069/. HR cases addressing the effect on people with specific protected characteristics e.g. disability I would think have a greater prospect of success but are likely to result in modifications to schemes rather than a wholesale rethink. Ultimately I think this comes down to politics. So for those opposed to the closures, the issue is probably largely about keeping the issue alive in people's minds until May. disclaimer - although legally qualified I'm no expert in this area so these are just my personal thoughts.

Really? I've long thought it would make a good restaurant.

And hopefully Walters Wine Bar (where Cafe Rouge was) will open just in time for the end of Dry January: https://www.instagram.com/waltersdulwich/?hl=en-gb

Like everything, given the size of the Labour majority, there is an element of pointlessness. However, there is room for the opposition councillors to ask questions, and the committee receives evidence from third party experts on particular topics, which can be a useful source of info.

Not sure that link copied over (for the committee meeting) It?s https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7004

Message deleted as a new thread has been started to discuss LTNs

I see the long running LTN thread has been locked and lounged as a result of the Christmas jumper discussion. Oh, the profanity!

I?m not sure that?s an official Labour campaign jumper, Malumbu, at least now that Sir Keir is in charge. Back to more official matters, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is interviewing Cllrs Rose and Burgess on their portfolios next week https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7004 Might be worth asking some of the LD committee members to ask what plans there are to deal with air pollution on the so-called boundary roads etc - no opportunity for public questions at these committee meetings I don?t believe.

I think that misses Rocket's point, which has been my biggest concern all along - not the pros and cons of this particular issue - which might well be all forgotten in ten years, but rather the flaws in the local government processes, which unless remedied, have potential to affect all local issues going forward. There's an interesting campaign going on in Lambeth, for a move away from the current Cabinet system: https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/make-lambeth-council-work-for-all-voters.html

I put mine out yesterday for our regular Monday collection but it wasn't picked up - fingers crossed for some guys with a truck/cage!

It says it?s being paid out of parking revenue I think.

Final report https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7524 Apparently it will cost a further ?750k to make the measures permanent. Seems like a lot, presumably the cameras have already been paid for? I guess they need to replace all the signage to reflect the changed hours of operation, and do the mandatory advertising and maybe this figure includes the cost of ongoing monitoring? Plus modifications to allow emergency access through the Calton junction.

Good luck with FOI requests to Southwark - I?ve only ever made one, the response was late (after six months) after the ICO intervened, response received literally on the afternoon of the day they specified for a response. Someone asked me to look at an FOI response last year and the council had completely misstated the law as part of their justification for withholding info - notwithstanding their legal obligation to (basically) be helpful. It?s a joke. Meanwhile a local councillor accuses lobby groups of lying when they publish responses to FOI requests. Not sure what to think there. So, on a practical note, submitting an FOI request is not as helpful or useful as people might hope.

I agree. More info in this article https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/do-the-honourable-thing-campaigners-call-for-former-southwark-housing-chief-pollak-to-resign-from-council/ (including some of the details redacted in the report).

I?m just thinking that as the blue badge is (I think?) issued to a person not a vehicle, you?d have to register a particular vehicle with Southwark to get the exemption. I just checked and for the congestion charge, for example, you have to separately register a vehicle to take advantage of the exemption.

For those who followed the Leo Pollak incident, the external solicitors?s report into whether his behaviour breached the Code of Conduct is now on the website https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7252. The draft report apparently found that all of the anonymous tweeting activity was outside the scope of the Code, the final one concludes that the tweets relating to specific housing projects that the councillor was involved with were within scope, but the content of the tweets was such that there was no breach, but operating anonymously in that specific context was problematic. Interesting discussion of the law relating to freedom of speech in this context. And also worth noting that sometimes a political remedy (public outcry leading to resignation) is more effective than a legal one.

Spider69 the adjusted arrangements haven?t come into force yet, you can?t drive that route between 8 and 10am or 3-6pm on Monday to Friday ( I think including public holidays that fall Monday to Friday). There is a plan to exempt all Blue badge holders who are Southwark residents, again I?m not sure that has happened yet, if you haven?t been asked to register I would assume not. ?We currently have Blue Badge exemptions to the camera-controlled closures, which we're planning to extend to all Southwark resident Blue Badge holders across all Streetspace areas. ?

Thanks Penguin68. I think you are probably right But the thread is still useful to keep people up to speed on developments, given the poor state of council engagement / notification of what is planned / going on. I think so, anyway.

I don?t really understand this as have been I?ll and not read data properly so apologies. EDG central is now less than EDG East or South as I understand it. Do we know what EDG central was historically or not? Or has this always been the case or is it a new development or do we not know? If we don?t know then how can we say it?s not due to different choices of route? And the thing about reducing pressure on Townley Road must have had some basis in the data? goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Its not the different choices made - its that the > base count for that section wasn't included before > as (like many on this thread) people assumed it > would be the same as at the junction with Lordship > and its not the case. > > I'd also note that the reduction in traffic at the > central section is even more impressive when you > consider that the vaccination programme has been > run with TJ as a hub centre for Southwark GPs so > has generated lots of extra trips for people > getting to appointments, especially given the > absurdly ample parking on site. > > > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes, the results of consultation should be used > > carefully, but the point is that they should be > > used, with views acknowledged and not ignored > > completely. It feels (to me and apparently to > > quite a few others) as though the consultations > > have only been done because they are a legal > > requirement and not with a genuine open mind and > a > > desire to improve predetermined plans. Whether > > that?s true, or a perception caused by poor > > communication by officers and councillors (in > > particular councillors on social media), who > > knows? > > > > Cllr Rose has said in a couple of recent > meetings > > that the council need to learn from the Dulwich > > experience. I take that as an acknowledgment > that > > it has been handled somewhat less than > perfectly. > > Ex-D I note you haven?t responded to my > > suggestions that repeat ETMOs on champion Hill > and > > failing to include school input on MGN > (resulting > > in revocation and the temporary traffic order) > > aren?t things that inspire confidence. Not that > > you have to, of course! > > > > Leaving aside everything else, I?d have a lot > more > > respect for the council if they could put their > > hands up and organise some meetings allowing > > people to vent about process and discuss - not > the > > substantive details of this scheme - but how > they > > can improve what seem to be fairly poor > engagement > > processes. I would be happy to volunteer time > for > > that sort of process review exercise. I wonder > > whether it sits with the transport department > or > > the cabinet member in charge of engagement > > generally? There seem to be similar problems > with > > housing issues. > > > > As Christmas approaches, maybe time to spend > time > > reflecting on and trying to better understand > each > > others? perspectives and dialling things down a > > bit? Just finished a documentary on Amazon > Prime > > entitled ?The Street? from 2019, dealing with > > gentrification in Hoxton and different > > perspectives on that. Well worth a watch. > > > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Street_(2019_f > > > ilm) > > > > All the best to everyone for the festive > season, > > in difficult times. > > > > PS I will of course get out a map at some point > > and try to understand the central EDG ?Bermuda > > Triangle? issue. I?m going to guess it?s > parents > > on the way to private schools choosing Townley > > Road over Melbourne Grove and left into EDG - > that > > would seem consistent with the original > rationale > > of removing the MGS closure to relieve pressure > on > > Townley?

Update on flood alleviation scheme https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50028083

Yes, the results of consultation should be used carefully, but the point is that they should be used, with views acknowledged and not ignored completely. It feels (to me and apparently to quite a few others) as though the consultations have only been done because they are a legal requirement and not with a genuine open mind and a desire to improve predetermined plans. Whether that?s true, or a perception caused by poor communication by officers and councillors (in particular councillors on social media), who knows? Cllr Rose has said in a couple of recent meetings that the council need to learn from the Dulwich experience. I take that as an acknowledgment that it has been handled somewhat less than perfectly. Ex-D I note you haven?t responded to my suggestions that repeat ETMOs on champion Hill and failing to include school input on MGN (resulting in revocation and the temporary traffic order) aren?t things that inspire confidence. Not that you have to, of course! Leaving aside everything else, I?d have a lot more respect for the council if they could put their hands up and organise some meetings allowing people to vent about process and discuss - not the substantive details of this scheme - but how they can improve what seem to be fairly poor engagement processes. I would be happy to volunteer time for that sort of process review exercise. I wonder whether it sits with the transport department or the cabinet member in charge of engagement generally? There seem to be similar problems with housing issues. As Christmas approaches, maybe time to spend time reflecting on and trying to better understand each others? perspectives and dialling things down a bit? Just finished a documentary on Amazon Prime entitled ?The Street? from 2019, dealing with gentrification in Hoxton and different perspectives on that. Well worth a watch. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Street_(2019_film) All the best to everyone for the festive season, in difficult times. PS I will of course get out a map at some point and try to understand the central EDG ?Bermuda Triangle? issue. I?m going to guess it?s parents on the way to private schools choosing Townley Road over Melbourne Grove and left into EDG - that would seem consistent with the original rationale of removing the MGS closure to relieve pressure on Townley?

An update - I posted mine on Sat on before the postbox pick up time and got results early this morning, so still a reasonably quick turn around time. It took me longer to get the test kit!

I just googled and it?s confusing, either 50+ or 25+ https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/cyclingevent/index.php/programme/rachel-aldred/ https://www.roadsafetytrust.org.uk/trustees/dr-rachel-aldred But given peer review seems to be such an amorphous concept and vary across disciplines does it really make a difference? I was more surprised when I realised Prof Aldred was a sociologist rather than an engineer / traffic planner. I don?t think she?s ever pretended otherwise but the Professor of Transport title led me to make assumptions.

I walk that way quite a lot and there does seem to be more traffic on Ashbourne, would be useful to monitor it. Map on my iPad has its own unique version of the closures - see attached. Seems to think Calton/ court / DV is open as well.

Why not all the way up to chesterfield - otherwise chesterfield will get the traffic?