legalalien

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.

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.

We didn?t have TAs when I was at school in the dark ages. Just 30-32 kids plus teacher. When did they get invented?

YY I agree with Artemis. I'm not anti LTN in principle, but I do think they can only work if they are properly /well designed (and that this inevitably requires local input, an engagement process that is not broken, and actual, local data rather than reliance on generalised studies). And also that the process/ speed of change needs to bring people along with it.

DKB can?t fin now, don?t think it was the most extensive survey ever and I agree with the point you make. Chatting to folk there is a difference between the two ideas as you suggest. I?m in favour of ULEZ expansion but do have some sympathy in specific circs eg those with wheelchair adapted vehicles that are ancient / non compliant but with minimal mileage on the clock.

I suspect many of the ignorant 43% are those with modern / obviously compliant cars who, when they heard something about it initially, quickly came to the view that it wouldn?t affect them and ceased to pay any attention thereafter (so then have no idea of timing and details). It?s good that they?ve written to registered owners of non- compliant vehicles, hopefully have done notices in multiple languages as well. Having said that I think there are a lot of people that don?t keep up with news much. Travelling along the south circular today, couldn?t help wondering just how many ULEZ zone signs they had to put in - there are 100s!!

That?s good (that you received the notice, not the non compliance obviously)

So - expanded ULEZ starts today - Sky reporting a survey saying 43% of motorists living in and near the expanded zone are unaware of it. Apparently there have been leaflets and also letters sent to those driving in the expanded zone recently. We haven?t received any - perhaps they?ve been targeted at those with non compliant vehicles? I imagine there will be loads of fines -?160 each (reduced to ?80 for early payment). Note also that the charging day for the ULEZ is midnight to midnight. So if you make a late night journey that starts before midnight and finishes after midnight you have to pay two days worth of charges as I read it (so ?25). (This is not an issue for the congestion charge as it operates 7am to 10pm). See https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-payments

Yes you can drive down Court Lane from LL at all times, similarly you can come from EDG into Townley and then Calton. However there are timed restrictions on Townley going in the Calton - Townley- EDG direction. And the ULEZ applies from today don?t, forget if you have a pre 2015ish or older petrol car. There is an item on Sky News this morning indicating that only 43% of motorists in and around the newly expanded ULEZ are aware it comes into force today - expect there will be loads of fines.

I think One Dulwich got it right tbh, as there was a real potential for the council to take a divide and conquer approach when interpreting the result. You may not appreciate it but there is a real lack of trust in council officers and councillors from those opposing the council?s plans, which I find completely rational on the evidence. It?s not faux outrage. I get that those in favour of the scheme may feel differently, there?s less incentive to analyse council processes with a fine tooth comb. Maybe we would have come to a better result by sitting around in a room without officers / councillors involved.

It?s downright weird behaviour but it?s consistent across the Labour councils. So probably head office policy rather than Southwark going off on a frolic?

The thing is Jen, that the permanent closure of the junction and Dulwich Square thing is what many of the opponents of the scheme are against. Turn that into a timed closure based on new timings, have a discussion about school holidays, some progress would likely be made pretty quickly. I think, anyway.

A couple of thoughts on the consultation issue - something I'm trying to get straight in my own head, particularly as I spent most of my formative years in another country where the role of local government is (but maybe wasn't historically) quite different. My expectation of local government is that it differs from central government in that it deals largely with local services and local issues and has a closer relationship with its constituency than central government does. I have an expectation that ward councillors represent constituents in council policy formation in a much more direct way than, for example, MPs do at Westminster. I expect local councillors to have more sway in very local issues than I expect MPs to do, as they operate at a more macro level. Is this just me or do other people feel the same? I get the impression that they do? Maybe views are split on this? Increasingly it seems that councils are becoming involved in/ trying to be involved in policy making that is more suited to a central government level - eg macro policies on climate change, active travel, probably other things. Councillors are whipped to follow national party lines. The statutory processes of consultation that apply to local government are much more suitable to the former model than to the latter model, as they're designed to give local people control over decisions that (just) affect local issues. They are not well designed to address higher level policy strategies. The argument that those in favour of the council's approach should be making (being generous here- devil's advocate and all that), is that everyone was given a chance to give input on the Movement Plan. Now that the Movement Plan is in place, it trumps/ limits the field for consultation on measures to implement the Movement Plan. In other words, the high level strategy (CPZs, get rid of cars) is no longer open for debate, local consultations on specific measures need to be viewed against that background. The problem I have is that the consultations/ engagement on the high level strategies have been (in my opinion) fairly inadequate and captured by organised lobby groups. So there isn't widespread resident buy in when the detailed local measures come to be considered. Is the system fixable/ improvable? And how?