legalalien

Upcoming cycle hangars and various double yellow lines etc https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3771087

Hmm. Local residents claiming this is great for / designed for the local businesses, the vast majority of whom beg to differ. First we're fixing a traffic problem that didn't really exist outside an hour a day in the morning on a specific part of Calton and Court Lane (perhaps caused by poor junction design?), and now we're fixing a "north / south parade" problem that didn't really exist (and how does said square change the north/ south thing anyway?) And we've created a massive traffic problem on the boundary roads and a massive Village divide problem between east and west. Genius. Some Looking Glass memes are called for. If only I was more tech savvy.

More flyers about these closures than the London Mayoral election. Just received a new one from the Dulwich Square coalition. See attached. Probably not being delivered to all roads either...

The council should do an audit of its delivery arrangements in my opinion. As I've said before, I've only received three or four copies of Southwark Life in the last decade, and that's supposed to be one of its main communication channels. I suspect the focus on this particular leaflet may be showing up a more general problem with "paper" communication channels. I have spotted a couple of soggy piles of undelivered Southwark Lifes in the street before now.

I'm afraid that's my lack of engagement in the early stages of this project showing - I wasn't able to make the open meetings, and my RA forgot to add me to their mailing list so I was in the dark for quite a while. I was approaching the issue from a technical point of view in terms of council back bench voting power, so take on board what you say. Presumably some of the Labour councillors in other wards are irritated that this "quick win" isn't going so well... b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @legalalian > You say that the ward councillors have "pretty > much zero power here". Unusually I disagree with > you. > > The OHS consultation, used as the basis for the > current "temporary" traffic measures, was wholly > supported and pushed through by our local > councillors. They are the ones who led the public > meetings, claiming a highly misleading 47% > increase in traffic through the junction made > urgent action necessary; a claim which even now > they refuse to retract. They set up the secret > working group, made up of local activists and > Calton Ave RA, to help lead the consultation > process. They pushed for and supported the ETO's > which allowed them to implement the highly > controversial OHS phase 3 measure without > consultation and they are the ones who are trying > to make "Margy Plaza" permanent by spaffing public > money on shadowy organisations. > > Our concillors have also refused to accept any > responsibility for the impact of their flawed > scheme on the displacement roads and rejected any > suggestions for changes or compromise. I suspect > that, as the elections approach next year, we will > see them claiming they had their hands tied or the > traffic jams on EDG and Croxted were not their > fault, if so they will be lying. > > That still leaves residents with the issue of who > to vote for next year. I will vote for anyone > who promises to listen to and respect the views of > local residents rather than a vocal group of > minority activists.

I?m not sure what the best approach is tactically tbh. Much as I like to complain about my ward councillors, the reality is that they have pretty much zero power in all of this. But at least having independents or Tory councillors would bring in some people who could express independent voices, without being quite so hamstrung by a party whip. (Sort of, the LTN idea stems from central government, although not this specific application). I wonder whether voting Lib Dem might have some merit, in the interests of strengthening their proportion of seats and therefore the number of voices they have on key committees. (See http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90620/Report%20-%20Establishment%20of%20Committees%20etc.%202020-21.pdf for how the appt process works, places on committee are divided based on overall proportion of council seats. Independents don?t get a look in except at the discretion of the ruling party). Of course the LDs are supportive of LTNs, but at least have managed to get some meaningful adjustments to the ones in the north of the borough. But there will be a Lib Dem whipping arrangement as well. If any party campaigned on a platform of allowing local councillors to speak out / express the views of local constituents even where these conflicted with cabinet /party policy, and only whipping on key decisions I?d vote for that, provided I was sufficiently convinced that the local candidates were up to the job of representing a variety of local voices.

Think this is the map you mean Alice?

I think ex- means that there would be more disabled people everywhere. I read that report and did find it quite interesting. In terms of restricting this to residents within the LTN, I guess they are trying to find a way of avoiding abuse. If you opened it up to all blue badge holders, there would be nothing to stop Kate, a completely able bodied resident of the LTN, from asking her blue-badge-holding mum Gladys, living in Wales, to register Kate's car. Blue badge holders around the country could set up a nice little business of registering people's cars for different LTNs around London. Sounds a bit far-fetched, but if I was a delivery driver or someone providing services from a van in London, I'd be lining up to get someone to register me. So the question is how they should strike a happy medium... (my easy solution is to take the LTN out, but of course not everyone agrees).

It's on the website where you can apply, I just discovered https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/disabled-parking/parking-with-a-blue-badge?chapter=2 alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wish I had the it skills to post the map of > disability badges in Southwark. Anyone?

Information on new blue badge exemptions from camera controlled restrictions in Dulwich LTNs https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/disabled-parking/parking-with-a-blue-badge?chapter=2 One thing to note (if I am reading it correctly), whereas the blue badge can be used for parking purposes for any car in which the holder is a driver/ passenger, for LTN purposes one specific car needs to be registered against the holder (can be their car or a carer's car, but doesn't work if there multiple carers).

Just received an email from the local RA about the blue badge exemptions, which included an email from the council officer to councillors: "Dear Councillor, Free, local exemptions for disabled people living in Dulwich Village and Walworth LTNs. In response to requests from local wards councillors on behalf of residents requesting blue badge holder access through the restrictions within the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) where they live we have reviewed the current arrangements. As part of the review it has been noted that blue badge holders often have reduced mobility, which can make walking and cycling much more difficult. Therefore, in the interest of equality and in response to concerns raised we are inviting blue badge holders to register for an exemption. This will enable them to drive through camera restrictions in their local LTN within either Dulwich Village and Walworth at any time during the day. Details of this arrangement, requirements and eligibility is available on the webpage below from Tuesday 06 April 2021: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/disabled-parking/parking-with-a-blue-badge?chapter=2 Blue badge holders will be able to apply for the exemption on the following form: https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=2080 The attached plans show the boundary for which blue badge holders must live to be eligible for the exemption. [ETA I HAVEN'T ATTACHED THE PLAN BUT BOUNDARIES ARE EAST DULWICH GROVE, TOWNLEY, LORDSHIP, DULWICH COMMON AND CROXTED - THE FIRST FOUR BOUNDARIES INCLUDE THE ROADS THEMSELVES BUT BOTH SIDES OF CROXTED APPEAR TO BE EXCLUDED] In Walworth blue badge holders in SE11 and SE17 who already have an AD permit (virtual blue badge permit ) will automatically be exempt from the Walworth LTN restrictions. There are currently 12 AD permits holders in SE11 and 94 in SE17 and we will email them to notify them of this exemption. The same applies in Dulwich Village; blue badge holders within the designated area who already have an AD permit will automatically be exempt from the Dulwich Village LTN restrictions. Currently there are only five in this area and we will email them to notify them of the exemption. We will be working with Dulwich Village councillors to help identify blue badge holders in the boundary area and encourage those living within the scheme boundary to apply for this exemption. Those who qualify but do not have an AD permit will need to apply using the application form above. The exemption will go live on Tuesday 06 April 2021 and I am happy to share this positive update with you."

Thanks JohnL. Read that, confirmed that I thought, not sure I can bring myself to vote for a Mayor this year; and I?m someone who believes firmly in voting and has voted at every opportunity in the past. Will still turn out to vote for a London Assembly candidate I think.

Interesting article in the Brixton Buzz re One Lambeth and the state of council decision making in Lambeth. Sounds a bit familiar. https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2021/04/one-lambeth-launches-with-the-aim-of-holding-lambeth-council-to-account-over-ltns-housing-parks-and-libraries/

Finally found time to watch the YouTube thing and sat down to watch it with an open mind. My take: (i) is this a meeting of volunteers or is this a day job thing? Not sure the meeting achieves anything, it feels a bit echo chamber - that?s fine if it?s like minded people sharing their views but I?d hope people aren?t being paid for this stuff - it seems pretty pointless. (ii) tbh Prof Aldred came across as way less impressive than I had imagined. So I?d encourage people to watch. malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What contemptuous clap trap, do you really have > the faintest idea about research? I'm stunned > about the level of ignorance and as a scientist > (hard scientist, test tubes and later a but of > modelling, but also a fascination with social > science) I am insulted. > > To put my cards on the table research into nuclear > waste, funded by government. Not there to say > hooray "nuclear waste is good for you". But if > you do this with it, you get this result, and if > you do that you get that result. And we'd meet > FoE and Greenpeace, and discuss and argue. But > respect each other rather than say, oh Government > funded your research, you must love nuclear power, > nah nah nah". Ironically many of us were more on > the Greenpeace side, but that didn't affect our > results. As we were adults and had integrity. > > Rocks - did you check out my link to the recent on > line discussion/seminar? Here is is again - > Aldred is one of those on the panel, you may even > come out with a different view >

Mayor and Assembly indeed. Mayoral votes for independents unlikely to affect results, if you want to register a protest vote Farah London seems the most openly anti LTN, also Mr Fox I think? Saw some tweets querying LTNS from Con assembly candidate Hannah Ginnetts. Coming to the conclusion it's all irrelevant as local democracy is broken. Courts/ rule of law ( judicial review process, equalities law, air quality obligations) and TfL seeng sense / belatedly recognising the need to comply with its statutory obligations) are the biggest threats to the LTNs I think - there doesn't seem to be opposition from within. And then May 2022 elections. If the LDs can field candidates of similar quality to their councillors in the north of the borough they'll romp home here in Dulwich. On a platform of transparency, representing constituents etc. I say that as someone who has only voted LD once, in a local election nearly 20 years ago.

I was just thinking unhappy at being alone (OP mentions it happening more and more) in light of media reports about people acquiring dogs in lockdown, and potentially now leaving them at home alone as the owners' work and social lives outside the home pick up.

Do you mean an unhappy dog? Our dog barks happily (well, enthusiastically) at passing aircraft and the next door neighbour?s leaf blower. She gets five minutes max (less if it?s the early hours of the morning)before being forcibly redeployed in the interests of maintaining neighbourly relations... incessant barking drives me mad so you have my sympathies.

The_hermit I'm fairly ignorant in this area can you elaborate if you have time? Not quite sure what you mean by underwritten by the government. The tax thing I get but don't know much about tax in other NE countries - different CGT? On the specific development, can anyone say whether the housing association made good on their promises? The whole thing sounds horrific.

Is that good or bad? Good to have ward meetings but in relation to other meetings I think zoom / youtube has actually made the council's processes more accessible / at all accessible to many. I think the online thing as opposed to a physical meeting for eg cabinet and scrutiny meetings where the public don't have a right to speak generally has quite a lot of merit. A film of a physical meeting is much more difficult to watch / follow.

Given Professor Aldred has a sociology background and has written about ethical and political issues in research relationships I imagine she might agree that raising the issue is a valid thing to do. (Note the professor reference. Spent ten minutes contemplating whether there was such a thing as an uncredentialled academic and came across an interesting article about a tendency in the US to mention men's credentials but not women's credentials).

I'm not suggesting corruption at all, and as I've said before I'm happy for researchers to be activists. I just think that everyone needs to understand that when someone is an activist/ strong advocate of a particular position, then their work output needs to be read and understood with that clearly in mind, and that it can't be held up as if it is some incontravertible truth. This is obviously the case in many disciplines with word-based output e.g. if I'm researching and writing about feminist legal theory, people almost automatically understand that I'm putting forward views with the aim of improving the structural position of women, such research is treated more as an argument rather than a fact In disciplines when the work product is a combination of data and conclusions, I think the potential for subjectivity/ presenting data to actively promote a particular agenda is generally less well understood. Deciding what to measure and how to measure things, selecting which data to present, and drawing conclusions from the data is a subjective process. People talk about "peer review" as if that means that someone has double checked the work and validated the conclusions - which just isn't the case (as I'm sure many of you will know, the effectiveness of peer review is itself highly controversial - see e.g. this article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ which I found an interesting read - it's quite old now, but not sure a lot has changed - here's a recent blog by the same chap https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/02/01/richard-smith-peer-reviewers-time-for-mass-rebellion/). Just musing really.

Both, I think, this paper is research into ?activist researchers?, and the author sees herself as an ?activist researcher? herself. Hence: ?The complexity of urban problems and climate change challenges facing humanity discourages making space for hope. These realities have spurred many young researchers like ourselves to be more proactive in our research changing the way we think, operate, and act in the world. Our researcher position lends itself to being active in negotiating and participating in these realities across the theoretical divide into everyday practicalities. These experiences and opportunities for deep self-reflection and exploring led us to wonder, are we activists and researchers?? So it?s about researchers who are activist, not just research about activists. I think. And obviously it?s fine for researchers to be activist, but it inevitably casts doubt on the impartiality / independence of their work products given that data is often open to being presented in different ways. Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi - > > Just to clarify your "Aldred et al" statement in > reference to the linked article. The paper you > linked to examines the role of "activist > researchers" - academics that research activism > and its impact on various initiatives. In other > words, Megan Sharkey is an academic who has > researched the impact of activism. > > From the study: > > "Megan Sharkey focuses on the bottom-up > community-led grassroots movement?s role in > socio-technical transitions and its accompanying > institutional change. The thesis aim is to > understand barriers to grassroots movements in > London creating or driving urban infrastructure > changes to attain resilient and sustainable > cities."

Went down an internet wormhole and ended up reading this Air Quality Assessment about the new development in Solomon?s Passage, which sets out all the air quality obligations in applicable planning law. Seems crazy that there are detailed requirements to model the effects of eg construction traffic, but not major changes to road schemes that have a much greater impact. https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/29EBDBF9C16630C50A90722E7600B0B1/pdf/20_AP_3285-REVISED_AIR_QUALITY_ASSESSMENT-1102819.pdf

It is interesting reading some of the LCC/ University of Westminster stuff and realising quite how much of this is driven by an orchestrated campaign by an LCC led coalition that talks about having to ?overcome? reluctant boroughs and TfL. Without any acknowledgement that TfL and the boroughs have statutory duties to comply with and the councillors have democratic accountability- that?s where the weaknesses in the plan lie, I suspect - if the councillors wake up to the fact. It sounds as though there are pockets of resistance in TfL from the second document :) https://www.adfc.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Expertenbereich/Politik_und_Verwaltung/Download/MeganSharkey_Londons_Mini-Hollands_optimiert.pdf (note the specific advice to try and push things through quickly and ?overcoming? local powers like TfL and boroughs, plus building coalitions with local groups to look like you care) https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/londonassembly/meetings/documents/s67940/Minutes%20-%20Appendix%201%20-%20Transcript.pdf And then this: http://journals.aesop-planning.eu/download/volume-8/article-42.pdf. It nearly made my head explode, but it seems the Aldred et al crowd are ?activist-researchers?, which to old lady me reads ?not at all impartial? but is apparently a thing. And this paper is an activist researcher reflecting on herself and her colleagues as activist-researchers. From an activist-research perspective.

Issue maybe more for the Kingsdale crew who alight/ descend from the P4 at the CR/205 stop and would have a longer walk. Agree re the cycling though, my dad cycled there from Grove Park back in the day. Idly googling while the dinner cooks - found this https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/list_of_roads_218#incoming-647751 Looks as though CL has the same road classification as DV (at least in 2015)? ETA and Calton as well.