legalalien

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...

Just been reading a paper on this year?s council budget for the cultural celebrations fund. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s98599/Report-Cultural%20Celebrations%20Fund.pdf. This year?s allocation is slightly lower than in past years: seems that in the past quite a fair chunk of it has been spent on fireworks events. Given fireworks are not exactly air-quality-friendly, do people think Southwark might well give fireworks night a miss? I speak as someone who has been keen on fireworks and bonfires in the past, but think they may have to go. See eg https://www.londonair.org.uk/londonair/guide/Fireworks.aspx I would like to see drones but I suspect they are monster expensive.

As a lifelong swing voter: I can understand that you feel let down, but there is a silver lining. Maybe many people outside the core Labour tribe share your views on lots of issues, even if you disagree with them on others? That?s how I choose to look at things. I?m not keen on heavily whipped party politics. We need a whole new thread on the infilling of estates, methinks....

Reading through this month's forward plan. There will be another couple of "minor traffic schemes" in July and September and a placeholder has been put in for a decision on the Dulwich schemes in September - and on the Peckham Rye East schemes in November (decisions have to be flagged up in advance). https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50026429&PlanId=672. Some other interesting upcoming things as well which I'll try and flag up when detail is available.

Just received an email about this council engagement exercise on Peckham Square https://peckhamsquare.commonplace.is/?utm_campaign=NewCommonplaces01_06_2021&lang=en-GB&utm_source=cp-email&utm_medium=email

Here?s the report from December that they recently consulted on, there?s timeframes in there. It does talk about possible level of development with or without the extension, but as the new properties have to be car free, not having the extension would massively affect demand/ feasibility you?d think. It all seems very ambitious and I suspect there?ll be similar gentrification etc issues as have happened at the Elephant. Not really relevant to this thread, but is probably an indication of some of the things we might expect to see in the Climate Change Strategy. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/31613/210111_OKRAAP_Addendum_Reduced.pdf

Any thoughts on potential impact on the Bakerloo line extension? I started reading a Southwark paper about that earlier this morning and was struck by how much Southwark seem to be relying on Old Kent Road development to achieve housing and climate emergency commitments. Need to have a proper read when I get a chance.

Smooch I agree. Perhaps (and I?m speaking for myself here), the best part of a year in lockdown has caused many people to focus more on what is happening in their local neighbourhood and how the processes work - and are not happy with what they see. For years I have blithely assumed that some sort of in built checks and balances ensured transparency and accountability in local govt but on a closer look some of these aren?t operating properly. I think that with such a massive majority at the polls, the Labour local govt administration may have become less sensitive to local views on their policies?

If that?s true that?s shocking. I?m assuming they must be using ANPR now in order to issue the number of fines that they have - either that, or half of their workforce have been diverted to the manual processing of LTN bus gate fines (I wouldn?t rule that out given references in various documents / the internal audit report to deficiencies created by staff being involved in COVID related activities: I guess fining people inadvertently driving through bus gates and dealing with related appeals might be regarded as a COVID related activity). I feel another FoI request coming on. If I put one in now I might get an answer by Christmas.

I?m busy filling in the Dulwich Review Consultation. I now see what people mean about the loaded questions and language. Just got to the bit where it describes one of the closures as creating ?a pleasant place to sit and relax?.

Perhaps you?ve failed (or refuse) to understand the reasoning behind the criticisms of the Dulwich schemes, which are based on specifics rather than the principles of LTNs? I don?t like the idea of ?camps? tbh, I think that all the details of the schemes should be up for debate and we shouldn?t be talking about ?for? and ?against? when it comes to details of schemes. On the other hand, I think being for or against the way the process has been handled and the way the current consultation/ review process is being carried out is possibly a bit more binary. Whatever your view on the merits of the LTNs happens to be, it?s worth thinking about the process issues.

Mr.chicken, grow up and stop treating this whole thing like a joke. It?s not a joke for many, many people, and I don?t think your tone is coming across quite how you envisage it might be. The current scheme causes more pollution for the schools in DV, I suspect, and in any case, as others have pointed out, some schools ought not to be more equal than others.

I don?t think the closures cause that much of an inconvenience for drivers living on Dulwich Village tbh. The couple of people I know who live on DV are more concerned about the increased traffic congestion that the overall scheme has caused on DV, including outside the two schools on DV. There?s an early morning build up of idling cars as well as a post 10am rush that sees plenty of traffic idling outside both schools. With the segregated bike lane before the Village Way / EDG junction and the changed lights phasing there, there?s also now more of a build up of northbound traffic on DV over the weekend.

No idea. Seems to be part of an ongoing pattern of tree destruction - see this recent article in Southwark News https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/climate-emergency-southwark-lost-nearly-2000-trees-in-a-decade/ They committed earlier this year to planting 10000 trees by 2022, see https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2021/jan/southwark-council-to-plant-10-000-new-trees-by-2022. On a related note, the tree management service is one of the items flagged red in the internal audit report that I linked to above: "Purpose of audit:review of the adequacy of the Council?s Tree Management, ensuring key risks related to ETRP are being adequately addressed. Key findings: ?The in house team was significantly under resourced to carry out the required ongoing maintenance of ageing and growing trees. ?There was an increasing backlog of tree inspections and resourcing gap due to the inability of in house team to complete the jobs allocated to them ?There was inaccurate calculation and inconsistent monthly KPI's within the "Performance Monitor" with no formal working papers retained to validate the data.