legalalien

You made me look at a document that.... . I'll just comment that the scoring system seems very subjective and assumes that all the items on the list of criteria should get equal weighting - which is a pretty big assumption to make. The document states the proposal you mention was made by three specific RAs(not One Dulwich - and then weirdly it's headed Dulwich Alliance proposal). I guess this might be due to cross over of personnel between the three groups? On a positive note, I found something to agree with Friends of Dulwich Square on - if we are to have a big public realm thing, then I would be very much in favour of segregating cyclists from it. As a regular pedestrian I'm confident that segregation won't have a potentially harmful effect on "pedestrian comfort and permeability across the space". Safety over permeability, I say.

I think you're confusing the issue a bit. The OD website says that they are pushing for timed restrictions, details to be determined by a fair and transparent consultation process. So yes, I'd say they have a mandate to push for timed restrictions, and a fair and transparent consultation process. No, they don't have a mandate to enter into some backroom deal with the council on the details of the closures on the basis of some dubious claim that their supporters support residents' permits. If there's evidence that OD are doing this, I'd be interested to see it. Given their biggest gripe seems to be the council's refusal to engage and lack of transparency, that would seem to be conspiracy theory territory. (Also, surely the council have no truck with groups seeking to lobby behind closed doors. Or maybe they do.)

I don't think anyone could sensibly support a part of the existing scheme without knowing what the rest of the scheme would look like, tbh. What the OneDulwich website says is "One Dulwich supports area-wide timed restrictions (after consultation with the local community on hours of restriction, access, and location of entry/exit points) as a more proportionate, and more socially just, solution." - so implicitly One Dulwich recognise that it's not up to them to choose the solution. If some of the people involved remain of the view that their original proposal is the "best" outcome, then that's fine - there will be other, newer OneDulwich supporters who support the part of their campaign that seeks more transparency from the council and who oppose one or more aspects of the current council proposal. As OD isn't a political party, and doesn't have a formal mandate to represent its supporters as regards an alternative proposal, I don't see an issue. If OneDulwich were to come out and represent to the Council that all of its 2000 supporters were in favour of its original proposal with the residents' permits, or whatever, that would be something different - but to my knowledge that hasn't happened.

Yes, that?s right. I imagine class sizes drop slightly but then so does funding, then perhaps a need to formally drop a class and then some people go to nearby schools and top up class sizes there. I assume that given the way funding works (and given schools all indicate that they are underfunded), schools actually want biggish classes to maximise their income?

Bit of an update, the proposed school places planning document is on the agenda for next week?s cabinet meeting / on the website. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102233/Report%20and%20appendices%20Pupil%20place%20planning%202021.pdf There is a major oversupply of primary school places in the borough and sufficient secondary capacity for the foreseeable (with a future oversupply of secondary places predicted) Proposed (currently in the consultation process) reduction in intake at six primaries including DKH which is not going to help its numbers stack up, I guess. No concrete proposals for closures / mergers but a strong hint that options will need to be considered - giving the way school funding works ?it is very likely that in the not too distant future there will be insufficient pupil numbers to justify operating the current number of primary schools the Council currently maintains.? Rolls at Dulwich schools not falling, rather the catchment areas are growing, as less demand from local residents frees up spaces for children living further afield: ?PA5 is a net importer of pupils, gaining around 80 pupils across all age groups. Harris East Dulwich and Judith Kerr Primary Free School take a majority of its pupils from outside PA5, the latter mainly from Lambeth Schools in the Dulwich planning area remain extremely popular with applicants from adjoining planning areas ? this is evidenced by the 15% drop in births outlined above, but a 32% increase in demand for reception places over the same time frame There is a high risk that providing any additional capacity in this area would be abstractive of other planning areas and schools from neighbouring boroughs, and would actually not meet demand from local residents ? indeed, it may reduce the percentage of local children attending schools in Dulwich Around 30% of pupils in this planning area come from outside the planning area, mainly from within Southwark and a small percentage from outside Southwark The net percentage inflow of Southwark children from other planning areas is (+15%) the highest in Southwark  Conversely, around 30% of PA5 resident children attend state primary schools attend a school in another Southwark planning area or a school outside Southwark, about equally divided between the two.  Conversely, Bessemer Grange Primary in PA4 takes around 30% of its pupils from PA5 residents.? (Note these figures don?t take into account the independent schools) As Southwark notes in its report, it doesn?t have the power to prevent academies (including those in the Dulwich area) expanding their capacity and realising the identified risk of sucking children out of schools in surrounding areas and threatening their viability. This seems crazy to me but according to the report that?s how things work. Reasons for overcapacity: some unquantified references to Brexit, possibly people moving out of London due to COVID, GLA forecasts not being accurate, housing affordability for families also an issue. I tend to think the latter is a big one given a lot of the problem seems to be in the North West of the borough where a lot of gentrification has happened / estates replaced with private housing developments..

Appearances can be deceiving.

The meaning changes across the years apparently: https://publish.illinois.edu/iaslibrary/2012/11/03/remember-remember-the-5th-of-november/ I didn?t know that Anonymous had adopted the Guy Fawkes masks as part of an anti Scientology protest. Learn something new every day?

Good lord. Some people have added the junction to google maps as a tourist attraction. On the funny side, The google map picture is of a road junction, and it doesn?t look very touristy. See pic attached.

I think that must be at Dulwich College Sports club, not Dulwich Sports Club, given the hockey pitch reference. Might be worth contacting the school?

Another brilliant TfL streets initiative - not. See https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/5-parts-london-streets-paved-20832137 and then https://www.transportforall.org.uk/campaign/colourful-crossings/.

I?m in favour of that. Although with the potential for a winter of potentially soaring gas prices the timing may not be great?. Are there many wood burning stoves in London do we think? I?m not sure I?ve seen a lot : any when visiting people although I have seen some people unpacking wood from cars ?

Awesome. I didn?t realise it was so big / well attended! Must pop by and have a look.

Ah, I see. I won?t. (Be there or on a cycle, I expect I?ll be wearing clothes). I don?t really equate being opposed to the measures as being anti-cyclist tbh. The only thing that bothers me about cyclists is their riding on the pavement (I) on streets where there is a segregated cycle lane and (ii) in the LTN area when there are no cars on the street. And also when they whizz through the pedestrian crossing on gallery road, overtaking cars that have stopped for pedestrians - that?s quite dangerous and happens quite frequently. I?ve managed to limit myself to a Paddington like hard stare rather than hurling abuse though. I don?t kid myself that they care what I think anyway. I have some sympathy with the cyclists who get frustrated with the random pedestrians they encounter milling around / stepping out into the road on Calton Avenue. Related to that, yesterday I saw some temporary signs at the corner of Calton and Woodwarde - a ?Road Closed? sign indicating that the bit of Calton between Woodwarde and DV was closed, and a yellow diversion sign directing people into Woodwarde. In a very car-centric way I wondered what the point of that was given the road ahead is closed anyway (to stop people parking, including delivery vans which quite often seem to stop there and jump out with deliveries?), but I guess technically that closure would apply to cycles (all of them were ignoring it in any case). Wonder why it was there though, something to do with the trucks coming in and out of the construction site maybe - in which case could last a while. malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks Legal, it is the following Saturday, I'll > have a cycle through. I'll be on a push bike, > wearing clothes.

Thanks. I agree. We just need to get the price of drones down. Interested to hear what others think.

?? Hurling abuse at cyclists? Majority who are happy? Yy to people who agree with the principle but not the specific Dulwich measures though. Is there a protest tomorrow or something? Quite confused tbh.

Don?t know. But essentially it?s not an appeal with a new decision maker, it?s a chance for more transparency and a look at what has been done. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s100483/Overview%20and%20Scrutiny%20Procedure%20Rules%20May%202019.pdf Look at para 19. I don?t think this is outside budget / policy, if there are issues it goes back to the decision maker (Cllr Rose) . It?s a relatively weak process tbh but does allow questions the asked and give councillors and potential councillors an opportunity to dhow their true colours (or not) before next year?s elections.

See https://metro.co.uk/2021/09/29/dulwich-fireworks-night-goes-green-with-virtual-bonfire-and-sparkler-ban-15333961/ Big screen bonfire instead of the traditional wood burning thing. Apparently Dulwich is known for its trendy, cosmopolitan and right on residents. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16273408/firework-display-bonfire-replaced-big-screen-tv/

I?ll bite. Musing process: 1. I think DC (or whoever it was) is right, I have noticed more cyclists in the village area, but most of them seem to be in DC/ Alleyns/ DPL uniform. 2. I wonder why that is? 3. I guess because most of the kids at the state primaries already walked / scootered to school because the catchments are really small in comparison. 4. And it?s mostly about primary children changing to cycling, as no self- respecting teenager would be dropped at /picked up from secondary school unless it was raining extremely hard. (This actually feeds into Rockets subsequent question about whether the modal shift at Charter is from driving or from bus/ walking). 5. I bet DPL and DC were keen on anything encouraging cycling given the traffic chaos at those schools at pick up / the grief they get from neighbours and locals about it. Ditto Alleyns. 6. I wonder what schools are involved in that Safe Routes to School thing 7. Google 8. Doesn?t seem to be a list, maybe if I look at the minutes? http://dulwichsaferoutes.blogspot.com/p/minutes-of-meetings.html 9. Ok so basically led by Alleyns and DC and JAGS https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ilc9B-tduEoHCneZaUzHn0LLL8-GOLjC/view 10. Although there is then a meeting the next day that involves charter, HH, the village schools, Judith Kerr, Dulwich Wood, Bessemer (with Kingsdale invited) so the first one looks like a premeet of some sort with foundation schools only? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a3P3Nydf0AuB5uXVa1E54Mn3m-cg-0sP/view 11. Given thought 3 above, ie that all the really local children are already walking, scootering, cycling to school, is the additional benefit of the closures, insofar as they facilitate NEW active travel, really accruing to the foundation schools, whose children travel further on average (hence cycling works but walking not so much), and given thought 5, the schools have reputational benefit to gain from cutting parental drop offs in cars. 12. Given other local schools affected such as Harris, Rosendale I wonder if the councillors met separately with them / their views were taken into account. I think ?grift? is a bit harsh to describe the above, good word though, I?ll look out for an opportunity to use it. Minutes highlights btw: Andy Simmonds saying the Melbourne Grove North closures were being discussed by Goose Green councillors (they?re not mentioned as one of the 3 (out of 20 total) measures being considered as at June, anyway);the chap from HHS school foreseeing that the Phase 1 closures would cause terrible congestion and they?d ultimately need to close DV and keep traffic out of Turney and Burbage (no mention of Croxted though so there was a limit on the foresight); trying to guess the tone of Andy Simmonds comments that he shares people?s concerns but there are budget constraints and the Council really needs to feed more people in the borough at [the time of the meeting]; the chap from DC minuted as saying that people needed to be ?collaborative, constructive, collegiate?. I mean, he must have actually said that, I can?t imagine the minute taker made that up. DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wonder what you might be basing those musings > on? Please share. > > JAGS, JAPS and Alleyns all face out onto EDG, > Alleyns has a playground that is directly adjacent > to it, so they would be feeling any disbenefit in > equal (as can be roughly measured) proportion. > > Proportionately and absolutely, far more children > from the local state schools live within realistic > 'active travel' distance, so I would think more > are enjoying the benefits to a greater extent. > > There are all sorts arguments both for and against > the LTNs in Dulwich, but this particular narrative > just seems like grift to me. > > > > > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Just musing on the idea that the active travel > > benefits may have disproportionately benefited > > children at the independent and more affluent > > schools (and the air pollution from displaced > > traffic disproportionately affected some of the > > less affluent ones). Perhaps one of the many > > things that should have gone into the analysis > of > > compliance with the council?s new socioeconomic > > duty (something that seems to have been given > very > > little consideration in the report accompanying > > the decision notice). > > > > I see on Twitter that the LDs have requested > the > > decision to be called in before Overview and > > Scrutiny (stating concerns about adequacy of > > consultation). Let?s see if the council approve > > that request. A chance for both sides to air > their > > concerns about process flaws. If it happens I > > wonder if the meeting is a public one.

The entire woodpigeon population of South London is busy scoffing crabapples from the Hubei crab apple tree behind my house. I saw very few last year, so pleased to see them back - my dog has other ideas. Occasionally the parakeets try and take over the tree - which I'm not so keen on - the pigeons eat the fruit whole, the parakeets peck the fruit to pieces and make a horrible mess everywhere.

They'll have to start a campaign to get students to switch from cycling to walking! DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In hindsight, perhaps we > > should have done before and after counts in the > > bike sheds at the various schools? > > Cycle sheds at Charter North Dulwich have been > recently rebuilt about 4 times bigger - and are > now overflowing. > > https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1435230 > 921565908992

Just musing on the idea that the active travel benefits may have disproportionately benefited children at the independent and more affluent schools (and the air pollution from displaced traffic disproportionately affected some of the less affluent ones). Perhaps one of the many things that should have gone into the analysis of compliance with the council?s new socioeconomic duty (something that seems to have been given very little consideration in the report accompanying the decision notice). I see on Twitter that the LDs have requested the decision to be called in before Overview and Scrutiny (stating concerns about adequacy of consultation). Let?s see if the council approve that request. A chance for both sides to air their concerns about process flaws. If it happens I wonder if the meeting is a public one.

I do think there are more children cycling to Alleyns, DPL and DC actually. Not so sure about the state schools in and around the Village as I suspect they already had high levels of active travel (fairly postage stamp sized catchments except JKPS, but not much space to drop off there). Whether this is due to improved safety as a result of LTNs, or perhaps perceived improved safety, or peer pressure / a push from the kids themselves coupled with the fact that more adults are working from home and available to chaperone, I?m not sure, probably a combination. I don?t believe the increase is as great as Southwark?s figures would have us believe though, and I do think that one off count is flawed. In hindsight, perhaps we should have done before and after counts in the bike sheds at the various schools? (Or measure the parking situation on HuntsSlip / Bowen/ Alleyn Park). But I don?t think we need a hard closure at Court Lane to achieve / continue that, and I don?t think that a few more children cycling to school is enough of a benefit to offset the negative impacts on workers and others reliant on motor transport, residents of boundary roads etc. I did the school commute on foot and cycle for the best part of a decade, including through the Court /Calton junction (needs must), if I had a pound for every parent at the school gate who told me over the years that they really should walk /cycle and there was no reason not to, I?d be rich - so I can see why active travel campaigners who have been trying to get traction at the local independents for years without success might see the LTN initiative as a good opportunity. I could live with a timed school street type arrangement in term times to facilitate school travel, but don?t think all the existing timed closures are needed for that purpose. And just focusing on school travel, I think there?s been a failure to take account of the travel experiences of children travelling on the boundary roads, including those in buses. I?m guessing Rosendale wasn?t involved in Safe Routes to Schools? decision to wholeheartedly back the scheme?

Fair enough :) ETA, no so much impeccable as due to the fact I can?t drive.

For those who didn?t receive an email from Southwark about their upcoming online climate strategy conference, info is at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency?chapter=4 There are various break out sessions, one on sustainable travel, doesn?t expressly mention LTNs but does talk about promoting walking and cycling and the ?intersection between accessibility and active travel?, which could mean any number of things (I?d like it to mean keeping bikes off pavements but I?m guessing it doesn?t). It?s on 27 October from 6pm, you need to book a place online.

I think we can all agree that those numbers are contested.