legalalien

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.

For those interested in what happens to stuff in the brown bins, here?s a link to an interesting summary prepared for next week?s environment scrutiny committee https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102166/Council%20policy%20on%20food%20waste%20collections.pdf

Interesting because I don?t relate to what DC says at all, as I?ve never had a driving licence. My partner does but has never made any unnecessary short trips in London - what?s the point when you can walk or take public transport? I say that not to be smug, but because I think there is a real difference in attitude between those who have done those trips - the kind of evangelical attitude that comes with being a reformed smoker, for example; and those who haven?t and don?t see the point of attempted nudges to behaviour that have perceptible negative effects. We all come at these things from our own personal perspectives. Am I being harsh?

I guess the attendance list is just the committee members plus (in this case) the Cabinet Member summoned to the meeting - maybe other councillors can turn up on the day if they are interested but might not be listed? I don't know quite how that works.

Just started watching last night?s housing scrutiny committee meeting on YouTube. Cllr Mills is standing up for her constituents and having a go at council officers regarding the consultation on Brenchley Gardens. It?s quite refreshing to see. I gather the project has been paused. ETA surprise, surprise, the tenants association has expressed various concerns about the use of commonplace including the fact that there seems to be a large number of leading questions. Lots of parallels? worth a watch on YouTube? be interesting to see where the meeting ends up? Another important point made by Cllr Mills that informing and consulting with a TMO is no substitute for properly informing and consulting with residents (Sam applies to residents assns in my opinion). Officers very defensive and there are suggestions made that their summary report for the meeting is somewhat misleading.

Councillor Rose is apparently briefing the Oversight and Scrutiny Committee on the reopening of Rye Lane to buses and the Streetspace trials/ reviews in the borough at their next meeting on 13 October. Agenda here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7002 I imagine there will be some limited opportunity for committee members to ask questions, for those concerned, might be worth trying to get one of the committee members to ask whether closure to buses is permanently off the table or not? List of attending councillors at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgMeetingAttendance.aspx?ID=7002

Councillor Rose is apparently briefing the Oversight and Scrutiny Committee on the reopening of Rye Lane to buses and the Streetspace trials/ reviews in the borough at their next meeting on 13 October. Agenda here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7002 I imagine there will be some limited opportunity for committee members to ask questions, let?s hope some of them ask some questions about process issues.

If only that were true.

You?re probably right as regards some folk and wrong as regards others tbh.I?m still opposed at this stage, have never had a driving licence and have done the school run locally walking and cycling for over a decade. I?m as concerned about process - the way officers and councillors have handled this thing- as I am about the question of closures. I think we all should be.

I think it would be easiest for everyone if the council and TfL just put ALL the raw data that they have out there in an "uninterpreted" form. Sure, it would result in loads of people trying to spin the data in their own different ways, but that's better than the council being selective and inviting suspicion. The fact that there were representations that more data would be released than has been released has just compounded the problem.

Agree. In light of the village ward councillor's comment last year that they can only fund what people apply for, probably timely to remind people that this year's neighbourhood fund applications close on Monday 11th October https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/grants-and-funding/neighbourhoods-fund-2022.

Agree. The 10-12 mins ought to be a non issue for those living locally, I?m just thinking about those who come from further away, Kingsdale has a fairly big catchment for example. Of course if all the schools including the independents limited their catchments a bit more geographically it would help with a lot of transport issues. It?s crazy the way Dulwich children are being shipped to Croydon, Catford and Eltham having just missed Dulwich places, and vice versa in the other direction.

That would work better for the bus generally, but possibly not so well for the many students that use the P4 to get to and from DC and Kingsdale? Similar to previous comment a I think separating out the peak time school routes from the rest of the day is worth consideration.

yes, I was thinking about how people from the court/ woodwarde side could get over to burbage/ townley more easily.