legalalien

Absolutely right, but it?s reasonable to expect compliance with the associated safeguards laid down in the legislation / regulations. For example, a max 18 month period (I?m not convinced by the two successive ETROs at Champion Hill), appropriate pre implementation consultation with emergency services, and proper well thought out consultation before things are made permanent with all voices given an equal chance to be heard. There seems to have been something of a move from public meetings to small group meetings with individual residents associations and I?m not sure I like it. And the point made above stands - surely the input from the school and issues around the school gate should have been picked up in the detailed consultation before the October order was made? They?re revoking it before it has even been implemented, and we?re back to yet another temporary order (at a further cost of ?5k). It doesn?t exactly inspire confidence. exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How much longer can they use the cover of Covid > for the experimental/temporary TOs - it seems > ludicrous they can still invoke them two years on > - will this ability to avoid talking to residents > continue forever - is this not a classic example > of a council abusing the powers given to them in a > time of emergency? > > Experimental Traffic Orders can be put in at any > time. Section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act > 1984. > It's not an abuse of power at all, it's > specifically within legislation. > > It's actually a far better way of doing things > than endless rounds of consultations and what ifs > and modelling and "well we think x.." and then > spending ??? rebuilding an entire junction. > > Get on and do it, monitor it, decide if it has or > hasn't had the desired effect and then either > remove it, adjust it or make it permanent. Answers > via a mix of consultations and real life "we can > see what is happening and why".

Not sure it?s that, as both experimental and temporary orders are available in non-emergency times. I just don?t understand why the school?s input wasn?t solicited and taken into account as part of the consultation. Maybe inefficiency, or maybe wanting to be seen to compromise and then realising it wouldn?t work (or maybe waiting for the movement data). Did someone mention that the main entrance to the school is to move to EDG? Maybe this new arrangement is linked to the delay in finalising funding / kicking off the construction contract which might delay the change of entrance and make safety at the current entrance more of an issue? Also think I saw a revised temporary closure on Gilkes, removing parking bays etc outside St Barnabas Hall to facilitate the construction project. Until Oct 2022 if I read it correctly, will look properly next time I go past.

Not sure if people have seen this - looks like they are turning the Melbourne Grove North closure around again ie keeping it at the Grove Vale end? Haven?t read it yet. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50028079 Temporary order to protect the safety of pupils at Charter ED. Getting all very messy now in terms of consulting on experimental orders, and then revoking them and putting temporary ones in thereby bypassing further consultation.

Pity you?ve missed the Neighbourhood Funds round. Think there?s the kernel of a good idea in there though.

No details yet but council are applying to reduce the intakes at Ilderton, Dog Kennel Hill, Coburg and English Martyrs. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50028068 ETA here is the report https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103860/Report%20-%20Variation%20to%20Published%20Admissions%20Numbers.pdf Of the various areas Dulwich has the lowest level of overcapacity with 29 surplus primary places this year.

Talking about councillors, an updated political ward map has just been posted on the website and I see one of the Labour councillors is now an independent (Cllr Fleming in Faraday). Is that a recent development? I googled but couldn?t see anything. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103709/Political%20Ward%20Map%20December%202021.pdf

Just had an email with a 22 Dec response date (first email in the last couple of weeks, ?Dear all, Thank you for your continued interest in the Dulwich Streetspace measures. We would like to advise that the all latest monitoring data has now been published here. We want to give everyone an opportunity to reflect on this information, which has been central to our decision-making process . Therefore, if you wish to comment on the new data or the decisions that we have published, the deadline for comments has been extended to Wednesday 22 December 2021. A full report on the representations and the associated officer recommendations is available to view here. It is really important to note that, although this marks the end of the current constitutional process, we will continue to monitor the situation in the Dulwich area, meet with residents and other stakeholders, and to review the progress of the measures against our objectives.?

I think they have to use the traffic fine funds for road etc infrastructure don?t they- I thought they were ringfenced? In any case, they?re built into the council budget already and there?s still if I recall correctly something like ?6mill in efficiency savings to be found in order to balance the budget - I wouldn?t get too excited just yet ? (See here for draft budget proposals https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103542/Report%20Policy%20and%20Resources%20Strategy%202022-23%20to%202024-25%20update.pdf )

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Data would have been collected in the same way > before installation of LTNs so I don?t see what > difference that would make. Is that directed at my comment? If so I don?t understand your point. What I?m saying is that because most of the closures are timed, the traffic and bus delays caused by them occur only during the closure periods, so it would be useful to know what the additional delays during those periods is. There is one map/chart aiming to show that but it doesn?t tell you the actual delays being caused. It would be interesting to know whether it?s two minutes or twenty two (I?m exaggerating obviously). ETA - should have said, on some roads only during the closure periods, and on other roads (e.g. Dulwich Village) immediately before and after the closure periods

As someone who has walked up and down East Dulwich Grove and speculated about the scale of construction works at Charter ED many times over the last couple of years I found this report about the contract for Phase 2 construction works quite interesting and thought others might as well. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103674/Report%20Gateway%202%20-%20Contract%20Award%20Approval%20to%20award%20the%20main%20works%20contract%20to%20deliver%20phase%202%20of%20T.pdf Looks as though things are a bit tricky as the cost of building supplies is skyrocketing meaning at least a ?1.5 million funding shortfall which the council are asking DfE?s funding agency to cover. Given the time critical nature of the project it?s not feasible to re-tender the contract to try and get a cheaper price. The price with the selected contractor has been negotiated down as far as possible. If DfE doesn?t come to the party with funding the design may need to be revisited slightly - the example given is removal of the hall. The council is anxious to avoid delays that might cause problems with expanding intake and the provision of 20 new ASD places. Currently projected total cost of build is just shy of ?43 million, of which ?5 million is a council capital contribution (made to cover a funding shortfall on the original design, seems Southwark wanted something slightly better than central govt would fund) and ?900k is council money for the new ASD resource.

Surely the chart to look at re buses is the one showing changes at peak times when the timed closures are in effect, since this is when the problem congestion /biggest delays occur? If you have to travel to work, school etc during the peak and your journey is made problematically longer, it doesn?t help you if this is averaged out by slightly faster times over the rest of the day. The peak chart is expressed in standard deviation terms, you can see there?s an increase of more than 1SD on Dulwich Common, Croxted at both am and pm peaks and also on EDG, Grove Vale, Red Post Hill at the pm peak, but as its just ?more than? it?s hard to get an idea of the scale of the delay, I think?

Ok got it, Oct only features for EDG on page 39 and no October data for other sites? A bit odd and easy to miss in a section entitled sept data. Why are car/LGv numbers given for October but cycle numbers only given for September? Consistency would be better/ more reassuring?

Confused now. The only main report I can see online is September data and not October. Maybe I am missing something. The updated EqIA is here in case anyone is interested. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77418/Equality-Impact-Assessment-Final-_CAE_Dulwich-Streetspace_Nov-2021.pdf Loving this caveat: ?Note: CAE are not legal experts and, as such, this review is not a definitive legal view but rather an interpretation of whether the Streetspace measures impact on any of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act.? It?s an interesting read. Many things ?have the potential? to be positive/ the ?intended impact? will do x versus a number of things actually reported to be negative. Selective (!) quote: ?Negative impact: ? Poor public transport: All expressed need for better public transport services. ? Older residents are more likely to favour outright removal of the scheme rather than modification of the measures or a different measure. The data indicates support for the ?Streets for People? aims and filter at Dulwich Village broadly declines with the age of the respondent. ? Older people and people with disabilities were moderately more interested in changing the overall scheme ? with permit access or reducing timed closures ? than in improving kerbs and crossings. ? People of Black and Asian and Minority Ethnic backgrounds tended to be more strongly against the measures and disagree with the ?Streets for People? aims. It is unclear from the data what the cause of this trend is ? it could relate to the location, age profile or employment profile of respondents ? this should be further investigated. ? The majority of young people (aged 16-24 years) report negative impact of the schemes. ? School survey of 196 school children indicated majority opposition to the scheme, many more (46%) did not like the changes compared to 29% who do. Positive impact ? The majority of pregnant women and those with new babies felt they were positively impacted by the changes. ? The majority of children and young people aged 16 years or under report positive impact. ? Results from the school survey of 196 school children: some reported they found it easier to walk and cycle to school, with levels of walking and cycling going up 26% and use of car to travel to school dropping by 19%, and easier to cross the road,?

Isn?t that September data? I?ll have to read again properly. Sorry for any inappropriate aspersion - I thought the monitoring report was a September one. Is Is the October data referenced in the decision report and council haven?t released the underlying data yet? (Not expecting you to check - I?ll have a look when I get a chance!)

Out of interest Goldilocks how is it that you have the October data? Are you involved with the council, is the council making it available to a select group, or is it publicly available and you could send us all a link? I say that as I?ve been keen all along for the council to make raw data available to all at the same time and without curation. I?m as much concerned about process as outcome as process issues apply to a much wider range of things.

I am just going to repeat that I think everything would be much clearer and we (me) would get a much better view of what is going on if all the data was presented in numbers rather than percentages. I have just emailed my Streetspace comments to the council, explaining that I understand that a consultation isn't a referendum, but that it has a point viz enabling officers to take advantage of the significant resource that is local knowledge, to supplement the desk-based studies being done at Tooley Street or some outsourced location elsewhere. I think it's the council that's mistakenly characterising it as a popularity poll, that they can then justify ignoring on the "not a referendum" basis. Of course they won't take any notice, but at least responding helps avert the "not so many objections, people must have come around to our view" narrative. Saw a sign on a lamppost today suggesting that parking etc in Gilkes Place (between DV and the closure point) is being suspended to enable construction work on the Aquinna thing until (I think) October 2022. Will go and re-read it properly later.

Latest summary from council https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review Link to monitoring info at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review?chapter=4

Mine only came on Sat pm so maybe delivery delay?

Two final pages attached

Here are some pics of the hard copy letter. Haven?t had an email so not sure about the link, the latest newsletter doesn?t seem to be on the online page yet.

Mine, like last time, was in a plain sealed envelope with nothing on the outside to indicate it was from the council. Pretty much identical to the junk mail I received from a local real estate agent on the same day. Almost went into the recycling unopened - although tbh I?m not sure opening it made any difference given the predictability of the content.

Interesting though that as I understand it from the report linked above the Labour council chose to freeze council tax from 2010 to 2018 and subtly suggest that they?d now prefer CPI increases to the central govt imposed cap. (I may be wrong - this is a subject I?ve only just starting paying much attention to so am relying on the docs that the council put out.) I?d like some proper and better-communicated-to-the-public clarity about who is responsible for what and the basis on which they are expected to fund it. I suspect most people have no idea, and really they should,to enable democracy to function properly. Politicians, local and central, blaming each other without going into detail is unhelpful.

Brilliant - so I received the hard copy newsletter in an unmarked envelope this afternoon (Sat 11th) showing a deadline of today. And haven?t had a message about the extension to the 15th. Along with loads of others presumably. Excellent engagement, as always. Not.

If I understand this recent council funding strategy paper correctly, the current policy is to change the balance between central and local funding with more emphasis on local taxation. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103542/Report%20Policy%20and%20Resources%20Strategy%202022-23%20to%202024-25%20update.pdfibthiught this paragraph was interesting given ongoing debates about gentrification: ?The ongoing move to self-sufficient local government demonstrates the importance of Southwark?s capital investment programme within the borough, either as the lead authority or with partners. Regeneration is one of the key routes to ensuring sustainable budget sources as we move closer to reliance on local taxation, either through business rates or through council tax as well as increasing opportunities across the borough for quality of life, jobs and environmental improvements.? The report isn?t exciting but quite an interesting read to see where the council?s finances are at. Links to the Appendixes are at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7017, you can see where they are looking at making efficiency savings, source additional income (LTN fines!), and proposed changes to various fees and charges for 2022/23.

Indeed, here?s the final report for those who haven?t seen it https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103597/Report%20Determination%20of%20Objections%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20Review.pdf Melbourne South closure being retained under a temporary traffic order ( under officer delegated power), apparently due to a concern that reopening would dump more traffic on East Dulwich Grove. ( I assume that?s an order under section 14 of the Act, can?t really see how that?s justified under the statutory wording but let?s wait and see the order. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/14). Not letting regulatory requirements get in the way of a good scheme seems to have been something of a theme so far. Apparently Sept data shows a continued reduction in traffic on boundary roads? Updated equalities assessment suggests ?that the groups who are car dependent because of their protected characteristic should be assisted by the Council to mitigate any disadvantages they may suffer. Officers are cognisant of these groups, however on balance the benefits of the Dulwich Streetspace schemes outweigh the harm that these may cause.? First time I?ve seen rain gardens mentioned - I reckon susdrains are coming our way. eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I received an update on plans from the council > today, and I opened it with some trepidation, > thinking they might decide to just scrap the whole > LTN based on the noisy objections like those we > see here, reversing the gains we've made in ease > of walking and cycling on Melbourne Grove/Calton > Avenue, but apparently it's even better news than > that, they've decided not to proceed with the > Melbourne Grove south reopening. If I understood > correctly, that's great news. Reopening that route > as a LL to EDG rat-run would have reversed some of > the fantastic gains that we've made due to the LTN > - in particular the ability to go from ED station > to the library along a largely traffic-free route.