legalalien

I?ve emailed the constitutional team email address, let?s see. I am bloody minded enough to check frequently to see what is going on. You?ll see from my other thread that there?s a Peckham / Nunhead ward meeting to discuss low traffic in Nunhead, next week (online) which was advertised on the Peckham and Nunhead Facebook page but doesn?t seem to have made it into the main Southwark calendar.

On a similar note, the Council seem to have unilaterally disabled the "update" service on their Council and Democracy website. I've suddenly stopped receiving updates, and when I try to resubscribe I get an error message with the ominous word "Forbidden". Ironic. dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As with all these things most that are affected > don?t have time to search out all the websites > they should be sticking pins into. > > The council seem to be happy with that and only > wish to hear from one demographic whatever they > may say about inclusion etc....

I don?t have a licence. I?m not sure why you are suggesting I find an SUV and get some driving lessons - unless you think I could help create traffic on the main roads, to assist with the LTN / car reduction experiment?

I voted for the Count (the entreaty for supporters to put their bins on the pavement at least once in the last week as a show of support did it for me). Was just pondering the significance of his standing for the Count Binface Party rather than as an independent - and after a quick google in turns out the CBP is registered to an address in Forest Hill. So practically a local candidate.

This month?s update of the Forward Plan has now been published, a number of new upcoming decisions listed including a decision on participation in a 12 month pan-London scooter trial https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50026086&PlanId=669 Also one on ?Formalising Council constitutional and decision making processes to incorporate the Climate Emergency priority and the recognition of wider health and socio-economic inequalities in Southwark? https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50026163&PlanId=669 Those decisions due in June. Also a decision due in July on a Climate Change Action Plan, which is listed as a major decision with a value of ?500k plus (so a cabinet decision). Looks as though the closure of undersubscribed schools in the north of the borough is starting, as there?s a decision notice about the closure of St John?s Walworth listed for July. Decision on extension of CPZ in North East Peckham due in August https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50026103&PlanId=669

Agree. The issue of policing language is a whole new thread. Let's keep this one to allocation of road/ lane/ avenue / crescent / square / grove / streetspace and associated active travel / public transport/ transport policy/ air quality issues. Plenty to keep us all occupied. * *although as someone who favours not policing language/ speech, far be it from me to tell people what they can post and where. Conflicted :)

Interesting use of "promote". Perhaps "raise awareness of" might have been a more politic choice of words.

He is a coopted member of the Environmental Scrutiny Commission and the chair of London Living Streets, inter alia https://lrscconference.org.uk/index.php/agenda-speakers/jeremy-leach-co-founder-action-vision-zero/. Seems to be driving a lot of the policy tbh and has been engaged in it with the council for a while https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=13101. Involved in something called the southwark Walking Joint Steering Group, which if you google the minutes, seems to be driving a fair part of the policy agenda. And historically also involved in running Southwark Cyclists (eg https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/20140328_CJSG_Minutes_published.pdf)

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At @legalalien, I have a FOI request out with the > council about the "draft" CPZ plan and related > communications that has just been rejected. I > will be appealing... Yell if you need a hand trawling through the ICO guidance for the relevant references etc.

For anyone with an interest in parking or the way the council is going about things, would highly recommend watching this meeting, especially from about 1:00 to 1:15. Discussion of Jeremy's "Recommendation 15", which, although we don't get to see the wording (it's in the chat), seems to be a souped up version of a previous recommendation about a policy for emissions based parking charges, that Jeremy wants to specifically refer to diesel vehicles, among other things. Cllr Hamvas seems to have pointed out on chat that diesel owners are already hit by ULEZ, and Cllr Morris goes into bat for existing diesel owners who are already being hit by ULEZ and increased congestion charge - is it fair for them to pay an increased parking charge as well, given that many of the owners concerned are some of the more disadvantaged residents. (those who can pay, will pay - and is this fair?". Cllr Morris also asks about whether the council has considered things like app based on demand buses in the more "rural" parts of the borough, like Dulwich. (this doesn't get put in the recommendations but there is a suggestion it should be followed up with officers). Jeremy is really worried that his plan for diesel charging will fall off the radar. Cllr Newens raises the idea that charges should be based on size of vehicles (SUVs bad) and that there should be a recommendation to that effect. Cllr Ochere - cementing his place as my favourite LC, points out that the Commission really shouldn't be making up recommendations without some sort of evidence base. Ongoing discussion, some on chat which we can't see. Jeremy doesn't want his recommendation softened, it seems. It is based on a recommendation last year, so consensus ends up to repeat the previous recommendation about the need for emissions based parking charges and the idea that a range of stated factors should be considered in formulating the policy, which will be considered and come back for formal recommendation in the next municipal year. Now to watch the final read through of the recommendations...

The "main road" thing is fairly subjective though. Court Lane is a classified road (not a "back street") and shut completely. But it's an interesting point: the council is prepared to force LL, EDG and Croxted to endure massive congestion while we see whether and how traffic will adjust; but not prepared to subject DV, Turney and Burbage to the same type of experiment (even though they would have experienced less than LL, EDG and Croxted do now, as more routes would have been open. Is this down to traffic modelling or political considerations (genuine question - was there traffic modelling that couldn't be ignored, for example)? RRR would you support reversing the Phase 2 closures in the Village and then seeing if the CA/CL junction closure is sustainable as a stand alone, on an experimental basis?

Just sat down to watch last night's Environment Scrutiny Commission meeting. The first bit is missing, but the discussion of the Air Quality Report part 2 starts around 15:25. Just watched not-a-councillor Jeremy Leach give his comments on the report, from about 17:00. Horrified at the reference to "60s type visions" and successfully demands that be taken out. Puts a couple of paragraphs of suggested wording he'd like to be in the report "in the chat" for councillors to consider (given this is a public meeting, should the wording not be disclosed to the public? This is something I've wondered about before in terms of the sidebar chat function for these online meetings). And interestingly, at about 20:30 expresses his consider that the implementation of potential new changes to the structure of residential parking is not coming forward in the way "we've been promised it would do". Who has been promised what? Living Streets? Is this an indication that the original "parking document" with the firm dates for roll out of the CPZ borough wide was in fact a real plan, rather than a mistake that was then replaced with a more wishy-washy document? ETA: Cllr Ochere has the patience of a saint and remains my favourite Labour councillor. Cllr Werner suggested that the council do some long-term health monitoring about the impact of the LTNs on respiratory health. She had in mind the beneficial impact caused by less pollution. Cllr Ochere suggests a key purpose would be the impact of those attending schools on main roads. A general statement going in about the importance of monitoring the impact on health outcomes. Cllr Hamvas makes a useful point about the importance of good PTAL and ensuring bus routes serve schools properly eg don't stop 3 stops before the terminal stop near the school. Cllr Morris (LD) makes some interesting observations about the need to monitor impacts of policies on car ownership rather than just trips. Apparently in the Borough area the council sell more parking permits than there are parking spaces! Will update when have watched the rest....

I think the restrictions on Dulwich Village are to prevent the serious traffic impact that the CA/CL closure would have on DV, creating a permanent traffic jam past the shops and schools. And then closing DV meant that displaced traffic would be likely to go down Burbage and Turney - and some of those living there and involved in the consultation didn't like that idea, so they closed them as well, and diverted the traffic to Croxted Road. One thing led to another... which is why I think the permanent /all day closure of CA/CL is a critical part of the problem. I'm guessing but I imagine that the time periods chosen correspond to the modelled time periods of problems with displaced traffic. They haven't been chosen to enable active travel to schools - were that the case they could be much shorter and wouldn't be needed in school holidays? On a related note to Poppy, I spoke to a guy from a sports charity this morning who said they are having to look at reducing the number of sessions that they run as it's now impossible for their staff to meet their coaching schedules. So ironically, for an active travel initiative, less physical activity for a number of children in some of the less well-heeled schools about the place who don't have full-time PE staff.

Good news.

Thanks. Agree that road user charging is the way forward (and that the cost of on demand deliveries needs to be passed on to consumers). As a non- driver and someone who doesn't like shopping much, amazon was like catnip to me. Have been weaning myself off it during lockdown, with some success - not entirely but at least aggregating orders as far as possible and accepting that delivery doesn't need to be instant. You're right that we could usefully have a separate thread on this.

Agenda for this Thursday?s Environment Scrutiny Commission here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6992 Includes draft Air Quality Scrutiny report and draft Environment and Planning scrutiny report (latter summarises some evidence taken of whether / how the New Southwark Plan fits with Southwark climate emergency targets. Meeting is at 6:30pm and generally streamed live on Southwark?s YouTube channel.

Southwark Air Quality report part 2, April 2021 now up on the website in advance of tomorrow evening?s meeting. Haven?t read it yet. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s96603/Air%20quality%20part%20two%20draft%20review%20report.pdf

I thought Gilkes Place was closed (the second closure) for the purposes of the ex SG Smith construction site? No idea if / when construction is going to happen but I do wonder how the construction traffic is going to access it- I think the original plan was via the now- closed junction? I'd be in favour of a tax regime that hit delivery vehicles, in particular non- food deliveries. The whole business of ordering clothes online / trying on/ sending back in particular strikes me as a complete waste of resources. Call me old fashioned :)

The next Environment Scrutiny Commission meeting is on Thursday 29 April: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6992 The various reports to be discussed at the meeting haven't been put up yet but should be available at that link in due course.

Laura, I'm with you. I emailed to ask who was on last year's climate emergency steering group. No answer. Submitted FoI. No answer. Escalated FoI in accordance with Southwark policy. Twice. No answer, no answer. So I've complained to the ICO. If the council won't even answer a simple question about who they have been speaking to, the chance of getting more detailed info is, I suspect, zero. I agree that the council shouldn't have made the declaration / set the target if they don't believe they have sufficient powers to do the things required to achieve it. If they do believe they have sufficient powers, then there should be a plan.

Or maybe Gilkes Crescent given the preference for a professional expert arbiter and the enthusiasm for the Dulwich Square mock-up? I don't think a third party expert is the solution here, given one of the big problems has been a lack of proper "before" data. The third party isn't going to have any more "real" data to work with than anyone else has. Plus the debate is now so polarised that I doubt either side of it will trust a single expert. The (missed) solution was for Southwark to comply with its statutory / regulatory duty to properly consult TfL and Lambeth before implementing the Phase 2 closures. It didn't. If it had, perhaps the entirely foreseeable Croxted Road chaos might have been avoided. I know someone who used to take the number 3 bus and is now driving (via an alternative route) because the bus can't get them where they need to be, on time. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I imagine the new poster is living in Melbourne, > Derwent or Court, much like all 5 of the people > who make up Clean Air Dulwich-EDSTN ..which is > basically the same group, of course the silly > councillors know all five in this group..isn?t one > a town planner who designs for the Council? > > A real campaign for clean air would be raising the > terrible idea of plans to build on green spaces > with mature trees in the Bells and Brenchley > estates, campaigning for local transport, asking > for pollution monitoring on all roads and asking > why green spaces are being removed. > > These are not real campaigns about clean air and > places for children to play safely. They are > campaigns for gated, exclusive traffic free areas > for the wealthiest in Southwark. Desperate to > dismiss residents on LL, EDG and Croxted, they > troll on Twitter and block mothers, businesses and > cyclists who disagree with them - calling them > ?misinformed? and trying to indicate they are all > against reducing pollution and want to be able to > drive anytime, any place and denying the actual > lived experience of people who live on these > boundary roads.

Some pot plants have now arrived. See pic.

Meanwhile the parklet outside Romeo Jones has appeared but is not yet operational...

The planters on Court Lane and Calton Avenue seem to have acquired blue ?pedestrian priority? signs. I think they are new?

I?ve donated but I am really cross. I think the council has failed to comply with the law, as a result my council tax will be funding the council?s legal bill and I?ll be funding the challenge to the council. If only all that money could be spent on something practical/useful.