legalalien

Perhaps they thought that pretty much everyone was aware of the pandemic? I've certainly noticed it over the last 12 months or so. DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > I am sure that they are > > more than aware of the pandemic. > > So why didn't DA mention it in their flyer?

The thing is, the TfL data is an average. With the Village already having a much higher than average level of pedestrian activity, and the fact that a number of shops are ?destination? shops, it?s entirely possible that these specific shops are having a different experience from the average. Telling them they don?t know what is happening and have been misled by Dulwich Alliance comes across as incredibly patronising. I am sure that they are more than aware of the pandemic.

There was a reason for the smiley face emoji after that comment, I was being tongue in cheek. But having re-read the offending leaflets, I wouldn?t describe them as misleading (I gather the two sides differ about the level of business opposition? But that figure is linked to a specific survey). Of course they take a particular perspective and are designed to persuade.

I don?t trust the Council, and I don?t need to trust the Dulwich Alliance as they don?t have any decision making power. Heartblock you may be right. If the Council wasn?t prepared to heed TfL?s request to delay the Phase 2 closures by a week to enable TfL?s concerns about their potential effect on its road network and buses to be properly considered, it seems unlikely they?ll listen to mere residents. (Perhaps if they had engaged properly, rather than informing TfL of the details of the closures on the Thursday evening before the Monday they went in, Croxted Road might not be in the mess it is in.)

Even if the DA flyer is as you say, it at least helps to offset the misinformation /propaganda that the Council has been propagating :) I?ve also had a couple of flyers from the other side (alliance4dulwich)? I suspect people are only bothered by the ones that don?t support their views. At this stage I think DA?s proposal is to bring the Council back to the table and force them to acknowledge the flaws in the current arrangement and listen to a wider range of residents than they have to date. They have (I think rightly) reluctantly concluded that the only way to do that is to encourage people to select ?reverse the changes? in the review, as that response is difficult for the Council to ?reinterpret? (they have form). Let?s not forget, a response to the review is not a binding vote - the Council doesn?t have to implement exactly what the majority want. It is a channel for sending a message to the Council about the popularity of the experimental schemes- and on that basis I think DA have probably got it right. Hence, I guess, your posts. LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve heard that Dulwich residents are getting fed > up with the numerous flyers from DA all spouting > various levels of misinformation or propaganda. > They offer no viable solution and only want to go > back to what we had before. At one point I > thought I could support them but no more. > > ?Share pollution equally? is their offer and I?m > not sure how that meets the climate emergency we > face.

I think it?s likely that people with posters either (i) know DA members personally and got a poster from them; or (ii) are part of a small minority who are aware that the posters exist/ where to get them from, and have time in their daily lives to collect a poster, or near neighbours of those people (the posters tend to appear in ?clumps?). It?s not as if everyone has had one delivered to them and then chosen whether or not to put it up, so I really don?t think it?s any indication at all tbh.

You?re having a laugh? That?s the least scientific thing I?ve ever heard. But if we?re going to go with this kind of pseudo-data: I have a poster and three near neighbours have commented that they agree with me but that I?m ?very brave? to put a poster up. So based on that, let?s multiply the number of posters by four to estimate support (I haven?t seen another poster in my street so we wouldn?t be double counting). Or possibly let?s assume everyone in my street agrees with me as they haven?t put a pro LTN poster up. To be fair I haven?t done a half hearted google of their property values, so I may be misinterpreting. I have however walked along the roads mentioned regularly over the past decade. DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I took a brief and informal snapshot to see where > anti-LTN support was coming from and how deep it > was on some of the roads affected by displaced > traffic, as expressed by people putting up posters > and placards opposing the LTNs. > > I walked East Dulwich Grove in its entirety, > Lordship Lane from the East Dulwich Tavern to the > junction of the South Circular/ Dulwich Common, > and Dulwich Village down to the junction with East > Dulwich Grove. Where I could find the information, > I also checked out house values on Zoopla ( some > have no values entered) and took the midpoint of > those Zoopla estimates. All in all, it was pretty > interesting. > > Clearly, many caveats. A poster or placard is only > one indication of support or otherwise, posters > and placards could be put up for a variety of > motives and reflect a range of views, Zoopla is > very broad and often inaccurate, some people might > not be allowed to put up posters in terms of their > leases/ tenancy agreements etc, some people might > not own the property they are in, my maths at > times can be crap, I might have missed some. So > this exercise is intended to be informal, broad > and indicative, a personal view and nothing more. > > East Dulwich Grove between the junction with > Dulwich Village and Townley Road (Alleyns) had > relatively strong anti LTN support, and the > average house price, where an estimated range was > given, of those displaying a poster or placard was > over ?2 million. > > East Dulwich Grove to Lordship Lane, support was > weaker, average house/ property price was of those > displaying a poster, where an estimated range was > given, was ?1.1 million. The average property > price given on Zoopla for East Dulwich Grove as a > whole is ?717k. > > Lordship Lane from the East Dulwich Tavern to > Dulwich Library is 0.8 miles, and I found the lack > of support for the anti-LTN lobby as expressed by > posters and placards, particularly striking. When > I counted, only 8 businesses on the entire stretch > were displaying a poster or placard, and only 5 > residential properties. Clearly, all the caveats > mentioned above and probably some others apply, > but what I also found striking was other kinds of > posters such as Black Lives Matter and in support > of the NHS were on display. On the Lordship Lane > Estate, facing Lordship Lane, there wasn't a > single anti-LTN poster to be seen in the flats. > > Dulwich Common/ South Circular to Dulwich Village > - there was a cluster of posters/placards in the > houses near the junction with Lordship Lane, and > where I could get an indication of value, the > average house price of those displaying them was > ?1.44 million. Again strikingly in the large > concentration of flats opposite in McCleod Court > and Maxwell Court, there wasn't a single poster or > placard. > > Dulwich Village from the South Circular down to > East Dulwich Grove, posters and placards were > relatively sparse, and the average house price of > those displaying them where I could find it, with > all the caveats, was ?3.72m. > > With all the above-stated caveats, this exercise > (apart from giving my ton of Covid flab a workout) > posed for me a couple of questions: > > - are a lot of people who oppose the LTNs on roads > I walked affected by displaced traffic likely to > live in a high-value property? > - is support for the anti-LTN lobby from > potentially lower-income groups living on roads I > walked affected by displaced traffic currently > weak? > > In the light of some of the 'for the many, not the > few' style rhetoric coming out of some of the > anti-LTN lobby in recent days, this gave me pause > for thought. Clearly, it would be good to hear a > range of views as to what people think, > particularly the people affected.

And so what if people are only getting involved now? Maybe previously they were getting on with their lives and not thinking about these issues, and have only now started engaging. Engagement is a good thing, surely? You don?t get to decide what the motives of strangers on the internet might be, sorry.

I think write to the traffic department and ask them to explain on what grounds Southwark believe the closure is required to prevent un-works related danger to the public, copying in their legal dept and an assortment of councillors. As far as I can tell there?s no statutory objection process, and as with all these things court action is expensive / not terribly practical. But we can at least try and get the council to explain itself and justify its actions? I was thinking of sending an email.

Sorry DC, but that last comment reminded me of the attached cartoon :)

But Redpost, if that's the concern, the notice ought to reflect the wording in 14(1)(a) "because works are being or are proposed to be executed on or near the road", not 14(1)(b), "because of the likelihood of danger to the public, or of serious damage to the road, which is not attributable to such works". The "danger to the public" wording relates specifically to a closure that is NOT works-related. (ETA: of course it may be that "works" has a specific, road-related definition and doesn't cover building works.. will try and check that as it does of course affect the argument) I agree with you that in practice it might well be sensible to keep the road closed until the current works being done are complete, which I imagine might be soon. If and when development happens on the old SG Smith site, then there's another discussion to be had. What I strongly disagree with is what looks to me like inappropriate reliance on a statutory provision, which because of its vague wording, has the potential to be used to justify some sort of long-term closure, without any process of consultation or right to object. Not linking the closure to the current works strikes me as a deliberate choice. It's an important point of principle that public authorities should act properly within the powers granted to them, whatever the merits of the case in hand.

I agree. Flippit did he give any indication of what the ?public safety? / ?danger to the public? relied on might be?

Hopskip I agree that there is thought to be given to the replacement plan for construction access to that site, I have no idea what the new plan is at present. If the DV junction closure remains in place then any/ either of the alternatives are problematic - with the amount of traffic on EDG then turning into or out of GC is difficult (also quite a small turning radius), the alternative is what - traffic down Woodwarde and Calton to the site? I?d be interested to hear if anyone knows what the council has planned.

Heartblock 100% agree with you on this. Do you know if there are any petitions/ campaigns people can easily sign up to or who we need to write to? Happy to try and look it up but I suspect you may already know the answer?

Another thing which might sound a bit strange: you can reduce your car journeys/ give up a car without switching to cycling. Walking, public transport, and the occasional taxi or PHV works fine. I say this because cycling is often presented as the alternative option to car use, and some people might not want to cycle/ have somewhere to store their bike, and be put off as a result.

Thanks for this positive thread. I have been trying to wean myself off Amazon over lockdown, with I'd say an 80% success rate. I would add: try and buy long lasting and sustainable clothing, and give up the practice of ordering lots of clothes online (including in multiple sizes), trying them on, and then sending lots of it back. Real waste of resource, both because much of the stuff sent back gets thrown out, and because of the delivery journeys in both directions. Easy to say as I'm no kind of fashionista and have some clothing items that are 20+ years old. But still. If you are doing a weekly grocery shop online, choose the "green" option and try to choose a time that is outside the road closure windows as this helps reduce traffic congestion/ idling and makes your delivery driver's life easier.

By way of update, it now looks as though Southwark are going to issue a temporary order on Gilkes Place to continue the closure effected by the notice above. The order is intended to be effective from 18 June (when the notice runs out), and is still justified by reference to "public safety" grounds. Pic attached. If I'm reading the regulations correctly, the obligation to publish in the newspaper 7 days in advance of the new order (under Reg 3(2)) doesn't apply, because this is an extension of the existing notice (see Regulation 7). As far as I can tell, temporary orders can last up to 18 months, with no right of objection - which I would suggest means that the "danger to the public" bar ought to be quite high. From a quick google, I see that Lambeth has been using this mechanism, citing a danger to the public caused by increased pedestrian and pedal cycle traffic. eg https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pts-temporary-ban-on-motor-vehicles-entering-junction-exemption-for-cycles-for-one-way-traffic-cornwall-road-roupell-street-11.09.2020.pdf Bit of a dangerous precedent?

JohnL so if I understand that correctly, if there are increased delays on specific bus routes (37, 3), this would be going against the overall trend and to some extent underestimating the delays that would occur in a post- COVID scenario (as bus delays are still being discounted by the fact that reduced passenger numbers due to COVID speed up bus times)?

Meanwhile, Peckham Vision and others are expressing very similar concerns about aspects of the Council?s approach to the Old Kent Road (see attachment). These actions aren?t in Dulwich but are right in our backyard and the governance/ engagement issues are the same.

I don?t know. I suspect there is a consensus around the idea of measures around active travel and that exactly what form those measures take needs to be hammered out. Many people won?t get their initial idea of a perfect solution, but hopefully something more equitable can be worked out. Yes, hard work, but likely to get more buy in with more engagement and a more transparent process involving objective data. The fact that something is difficult doesn?t mean it?s not the right thing to do. (On the flip side, I do get why those who feel strongly may have been tempted to take short cuts in the interests of getting something done.)

But exdulwicher, this is a non- standard case where the experimental traffic order approach superseded an existing consultation that was proceeding in a particular way. I don?t think that background can be overlooked, nor the unseemly haste with which the council latched onto a COVID justification and the availability of TFL funding to implement their preconceived scheme. Add to that the fact that the local councillors seem to have their fingers in their ears when it comes to listening to people during this post-implementation phase - I think my logic still applies. If they?d shown any sign of publicly acknowledging eg problems in Croxted Road, or suggesting that there was any possibility of reopening the Village Junction if the data supported that - we might be in a different place. They haven?t as far as I can tell, and some of their likes and tweets on Twitter seem to indicate that their minds are already made up (not that they are the actual decision makers - I know). ETA so what we have is a horrible hybrid. If at the start the Council had said ?we?ve collected all this baseline data, we think we?ve come up with a good solution, we?ve considered the interests of the elderly, disabled, boundary roads, we?ve spoken to TfL and Lambeth. We?re going to put in an experimental scheme, measure what happens to traffic in this way, consider it after 6 months and will modify if anyone experiences more than x degree of negative outcome...? we would be in a much different place.

Rx3 is it really hard to understand? I can't speak for OneDulwich, but I'd suggest: (i) the point I make above. OD are unimpressed by the way the council have "spun" survey results in the past, and can see the potential for a "divide and conquer". They won't be saying "80% oppose the existing scheme", they'll be saying "the existing scheme is the most popular option of eight different options" (for example, say where only 20% want the existing scheme, 10% want to go back to the old scheme, and everyone else wants some kind of variant) (ii) one of the key concerns about the existing scheme is that consultation was inadequate, those in the wider area were not properly consulted, those not digitally engaged were not properly consulted, there was no proper EqIA, no objectively measured data - the list goes on. How can OD be expected to put up a proposal that is adequate/sufficient without going through that sort of process? It's not their job to do so, and if they do come up with a proposal it is subject to challenge on all the same grounds as the current scheme. So it makes sense to adopt a "let's go back to the drawing board and try to come up with a solution with a legal/ adequate/ properly informed by data" process this time around. That makes sense to me. I don't think you can take that approach to mean that OD (or others like me who will choose the "reverse the changes" option) don't support measures to improve air quality/ active travel etc.

I completely understand why OneDulwich would take this approach to try and bring the Council to the table. It's an approach that forces the Council to recognise the consolidated opposition to the current scheme, rather than enabling it to fragment that opposition into support for various different measures, leaving the existing scheme as the most popular. (I've mentioned before the 1999 Australian republic referendum). A discussion to try and reach a satisfactory solution is best reached when the current, flawed scheme is definitively off the table. This will at least show whether people preferred the pre-scheme situation to the current situation, but doesn't attempt to pre-determine the final solution.

I?m happy to be corrected. From the sign posted on the lamppost I think they are relying on 14(2) rather than 14(1), so they are doing it by ?notice? rather than by ?order?, and relying on the likelihood of danger to the public. As it?s a notice, section 15(7)(b) then applies so it only lasts 21 days. Temporary notices are dealt with in Reg 10 of the 1992 regs so I don?t think the procedure you mention applies? Things are a little confused by the fact that the notice posted by Southwark refers to section 14(2) but uses the word ?order? as well as the word ?notice?. The real question, I think, is what happens after 21 days. ETA: I?m guessing the danger relied on is to children walking to and from school, rather than construction work, the notice doesn?t specify.

I?m not sure that?s right. Link to the section here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/14 The procedure is set out at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/1215/made/data.xht?wrap=true, worth checking whether it has been complied with. I imagine that if it?s going to be made Permanent / semi-permanent another order will need to be made...