legalalien

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.

Does this one work? https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7234 Scroll down to item 6.1. Sam

I?m in favour of ignoring house prices and wealth and concentrating on issues of air quality, noise pollution and the effective management of road traffic / public transport. But given the council has now formally adopted the ?socioeconomic duty? into its constitution it should be considering and adopting measures to reduce inequalities that result from place of residence, among other things. I?m fine with councils introducing things like the socio economic duty, if they do then I expect them to take it seriously and act accordingly, not treat it as a good PR opportunity.

I agree. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A road was busy at times - it is now not busy at > any time because that roads traffic is now added > to another roads traffic which was busy at times - > and people on the closed road are very happy with > that situation and will keep saying that traffic > will evaporate and the other road is fine, it > isn't more polluted and hasn't got more idling > traffic for a longer time each day because they > don't want their road to be busy at times ever > again and they don't want the LTN removed. > > I do understand - if I lived on Calton I might > feel the same, unfortunately I can't afford a 2 > million pound house on Calton and could only > afford a flat on ED Grove at the time. Many flats > on ED Grove and schools and nurseries and health > centres. Margy and lovers of the LTNs can say what > they want - traffic is worse on ED Grove and > everyone knows this - but to admit this will admit > that LTNs have failed the test that Councillor > McAsh said was important - that other residents > should not be subjected to more pollution as a > result of LTNs and they are.

Haven?t read it yet but here?s the link to the council report on the nursery planning application that is going to planning committee on Tuesday next week, for those interested. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102798/Report.pdf 46 full time staff - it is quite big.

The reason I cannot agree with this is the incredibly patronising ?I can imagine... sentence?. Basically ?you old people think the way you do because of the values I?ve attributed to your generation and not for the reasons you are actually giving.? Don?t you think? malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hats off Dulville for your articulate post. Why > cannot others agree in principle in this even if > you disagree with the approach to closing roads. > As Greta says there is a lot of blah blah blah > from both politicians, but also the masses about > climate change. Not suggesting that this thread > is full of blah blah blah of course..... > > > " Ultimately I see the LTN's* as part of a raft of > measures that, if as a community we are serious > about climate change, are coming down the track to > change our relationship with the motorcar. When > people drive less, it will follow there will be > less traffic on any road. I can imagine for many > people growing up in a generation where the > private car was a powerful means of freedom and > independence, and indeed a symbol of success, > learning to adapt to measures that prevent them > driving at will is going to be hard. But the world > is changing fast." > > * insert a less emotive term such as 'local > restrictions' - which we have had imposed on us > certainly since I have lived in London > > (edited for typos)

I agree with this point re the class war to the extent it is simplified to ?rich people within LTNs? vs ?poor people outside LTNs?. As mentioned before there are plenty of well off people living within the closed roads who are vehemently against them - and no, not because they are inconvenienced drivers. I attended the Gilkes Crescent residents association AGM last week and there were a significant number of attendees who were very unhappy and raised their concerns about the EDG and Croxted situations with Cllr Newens (yes, she was there, even though apparently our ward Cllrs can?t manage to hold ward meetings, unlike other wards in the borough). Her perspective as I understood it is that council data is correct, there is a traffic reduction and cycling increase and things are working, while there is a problem on Croxted road we need to understand that half of the road is in Lambeth and that things Lambeth are doing are partly responsible, much is to do with the pinch point under the railway bridge at HH and it?s a pity Lambeth aren?t engaging with her/ Southwark councillors/ Helen Hayes and TfL as much as they would like (a bit weird as it you read Twitter, Croxted residents suggest it?s the other way around - who knows?). She didn?t seem to think there was a problem on EDG despite people expressing views to the contrary. My impression was that this is very much an ideological thing / buy in to a principle (without regard to local evidence) rather than a case of Labour sleaze / councillors supporting their friends to increase their house prices. Of course I don?t for a minute rule out individual residents supporting measures that improve their houses/ house prices without regard to the bigger picture. DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The class war aspect of this debate is > particularly puzzling and unpleasant, as clearly > it has no factual basis. I have seen no evidence > whatsoever that people living within LTN's support > them because it makes their lifestyle nicer or > increases their house prices. The class war > assertions also start to look distinctly wobbly > when viewed through the lens of anti LTN placards > in the gardens of ?2m plus houses on East Dulwich > Grove, and ?1m plus houses on the South Circular. > Endlessly repeating a false assertion doesn't > magically make it true. > > The LTN's are for everyone in the Borough to use > and even enjoy, the vast bulk of which has lower > income households than those around Dulwich, in or > out of the LTNs. It has been very heartening to > see people who have clearly travelled into Dulwich > having a coffee outside one of the cafes or > enjoying walking and cycling.

I guess the theory is that traffic previously going up LL and the left into eDG will now go up mG and into eDG. The same number of cars would end up on eDG just via a different route? So helps LL but not eDG? goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also fail to see any scenario where opening up > MGS wouldn't increase traffic on the central > section of East Dulwich Grove. So in an effort to > alleviate traffic on Lordship Lane, its likely > that the section of EDG between MGS and Townley > will increase - particularly westbound. > > > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > in response to this and also eastdulwichhenry's > > post above - I think I read that part of the > > reason for reopening Melbourne Grove South > outside > > restricted hours is to help relieve the traffic > on > > LL (which I guess would help CPR but would mean > > more traffic on MGS, all to help cope with the > > displacement caused by the CL/Calton/DV > closure.) > > > > > > KidKruger Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Crystal Palace Rd is now a HTN, at least > > compared > > > to what it was like before the LTNs were > > > implemented. > > > It?s not just the volume of cars which is > > > startling, it?s the panic/urgency/desperation > > of > > > drivers? behaviour which has increased. I > guess > > > with Lordship Lane rammed nowadays, other > > routes > > > are sought to enable them to feel like > they?re > > > making some sort of progress in their > journeys. > > > Just a matter of time before a serious injury > > or > > > worse, seems inevitable - you can?t have so > > much > > > stressed traffic through an entirely > > residential > > > street without an eventual accident involving > > > pedestrians or a cyclist. > > > Let?s Trade Neighbourhoods.

in response to this and also eastdulwichhenry's post above - I think I read that part of the reason for reopening Melbourne Grove South outside restricted hours is to help relieve the traffic on LL (which I guess would help CPR but would mean more traffic on MGS, all to help cope with the displacement caused by the CL/Calton/DV closure.) KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Crystal Palace Rd is now a HTN, at least compared > to what it was like before the LTNs were > implemented. > It?s not just the volume of cars which is > startling, it?s the panic/urgency/desperation of > drivers? behaviour which has increased. I guess > with Lordship Lane rammed nowadays, other routes > are sought to enable them to feel like they?re > making some sort of progress in their journeys. > Just a matter of time before a serious injury or > worse, seems inevitable - you can?t have so much > stressed traffic through an entirely residential > street without an eventual accident involving > pedestrians or a cyclist. > Let?s Trade Neighbourhoods.

What have the LTNs got to do with it? I was more interested to understand whether there was an underlying political affiliation, or whether particular climate lobby groups were involved, I did google but it wasn?t 100% clear, there were Labour reps at some of the events they had organised and I wasn?t sure that was because they were present as office holders (eg local MP) or whether there was more of a political angle, you can?t tell from the Facebook page (I did google before posting). I guess my real question is ?which groups are in coalition? to form the coalition if that makes sense.

Missing the point but that Vision On theme brings back memories. I am still of the view that doing nothing is better than doing something counterproductive, even if that is a bit politically unpalatable. If councils don?t have the capacity/ power to deal with climate issues, better to hold up their hands and say that (and not set themselves unattainable targets) than pretend they can achieve lots with the limited tools they have at their disposal.

Would it be possible to know who is behind the group before I support it (or not)? When you click in the link to the campaign Facebook group it shows 7 supporters and says that only private members can see who is in the group? I?m always a bit cautious about group petitions when I don?t know who is organising them in case there?s a bunch of stuff over and above what?s on the face of it. Just because it?s sometimes held out to be support for the group as a whole rather than exact wording of the petition - have been burned in the past.

If you look at the report RoundTable linked to above it has a description on about page 5-6, primaries use TAs for whole class support, there are also some TAs used for targeted support. Thanks for posting by the way RT, I started reading it yesterday and looks interesting.