legalalien

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.

The report on the Guys? and St Thomas? Foundation Streetspace scheme is worth a read. Haven?t read all the Appendices yet, but was interested to see: - an express statement that LTNs are down to central government: ?This scheme is implemented under the emergency responses via experimental traffic order. Central Government instructed us to install, test and consult residents and businesses on all traffic measures.? - an acknowledgment that traffic displacement happens, as part of the Community Impact Statement ?There is a risk that new restrictions cause a displacement of traffic on to the peripheral network and have an adverse impact on road users and neighbouring properties. The proposal has no disproportionate impact on any particular age, disability, faith or religion and ethnicity and sexual orientation.? (The monitoring showed increases on boundary roads, it?s later noted that this could be displacement or post pandemic driving increase, this should be carefully monitored and measures for boundary roads out in if needed) A detailed description of the rationale for the particular measures - see the health impact statement from paragraph 43 onward. Notably, keeping traffic away from the school gate is seen as key (spot the difference from the Dulwich measures): ?Due to the targeted selection of the three project locations, the health benefits cited are likely to, in the long term, contribute to Southwark Council?s mission to reduce health inequalities within the borough.? I agree that the selection of the location of LTN measures is key to their success (or otherwise). https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50027904

Hi James, I wonder if I might ask a general question about ward meetings. The empowering communities page on the website says this : ?Once the COVID-19 pandemic is over, each ward will be required to participate in at least six meetings per year (including the two multi-ward forum meetings). For the time being, the ward meeting requirement is reduced to two. Councillors may decide to use any of these opportunities to meet together with other wards, especially where a local matter affects residents across ward boundaries. All meetings will be held online until further notice.? When this first went up I assumed the COVID reference was shorthand for lockdown / restrictions on gatherings. But these have been lifted and there is still no sign of any ward meetings locally other than the multi ward forums (it looks like some ward meetings have been happening online for the North of the borough and I can see a couple of Dulwich Hill ones in the online calendar). Is it at the discretion of individual ward councillors? Is there a plan to go back to having ward meetings?

RTNs maybe? Rearranged or reallocated traffic neighbourhoods? Both sides of the debate could agree on that terminology?

Malumbu, agree with your message in caps, just don?t think LTNs result in less km driven. All the figures, if to be believed, talk about number of trips, not number of kms. If you cancel the small percentage of short trips but elongate most trips that doesn?t achieve your desired goal. I think the threat (or ?advance warning? to use less emotive language than the media) of ULEZ has worked in large part, several people I know have swapped non compliant vehicles for compliant vehicles in advance of the expansion (although I did speak to someone earlier in the week who had worked out that doing the math and given how often he drove, it was more cost effective to pay the daily fee. He?s now planning to get a small electric car to use for daily run around and keep the old non compliant one for longer journeys. I suspect he is not alone, I have warned him that CPZ will almost certainly be rolled out everywhere ASAP after May 2022, which will affect the arithmetic.) I?m not a particular fan of driving I just think this Dulwich LTN configuration doesn?t work. There was a lot of traffic congestion in DV and EDG today and I don?t think we can blame it all on early Xmas tree purchases.

An interesting list of deputation requests for next week?s cabinet meeting, including a joint request from Living Streets and Southwark Cyclists to tell the Council what good stuff they have done and what Council should do next. I bet they have a better chance of being selected to speak than the tenants group who want to discuss poor consultation on infill housing or the leaseholders suggesting that Southwark should refuse to engage developers on new projects when they haven?t fixed fire safety issues on existing ones. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103171/Report%20Deputations.pdf Hopefully they?ll choose the litter picking one as would be interested to hear that. Also the guy from the British Afghan Society.

It will be interesting to see whether Councillors continue to maintain the narrative that the Bakerloo line extension will go ahead - it has seemed that a lot of the council strategy re solving housing and financials around that has been very focused on the Old Kent Road regeneration plans.

For those interested in the overall picture in Southwark, link to a presentation given by the local commissioning group to the Council Scrutiny commission this week (haven?t watched the video of the meeting). https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102988/Southwark%20Primary%20Care%20Presentation.pdf More demand for services (including COVID backlog), less GPs available.

I agree, I'd like to see the actual data from the Council rather than anyone's edited summary, and then we could all have a look and test claims being made by either side. It does sound as though the Council have acknowledged this particular data mix up though, and from the sound of it corrected it, I'm not sure whether in all the reported stats though.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone have more info on tbe council > admitting to residents on Turney Road that the > monitoring data in the LTN review was wrong and > instead of that road having a 61% decline it > actually saw an 18% increase? Info on this on the Dulwich Alliance website: https://dulwichalliance.org/2021/11/15/serious-data-errors-confirmed/ Seems they mixed up the data from the two ends of Turney Road.

100%. How many miles did our kids walk when Pokemon Go was a thing!

Council report on the Great Suffolk Street scheme. Yet again fairly flimsy analysis on climate change / socioeconomic duty and ?let?s do the EqIA a bit later in the process? approach. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103068/Report.pdf Seems to be quite a bit of slightly strange spinning going on there with criticism of out of area taxi drivers but out of area cyclists being fine. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103071/Appendix%20C%20-%20Great%20Suffolk%20Street%20Streetspace%20Scheme%20Public%20Consultation%20Analysis%20and%20Monitoring%20Rep.pdf If you thought the Dulwich data was spun I suspect this is a whole new level? We met the Southwark Cyclists and it was positive. We didn?t meet the taxi guys and their comments were negative. Businesses didn?t support, we had a meeting with three businesses online through our subsidised BID and those three like it. The list goes on. Particularly like ?As there is not strong support for this scheme from residents, it is recommended that the Council should proceed with permanent traffic management order for the current scheme.? To be fair it goes on to say ? However further changes are needed. Officers will produce an options report to improve the scheme to allow further access to residents, business and licensed taxis. These options will be consulted on to gauge public opinion before being installed.? Meanwhile, in relation to the Bermondsey LTN, council is using data it knows to be unreliable ?Whilst August is within the school holidays and thus not reliable baseline data, undertaking further counts in August 2021 has allowed us to directly compare the traffic movements in school holidays one year apart.? https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103062/Report.pdf More flimsy ?we expect??type analysis based on nothing in particular? ETA at least it?s not just Dulwich?

Just seen this on nextdoor. As I understand it Southwark were originally planning a three storey block but have now told residents there that the plan is for a six storey development. See here https://www.change.org/p/save-lordship-lane-estate?recruiter=376456640&recruited_by_id=36086460-555c-11e5-8202-c396c0ce3f5d&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard https://lordshiplane.commonplace.is/proposals/have-your-say-on-the-lordship-lane-estate Not sure of all the background but thought folk might be interested. Copies of some correspondence etc with residents at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/housing/new-council-homes/where-we-re-building/dulwich-wood/lordship-lane-estate

The agenda for this month?s Council Assembly is up, together with the ?Member?s Questions? - the theme is ?Climate Justice?. As usual - this thing is a bit like PMQs - the Labour councillors? questions are carefully curated to allow the Council to make statements about its successes in different policy areas, and the opposition questions are designed to do the reverse (what effect is the delay in the Bakerloo line extension going to have on Southwark) or specific resident concerns (eg the CPZ at Surrey Docks) https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7043 https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102930/Report%20Members%20question%20time.pdf I was heartened to see this one from Cllr Al-Samerai ?Can the leader confirm that every council report since July has taken the climate emergency into account, as was agreed at Council Assembly that month? Can he give details of how that is being monitored by each department, and how the impact of any report is assessed by each department?? I would add the same thing regarding the new socioeconomic duty that was added to the constitution earlier in the year. From what I?ve seen in reports (including on the Dulwich LTN report) there?s always a heading and a brief mention of climate change or socioeconomic effects, but then a brief one liner eg ?our policy is designed to address climate change, active travel is good? rather than any suggestion that any in depth analysis of the effects of particular policies is going on. I do wonder what (if any) training council officers have been given on how to assess the climate impacts or socioeconomic impacts of the proposals included in reports - as it doesn?t seem like an easy task to do (and presumably doing it properly in each case would involve meaningful cost). Do they have specialist climate change officers that things have to be run past, or something like that? I get that including these things in the constitution has a political feel good factor, but once they?re in they should be treated properly. Especially considering the Council?s stance that if the report to the decision maker mentions these issues, the decision can?t be called in even if there is concern that these issues haven?t been looked at properly.