Jump to content

legalalien

Member
  • Posts

    1,655
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by legalalien

  1. Yes, seemingly another epic failure to engage with the community. I?d urge people to look at @peckham_green on Twitter to get a feel for what?s going on there. dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To their credit they are concreting over some > grass and trees to build some flats. That is in > Peckham though so no white middle class lobby > group complainers for the council to worry about > so happy to carry on regardless.
  2. I think this is the website https://theadventureaunt.com/adventures/ I so wish I?d known about this/ this had been around when my son was younger - looks awesome.
  3. Anyone else received a flyer for ?Harmony on the Square?? See attached. Programme at https://friendsofdulwichsquare.co.uk/ How much is this costing the council - was it ?3k?
  4. Just looking t this month?s forward plan. It?s still showing a decision on the Dulwich experimental measures as due in September 2021. There?s also a new item called ?Determination of Objections? in relation to the measures, described as ? Consider objections made during statutory consultation for Dulwich Streetspace review measures?, due in November 2021. See https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgListPlanItems.aspx?PlanId=674 Not quite sure how the two timeframes fit together. Surely the Council consider the objections before making the decision? It could be a reference to anticipated objections made after/ in response to the September decision? But that?s not how it is worded?
  5. Interesting article in the Argus - Brighton and Hove Council voted to remove a cycle lane which they?ve decided is in the wrong place and central government threatens a funding cut if they do. I get central govt has a role to make sure funding is properly spent, but is it appropriate for it to intervene in local implementation in this way? I?d have thought not. For context the decision to remove seems to be the result of a combination of Labour and Conservative councillors opposing the Green majority. https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19481796.funding-cycle-lanes-brighton-hove-halted/
  6. Now I have The Goons in my head.
  7. Article about response from environmental groups to Southwark strategy https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/environmental-campaigners-tear-into-southwark-councils-long-awaited-climate-strategy/
  8. You're OK driving up Burbage Road from Half Moon Lane and then right at the roundabout onto Gallery. The various closures are directional in nature. You can't drive up Burbage Road in the other direction during the periods of timed closure (8-10 and 3-6 on weekdays).
  9. On the boiler issue I think most people are waiting for a solution to become more ?mass produced? and therefore cheaper/ understand whether hybrid / air source/ heat source is going to be the way forward (like VHS / Beta and CDMA/GSM, it?s good to know what the generally accepted new technology is going to be). It would be good to have a thread on this in the lounge. If I get a chance I?ll try and find some useful sources of info and start one if no one else does.
  10. Even if they don?t have capacity to improve their system they could eg encourage people to make requests through a site like https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/. Although that would then expose delays in responding to requests which is probably not what they?d want! (Just came across an interesting looking Open Democracy report on the state of FoI in the U.K. - https://cdn-prod.opendemocracy.net/media/documents/art-of-darkness-opendemocracy.pdf). Apparently ?stonewalling? by completely failing to reply to requests is on the rise.
  11. Yes, they put them on the website, which makes their life easier as people can check the website before making a new request. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information A surprising number of people request sound files of bus and tube announcements.
  12. Sounds like a job for Boris? fluorescent-jacketed chain gangs. In seriousness though I do think it?s a good idea. I?d rather have council money spent on that than on the various banners etc that they put up around the place. ETA I wonder if there?s a way to apply for funding for this kind of thing out of the cleaner/ greener or neighbourhoods fund. Maybe through a small business association or something? The grants are structured so that independent organisations apply for funding rather than asking Southwark to do a task, I wonder if there?s a way around it. Maybe a residents assn, small business group or something set up to deal with local graffiti.
  13. Ex-dulwicher, we might have to agree to differ as the tone of the email exchange doesn?t sound like ?discussing options? to me, it sounds like ?telling TfL what we plan to do?. The exchange including the TfL response is now up on the OneDulwich site, and TfL?s response seems to be: ?do this experimentally for six months? That doesn?t make sense when you?re spending a ton of money to rip up a pedestrian road island and expect us to spend lots of time and effort on light phasing etc?. (That?s how it reads to me anyhow, but I am of course biased). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ee5b2552f1141316ee2efc9/t/60ffcc179d9d0801c426a297/1627376669464/FOI+July+2021+RE_+Dulwich+Village+_Calton+Avenue+_+Dulwich+Village+_Redacted.pdf I actually think TfL have come across quite well in the various email exchanges that have been released and their FoI system seems to work well. I was amused to see that Southwark Councillors have requested that TfL copy Southwark in on any FoI responses involving the Dulwich scheme.
  14. There don?t look to be any minutes : agenda for the Goodrich meeting on the website https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=533&MId=7169
  15. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Really isn?t - you?d be surprised. I?d be an epic fail as a Stepford Wife. Happy to act as a safe house for your partner if needed ;) > Aaah Gilkes...all a bit Stepford Wives....I always > feel the hairs on the back of my neck go up when I > walk down there, surprised that the residents > association hasn?t introduced an entrance gate > with a security guard...my partner refuses to walk > down Gilkes...?it?s all a bit ?Get Out?? in their > opinion.
  16. Does this work https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7396 Gilkes is Appendix 16
  17. If they were already discussing alternative plans with TfL before the consultation closed, then it's all a bit of a sham. For those who are in favour of the LTNs - I'd be interested to hear whether you think the council's and councillors' (if different) behaviour/ process around this project helps your cause or hinders it. If you are confident in the data/ that the LTNs work, then I suspect that the way the council has handled things might well be a cause of frustration - rather than letting the facts stand on their merits, they're sullying the pro-LTN argument by not following due process. I'd be pretty annoyed. ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what happens now? The consultation is finished > - are we waiting for the council to publish the > results? Or perhaps they have no intention of > doing so?
  18. I hate to be a kicker, I always long for peace, But the wheel that squeaks the loudest, Is the one that gets the grease. - Josh Billings (Henry Wheeler Shaw) (disclaimer - provenance of this saying is unverified...) alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > There has never been an answer to why the > Dulwich > > LTNs were positioned to benefit the wealthiest. > > flurry of responses cannot answer the question.
  19. Gilkes isn't an "existing LTN" unless the proposed Gilkes Place closure goes ahead. Looks like it has been approved today subject to call-in https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s100334/APPENDIX%2016%20GILKES%20PLACE.pdf I think the Gilkes one is experimental based on Table 1 in the report and the Network Management recommendation referred to (although confusingly the relevant appendix also refers to consultation on an (ordinary) TMO. There's a note in the report that "Gilkes Place ? the proposed ETMO does not preclude the Gilkes Place/Gilkes Crescent junction not being considered as part of the overall Dulwich area review. However, the junction can not be opened before the review is completed on safety grounds. " This seems to be in response to a suggestion that the Gilkes experimental order be deferred until after the overall Dulwich review had been completed.
  20. Proposed decision on reopening Peckham Rye to buses and timed deliveries is on the council website. Decision due by tomorrow as I read it https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50026987
  21. PS have been tied up with other stuff recently but looks like there's a decision notice on an experimental order to open Rye Lane to buses and timed deliveries. Haven't read properly yet. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s100450/Report%20Reopening%20Rye%20Lane.pdf
  22. Frankly I'm more concerned about the fact that Southwark were asking TfL to meet and discuss removing the staggered pedestrian crossing in the Square of Shame (indicating a preference for permanent closure) weeks before the consultation even closed (see attached, am sure many will have seen on twitter). Also mystified that there was apparently no need to consult TfL before making the initial closure... but now there is a need (were someone's knuckles rapped?). Two options: (i) local councillors and the Cabinet Member / Council Leader were aware of officers trying to progress this before the consultation exercise completed and comments were considered (seems like bad faith to me); or (ii) the local councillors and /or Cabinet Member/ Council Leader weren't aware of what the officers were discussing with TfL - in which case maybe they should be making some noise and calling them out? Link to another recent FoI on TfL website for completeness - https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-0574-2122, seems Helen Hayes might be starting to show some interest.
  23. I hardly go to Gail's as it seems so expensive. But I do like a cheese and chive scone. If anyone can suggest other sources of savoury scones and muffins locally I'll be there.
  24. I'm not sure it would change that much tbh. As I see it (lived experience, yes, and in this particular area rather than a London wide thing), the increased journey time/congestion and resultant pollution locally more than offsets the few short journeys that might have been replaced by active travel (given previously high active travel in the area). I think overall/ net pollution has probably increased ( as opposed to an overall reduction, the idea that the increase on "boundary" roads is exceeded by the decrease by drivers based in "in-LTN roads"). So regardless of the inequity issue - not OK to pollute boundary roads at the expense of LTN roads (which I still feel strongly about - ), I still think there's a problem, and my approach to the discussion would be the same. How do you think the discussion would change?
  25. The things that google leads you to. I found this blog really interesting, was reading it this morning. https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/. I don?t necessarily agree with everything but the commonality / links regarding council engagement with residents in this different context were instructive. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well............https://betterelephant.github.io/b > log/2013/04/09/report-uncovers-corruption-at-the-e > lephant/ and > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=55 > 835 also > > Peter Walker....local resident of an LTN cyclist > and Guardian Jounalist... ?He advocated reducing > endless consultation and getting more changes done > faster? note...the no consultation. > > And some LCC action with Disgraced....Simon Still
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...