legalalien

Mr Bennet I believe. Brideshead Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who says ?delighted us long enough? > > Lol?

interesting recent review of literature here https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/27/5/490 Injuries mostly falling off type injuries rather than collisions with other road users. Significant cost/ burden on A&E/ health services....

Speaking of consultations, the deputation from the Southwark residents and tenants association is giving a speech fairly critical of Southwark's consultation processes at the Cabinet meeting this morning (streaming on youtube, can be watched back later). "Residents should not be treated as obstacles to be overcome."

People drive and floss it seems. Not to be recommended - bad things can happen https://jmedicalcasereports.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1752-1947-2-78

I suspect Ruffers is correct. Apparently it has been a thing in the US for a while. https://www.instagram.com/pickuppicks/?hl=en-gb

Thought people might be interested in seeing the plans for the (currently derelict) East Lodge at the cemetery. It?s on the agenda for the planning subcommittee today https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103322/Report.pdf If like me you wondered what it looked like originally, pic here https://www.rmears.co.uk/2020/11/12/rma-have-started-work-on-phase-ii-of-the-restoration-of-the-east-lodge-of-the-nunhead-cemetery-chapel-southwark/

Haven?t read it yet but at least looks like an incremental approach of building an in house skills base and focusing first on reducing consultancy, maintenance etc rather than setting up a full bells and whistles company to compete with the private sector. Deserves its own thread, but link here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103374/Report%20Southwark%20Construction%20Company%20report.pdf

Few things to flag: Link to video of scrutiny committee meeting on Weds is at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7003, with Cllr Rose?s presentation about an hour and a bit in. No particularly incisive questions, a transcript of Cllr Newens commentary is doing the rounds on Twitter - apparently the Croxted Road situation is down to Lambeth and TfL! Peckham Lane / Peckham Rye cycle scheme being made permanent: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50027998. Report notes that traffic filters initially included in plan weren?t installed, and that ? The Council are proposing a wider scheme in the area, which will aim to reduce traffic volumes and complement the highway measures proposed in this report. This scheme is currently in outline design with further consultation planned for mid-2022.? Existing measures have decent level of support. School streets for Rye Oak and Comber primaries made permanent https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7504. A decision on a new batch of school streets has been added into the Forward Plan for decision in Feb but no indication which schools yet. Next cabinet meeting is on Tuesday 7th. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7017. The new Southwark Plan (which dictates planning policy) is due to be adopted ( note it will be subject to ?early review? to beef up climate strategy commitments). To see the long, complex plan you can click on the link at the bottom of the report document listed in the agenda. P48 to P54 of the document deal with transport issues related to new developments including levels of car and cycle parks and charging points related to new developments. Proposed bid for TfL funding also on cabinet agenda here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103397/Report%20and%20appendix%20Approval%20of%20TfL%20grant%20submission.pdf appendix gives a vague idea of upcoming priorities. ( unrelated to traffic, also on the agenda is for Southwark to set up its own in house construction company to build council housing).

thanks that's really useful. When I was a child our school trips were always to places like food processing factories (and farms). Do you know whether Veolia do school trips to their recycling centre? I imagine that might be quite educational.

I found this blog quite an interesting read. Some parallels with the LTN situation. https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/2021/09/01/filling-you-in-local-resistance-to-southwark-council-infill-development-on-estates/ ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yet another example of how Southwark council > ignores people > > https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/anti-infill-p > rotesters-march-on-southwark-councils-tooley-stree > t-offices-again/?fbclid=IwAR2GyPQaZR5hE0m_OkrMpypD > fJEQFkbkPNbmKvSs750FDB9qErMPiQl5cTA

Well, the scary Southwark Cyclists lady did say that it was imperative that Southwark adopt the five mandated policies before the May 2022 elections. Perhaps she?s realised that there will be an electoral backlash, even if the councillors haven?t... Or is it that Labour see their biggest threat in Southwark as the Greens?

Found video of Council assembly meeting. You can hear Cllr McAsh telling everyone how brave they?ve been in not buckling to constituent pressure over LTNS. Just before 38 minutes. Similarly Cllr Caldwell at around 50 mins talks about the council ?holding its nerve? on the Walworth LTN. Special congrats to Cllr Rose for leading by example...with her bold and brave leadership on the issue.. Cllr Rose also gets a shout out from Cllr Dennis for her hard work and resilience (around 1:04). The Living Streets and Southwark Cyclists bit starts at 1:06. Link on this page https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7043.

I would rather the council did nothing rather than both making things worse overall and creating inequalities. I also have well-rehearsed concerns about the way they go about things and I don?t apologise for criticising on that front as I think the proper workings of democracy are very important. Does anyone have a proper working knowledge of TfL?s charging powers under Schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act? Does TfL / to what extent do boroughs have powers to implement road charging (eg for home deliveries)? I will try and read it properly at some stage but I?m sure someone will know. Malumbu (if you?re still reading)?

It will be interesting to see the detail of proposed govt regs to require new homes to have car charging points and how they deal with new builds without car parking spaces - will there be some requirement for local govt to roll out charging infrastructure nearby as part of any new build they oversee or to require developers to contribute to funding roll out of charging infrastructure? At the moment the council?s plans for new builds seem to involve no car parking, plus putting CPZs in the local area and rendering residents of the new builds ineligible for CPZ permits. (So that they are forced to use public transport or active travel). I imagine developers might like to push back on that as if residents can access kerbside chargers the properties might be more valuable? I can see also see that central govt might like to push the cost of rolling out charging infrastructure onto developers and/or councils as much as possible? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/24/plan-for-car-chargers-in-all-uk-new-homes-will-make-access-exclusive

I?m guessing Living Streets and Southwark cyclists were one of the deputations successful in being selected for this week?s Council Assembly meeting? Not sure I can bear to watch it... ETA doesn?t look as though it?s online anyway! Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Out manoeuvred by Boris and alienating themselves > from their own constituents...this isn't going to > end well. > > And yet Southwark still give more voice and > influence to vested-interest lobby groups than > their actual constituents...... > > > https://twitter.com/SouthwarkLabour/status/1463614 > 939776565257?t=OpnRe7fJKKZnwQgJjt9GyQ&s=19

Date for the diary: Councillor Rose is going to present / answer questions about the Streetspace trials at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 1 December. (This was deferred from their last meeting as it was getting late and some of the committee members didn?t want to rush it through - although the chair and Cllr Rose seemed quite keen to do just that!) Agenda here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7003. Looks like an interesting meeting as it also features the London Fire Brigade as well as Extinction Rebellion giving their thoughts on Southwark?s Climate Change Strategy (you may recall that ER are not big fans: https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/environmental-campaigners-tear-into-southwark-councils-long-awaited-climate-strategy/)

Lots of new stuff on the Southwark website for those interested in seeing how the smaller schemes are playing out elsewhere in the borough (and in particular different approaches to data collection and presentation and the Council?s response to consultation outcomes): Great Suffolk Street StreetSpace: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7480 . Measures to be made permanent but officers have to design modifications to the scheme to allow better access for residents, businesses and licensed taxis and to make use of the space created (i.e. we?re going to push ahead even though it?s not working well, we?ll try and fix that a bit later). 8.3% response rate cited, but it?s then noted that within that response rate are lots of evil taxi drivers (and maybe cyclists?) so for the large part of the data analysis they just use residents (business owners and those who travel in to work in the area are strongly opposed and that would affect all the charts). Predictably, ?support with modifications? is lumped in with ?retain as is? to indicate a marginally higher level of support (55%)that is used to justify keeping the scheme in. EQIA only being done now. These particular streets perform poorly in the Urban Street Index so these are targeted measures designed to reduce health inequality. The traffic data is flimsy to say the least, and it seems that a lot of residents and businesses are experiencing access problems and traffic has been shifted to nearby streets. Bermondsey Street LTN: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7482 Again a decision to make permanent and then investigate some further measures to try and address the displaced traffic problem as well as doing an EQIA (to be considered in conjunction with statutory objections). Again the retain and retain with changes are aggregated to get majority support for this decision to keep as is. Tanner Street appears to be Bermondsey?s Croxted Road equivalent. This time the street concerned is one of the best performing areas in the Urban Health Index. But because it?s close to a poor performing area, and the overall aim of the measures is active travel this seems to be not an issue. The first wave of monitoring compares August 2020 (school holiday) with April 2021 (not), and then second wave compares against August 2021. Report authors note the school holiday issue, COVID restriction issues, and the weather (raining in April, not raining in August 2021) so better from a transparency point of view? Walworth Streetspace: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7481 Notes that low traffic neighbourhood schemes are supported and encouraged by national and pan-London transport policy. Decision is to retain measures with some modifications eg cameras rather than permanent closures, exemptions for blue badge holders etc) but instruct officers ? with the community in the area bounded by John Ruskin Street, Camberwell New Road and Camberwell Road to explore possible traffic reduction and improvement measures.? (Elsewhere in the report this is described as engaging ?to investigate low-traffic interventions that support the Council?s priorities to tackle the Climate Emergency?. Key issues noted include the fact that this is an area with high traffic but low car ownership, high level of health inequality and childhood obesity, and high NO2 levels, which is why Walworth was prioritised (funnily enough, these factors not mentioned in the Dulwich decision). Air Quality monitoring is included, and there was an origin/ destination survey done on one of the streets (john Ruskin Street which seems to have been one of the main losers). A full EQIA was done. I?ve only read the summary in the main report so far but it seems that in each of the groups identified (disabled, older people, BME) car ownership was high and the preference was to remove the measures and return to the original state. I can?t face reading the Appendices but the EQIA looks worth a read. Some new procedural changes seem to have been put in place, the sections of the report dealing with law and finance in the first two now seem to have alphanumeric codes applied - presumably so that the ?who signed this off?? question can be easily answered at a future date, they also note that there has been consultation with a Climate Emergency Officer? and a ?Health Policy Officer?. In relation to that, the councillor?s question about how the council?s constitutional requirement to consider climate change in all its decisions is discharged has been answered (answers to all Member?s questions at this week?s Council Assembly meeting here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103295/Members%20question%20time%20with%20responses.pdf - it?s question 16.I?m not convinced it?s a particularly robust process, looks a bit greenwashy given officers writing reports have been ?offered? (not necessarily ?given?) training and won?t have much or any expertise in most cases. There seems to be a lot of cutting and pasting of generalised statements going on, rather than detailed thought given (in some places eg references to contractors using electric vehicles where possible, where no changes are going to be made).

I can?t see anything in the bylaws about powered transport (other than in relation to model aircraft and helicopters), so guess there is a general rule somewhere about no unauthorised motor vehicles in the park (unlike e-bikes, e-scooters are currently classified as motor vehicles). The experimental order relating to the trial permits use of cycle infrastructure by reference to a long list of previous traffic orders relating to cycle tracks and officially designated shared pedestrian/cycle spaces https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/46153/E-scooter-trial-notice-dated-24-June-2021-.pdf, doesn?t look like anything park related. Things can of course change if the government gives the green light to e-scooters generally. Given the LTN closures would apply to e-scooters, whose riders will not want to go the long way around, I could see a case for a designated and clearly marked cycle/ e-scooter lane across the park from Court Lane to College Road. Short lived experiment? Let?s see. Those West Coast tech companies have a fair bit of lobbying clout, one imagines? and Uber (who part own Lime) seem to have done fairly well to date (until they got too clever for their own good and ran up against the English courts).

Others have spent more time on this than me but I think there is a need for raw/ more granular data eg split out by time of day, weekends vs weekdays, direction, school holidays vs no school holidays, exactly what adjustments have been made to enable various months to be compared with other months? etc. Maybe have zoom calls with the chat function enabled and someone relatively independent in charge of picking up issues from the chat to be put to councillors? Having chat function enabled would also enable attendees to touch base with each other and give a record of issues for council : councillors to follow up on.

I think that?s fine if the closures direct traffic away from schools although it sounds as though weekday only closures might be more effective than 24/7 closures. But depends on what the raw numbers say/ experience on the ground is, which % figures don?t tell you.

I think people are keen to see the ?unmassaged? data, James. Back on the council meeting point, I?m not in your ward (in a neighbouring one with less meetings or engagement), but I really do think it?s a good idea to have open ward meetings without specific agendas where constituents and councillors can have free and frank discussions, and also to facilitate communication between different groups in the community - chance meetings at this sort of thing can be really useful. Zoom calls are fantastic in terms of getting more people to attend (people with family commitments find it hard to attend physical meetings in the evening I think) but have the disadvantage of allowing those running the meetings much more control over who is allowed to speak and what the agenda is. I?m not suggesting that?s your responsibility or that you?re personally failing in that regard - just throwing it out there as that was the point of the Empowering Communities initiative, if it comes up maybe you could mention or something. Presumably the minimum number of ward meetings was set for a reason, so I wonder what has changed.

Great. The last thing we need. Interesting article in the Times on the weekend re the number of deaths and injuries they?ve had in Paris, where they are now scaling down the speed limit. Compensation lawyers are already getting ready for a raft of claims.

Rockets - I remain of the view that we should look at actual numbers rather than percentages for traffic counts of cars, cycles, whatever. I think using percentages is really unhelpful as it downplays increases in already highly trafficked spots and overplays increases where base volumes are small. I haven?t looked at the raw data for these Guys schemes but I think it may be in the reports?

Yes, that?s the one. Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is the scheme Guys and St Thomas' Foundation > funded is it?

Yes. Looks like the monitoring process was slightly different. Seems they are comparing November and April without adjustment - the overall methodology is different. Each scheme seems smaller scale and a bit more thought out. The phrase ?vaulting ambition? came to mind when I compared to Dulwich and now I can?t get the Macbeths out of my head.