legalalien

I was going to move it somewhere but when I went back outside it had gone! I think it sensed my intentions and disappeared into a rotting sleeper (along with all the stag beetle larvae that I think live in there). ETA slightly better pic. It is quite attractive, for a slug.

There is a horrible giant orange slug in my garden - have seen some big ones but not one like this (pic attached). Should I be worried?

It was in my group but sounds as though it varied between groups.

Today?s meeting was interesting. They didn?t record it.

I tuned in to see what all the fuss was about. It has the look and feel of a regional news programme, rather than some sort of ?shock jock? thing, from what I saw, but perhaps that?s the point? Something that screams non-establishment, non-metro elite?

Yep 100%. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One thing I think everyone can probably agree on, > is that the lack of data / baselining and ongoing > monitoring is extremely unhelpful.

Just seen on Twitter that Southwark Cyclists are advising their followers to respond to the consultation in ways that include advocating for a modal filter in Red Post Hill. Really hoping all these plans involve a new hospital somewhere as this is a key route to Kings for staff/ anyone not in an ambulance. It?s bad enough with the timed closures on DV. Can it not be ALL about cycle routes? ETA I do wonder if this links into the email exchanges back in November when Southwark sprang the Phase 2 closures on TfL. Just checked back and it was during a telephone discussion about Red Post Hill that TfL seems to have expressed concern that Southwark had neglected to tell TfL that the closures were going in (notice given on Thursday for Monday implementation). See attached.

Have just received the message below. Seems the provision of data is being delayed. Love the last part with the assertion that the process is robust, fair and inclusive. We?ll see. (As my grandfather used to say, self-praise is no recommendation). Dear all Thank you for registering to attend the Dulwich Community Meeting this Saturday at 2pm. The link to access this meeting is https://zoom.us/j/93950973013 Meeting ID: 939 5097 3013 Passcode: 364163 Please note: It had been our intention to have a section of Saturday?s meeting to consider initial data reports to inform the discussion as progression from our earlier meetings. Feedback from our previous meetings made clear people wanted to have more time to share their experiences of the measures across the wider Dulwich area and to discuss areas of concern. There was also a need to have meaningful comparative data shared and explained. Being able to meet both those requests in one public meeting in a constructive way would be unlikely. Therefore our sharing of important data, to help inform residents and ensure a constructive discussion, is being amended to allow for two additional data specific meetings that will be focused on both the outcome of Saturday?s meeting and feedback from our earlier sessions. This will allow proper time, across all meetings for opinions and experiences to be shared from our estates, streets and roads within and outside the Dulwich trial area. Details of these additional meetings will be given shortly and you will be able to register for these events in advance. The format of Saturday?s meeting will be different to the previous ones we have held. After an initial presentation giving the background to the Dulwich Review and the Streetspace measures, we will be bringing people into a number of ?breakout rooms? where we hope to have more in-depth discussion of people?s concerns and suggestions. Themes to discuss will be:- 1. What aims should we have for highways measures in the Dulwich area? 2. In what ways have the existing schemes worked / not worked? 3. Going forward, how do we develop the roads in Dulwich to achieve our aims and create a healthier future for the whole Dulwich area. Saturday remains an opportunity for you to hear about the purpose and objectives of traffic measures; the process we are undertaking to monitor and evaluate the success of them against those objectives and it also provides more time to share your views and to work towards some constructive ways forward. The additional new sessions specifically informed by data and the feedback so far, will provide even more opportunity to have your voice heard. This review process is robust, fair and inclusive. Kind regards, Southwark Highways

I agree with the measures you suggest northernmonkey. It would also be interesting to know whether the survey figures reflect those who always cycle etc, or those who mostly cycle etc. If those saying they are cycling etc are only cycling and so on 60% of the time, that?s a lot more car journeys than the figures would suggest. I?d be surprised if there weren?t a fair few people using active transport on days when it?s sunny and they don?t have lots of kit to drag along or an after school activity further away, or on days when a parent is working from home, but driving on the days when that isn?t the case / the parent needs to go on to somewhere else.

love this. the dinosaur situation is a bit concerning.

In fact one of the judges has just suggested that it is common ground that an EqIA assessment would have to be done at a borough level for a specific scheme. Eg for a particular traffic order. (The discussion is whether the quality of that assessment would be any different had the TfL guidance been any clearer on the point).

Watching today?s court of appeal proceedings (on delayed viewing). Interesting discussion of whether or not TfL?s general guidance should have been subject to an EqIA (which would by its nature be very general, one judge suggesting that it makes sense for the assessment to happen at a much more granular level). Has suggested that requiring the guidance to signpost the need for boroughs to carry out an EqIA would be infantilising the authorities to which it was directed. (If only he knew that some authorities didn?t actually bother with granular, street by street specific EqIAs). Doesn?t feel like this is going well for the taxis - but even if that is the case there is the potential for some passages in the judgment that push more responsibilities down to the local authorities. (planning to watch more later)

You can watch today's Court of Appeal proceedings in the taxi driver v TfL case (about the Bishopsgate no-taxi bus lanes) on youtube if you are keen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4b1edR4pns&t=5838s It's not the most exciting watch ever. TfL barrister was good, just started watching UTAG chap. Seems to have got off to quite a shaky start. ETA is warming up now (about two hours into the second clip) Not actually saying TfL acted in bad faith, but they did have ?an ambition? that the plans should become permanent. One judge a bit concerned that original judgment went off on a bit of a tangent from the grounds pleaded, with findings of bad faith.. ?Mr Monk was never called and it was never put to him that he was a lying toerag?? On a different note, proceedings don?t exactly scream "diversity in the legal profession", I have to say. Edited again to add- if anyone out there is geeky enough to watch, gets interesting around 2:11 into the second session. Some concern about first instance judge effectively finding bad faith when that wasn?t pleaded at first instance and evidence wasn?t given on that point as a result. Very technical area of law. Get the feeling that they may allow the temporary Bishopsgate order on the narrow basis that it is temporary and will fall away, and won?t agree to the quashing of the general guidance to boroughs on the basis that bad faith wasn?t pleaded and the judge at first instance didn?t have enough evidence of a TfL ?Trojan horse to get LTNs through? theory. Not my area but just trying to read the judges?)

See attached. 1979.

Perhaps preparing it to be marked up for paid car parking? Heard some parents discussing what a useful car park the Calton Road end of it had become, on the weekend - plus various further anecdotes about people keeping one car at home and one car on the street on the other side of the border! Have I told the story about someone who has bought a second small car so that they can do just that?

Sinners I think there are some additional notification requirements if you are in a conservation area. But I don?t think Elsie Road is in one, looking at the Southwark website. But not sure (website not always accurate/ up to date).

Although you?re not on the Dulwich Estate, might be worth contacting one of their recommended tree people for a quote / advice - my impression / experience is that they list people who have a good understanding of and respect for applicable rules, both estate rules and council rules so can probably tell you what the rules are. https://www.thedulwichestate.org.uk/property-on-the-estate/applications-for-tree-works/tree-surgeons-useful-contacts I got http://cutabovetreemanagement.co.uk/ to trim a tree earlier in the year, I think they do some work for Southwark and they explained it all to me (and did a great job, although that?s probably for a different section of the forum).

That misses the point I was making - which is that Southwark's prioritisation of this scheme over other potential road changes is inconsistent with its criteria for selecting LTN locations (PTAL levels, deprivation, etc etc). Leaving aside whether the Dulwich LTN is workable, it seems to me likely that this scheme went in because there were local lobby groups actively engaging with the Council and pushing for it (Southwark Cyclists because of their masterplan re joined-up cycle routes across London, Safe Routes to School who had been lobbying for more active travel to the private schools in particular for a while, Mums for Lungs). And then the Calton Ave and Court Lane residents who didn't like having lots of traffic outside their houses. That's fine, and there's no problem at all with people lobbying for causes that they believe in and/or for changes which are in their own self-interest. But the Council is supposed to do a bit more than just try and please those who are most engaged with them or - as I think may often happen, uncritically accept what the lobby groups tell them. They need to step back and properly consider the big picture and the interests of those who are often not well-represented/ regularly engaged with the Council; moreover they should be keeping an open mind about these experimental schemes and be prepared to acknowledge problems. Maybe resourcing is the issue? Instead we see one of the local councillors regularly on twitter acting as a cheerleader for the square and closures, in what I think is a fairly appalling manner. I did smile at yesterday's effort when he explained to someone, in a particularly patronising way, that Southwark had no "agency" over Norwood Road because it is in Lambeth (he even posted a dictionary definition of agency) - and then realised that actually part of Norwood Road is within his ward boundary. Just shows how keen he is on representing the interests of those on main roads.

With apologies for pre-empting heartblock's reply: (i) this was planned prior to/ separately from the COVID closures (and I think I saw on twitter that Cllr Leeming helped design it) (ii) if Southwark had followed its own criteria for determining where to put LTNs, it wouldn't have put one here (iii) there may be some LTNs in other places that are well thought through and work - that doesn't mean that this one does or that this one is motivated by the same considerations as the other ones. Perhaps the OHS proposal wasn't getting enough support and some people took the opportunity afforded by the other 400 plus filters being installed, to push the closure through? (iv) some of the other 400 plus barriers may also be vanity projects or in wealthy areas trying to export traffic to poorer areas (I've certainly seen that criticism levelled at the closures near the Oval). I can probably think of some other explanations.

It?s OK mfcjoe as long as Dulwich Square exists as a nice destination for those poor folk to visit and aspire to. I?m told that?s how nice places work. mfcjoe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Three generous sized parks within 5-10 min walk > from "Dulwich square", why should there be more > open space for DV where most of the the wealthy > residents will more than likely have a large > garden, whilst the poorer parts of Southwark are > having their small pieces of grass and playgrounds > turned into housing. > WALOB

Loved that show. Friday after school, hated piano lesson, fish and chips, a glass of full fat milk and LR.

You?re right of course - I?m not planning to turn my house into Fort Knox. Pondering shops. I do think there are some effects eg someone from Wandsworth dropping children at DPL or DC might once have then gone to buy shoes / books/ drop dry cleaning/ go to the chemist and get a coffee but is now more inclined to go to west Dulwich or give it a miss and go back to Wandsworth... Possibly not useful for me to speculate, the shop owners and driver-customers are better placed to comment. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mainly I don't think that if anyone was previously > driving 15 mins to a nail bar, that there would be > another in a completely opposite (unaffected by > any traffic) 20 mins in another direction. > > Whilst I can see that there are some things you > might buy from Callows - its not an extensive > range - and not the kind of thing people buy more > than once. I have on occasions bought padlocks > from them or door code buttons, again something > you go specifically for in general. > > They haven't said where they are moving to - I > heard something about Grove Vale > > > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You don?t think there?s an in between eg happy > to > > drive to x nail bar if it takes me 15 mins, but > if > > that changes to 45 mins I?ll go to the next > > nearest one that?s 20 mins away? > > > > (I am not a nail bar person aside from the > > occasional pre summer holiday pedicure, so > happy > > to be shot down when it comes to this example. > > Probably should have chosen something else.) > > > > I did browse in the locksmith the other day when > I > > was having some keys cut and came away with a > new > > combination padlock and a small key safe. It?s > > possible I am an atypical consumer. Do we know > > exactly where on LL they are moving to (I think > I > > read it was LL?)

You don?t think there?s an in between eg happy to drive to x nail bar if it takes me 15 mins, but if that changes to 45 mins I?ll go to the next nearest one that?s 20 mins away? (I am not a nail bar person aside from the occasional pre summer holiday pedicure, so happy to be shot down when it comes to this example. Probably should have chosen something else.) I did browse in the locksmith the other day when I was having some keys cut and came away with a new combination padlock and a small key safe. It?s possible I am an atypical consumer. Do we know exactly where on LL they are moving to (I think I read it was LL?)

Northern monkey - isn?t that the point? I?m no Mary Portas but I?d imagine it?s places like dry cleaners, hairdressers, nail bars etc that get hardest hit if lack of parking / traffic congestion make them harder to get to. People who can?t / don?t want to walk or cycle will switch to an alternative service provider that they can drive to more easily?* (Hairdressers maybe not so much as there?s a personal connection - but dry cleaning (and the locksmith for example). And there?s a knock on effect - if people aren?t going to the dry cleaner / shoe shop because of the traffic issue, they won?t be buying a coffee next door either. It?s another reason why relying on generalised data like the TfL stuff doesn?t really tell you what will happen to a particular set of shops in a particular location. I?ve said it before, I think the focus on general data rather than the specific case in hand is a problem. The whole point of local government is that it can consider he specifics of the local area - otherwise why not centralise everything? *yes perhaps they shouldn?t be driving there but that?s scant comfort to the small business owner- unless we?re happy to add some businesses to the ?collateral damage? pile along with the residents of main roads.

LTN BooHoo - you mean to the question about the permit system (I answered the other one)? Not quite sure why you're asking me / how I would know - I haven't seen a flyer, I think I may have seen something to that effect a while ago from One Dulwich (rather than the Dulwich Alliance) - not sure if it's still the case, I've just checked their website and their stated mission 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." ETA: I've just looked at the Dulwich Alliance website and their petition to Council in February said this: "Secondly, we ask you to put in place a holistic, area-wide, camera-controlled exemption scheme that allows fair and reasonable access during restricted hours. We now know that the ANPR cameras you have installed in Dulwich do not require a CPZ to be in operation so that, as in Hammersmith and Fulham, vehicles with exemptions can pass through these camera gates without being charged. Which streets should be restricted, how long for, and who should have access, are all key issues that the Council should be putting forward as options for consultation." HTH