legalalien

The battleground has definitely moved onto Twitter and gloves are off on both sides. There are downsides (people become incredibly entrenched in their positions and say stuff they wouldn?t dream of saying in real life, plus a pack mentality develops) and plus sides (connecting people with same experiences and same views who might not connect offline). It seems that we all like to ?take sides? in this day and age - maybe a post-brexit debate habit? In my opinion some of the things I have seen online from ward councillors has been a bit inappropriate (not OK in terms of suggesting boycotts of local businesses) or has indicated support for particular projects (eg ?Dulwich Square?)- people can express their views on that at the ballot box. I am more concerned about the lack of ward meetings or other attempts at creating a forum for less polarised debate. We need to find a compromise. DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @legalalien - the approach you take to this debate > is commendable - measured and constructive, and > looking for an equitable solution for a diverse > set of views. It is definitely the way forward. > > I've been somewhat perturbed at some of the heat > and noise around this issue, including hearing of > someone supportive of the closures having to send > a cease and desist letter in response to some of > the online vitriol they received. In that context, > I'm not sure the degree of personalisation of the > issue in some of the posts above with the > individual councillors is very helpful.

I agree with you Concerned 2021. Particularly re the Amazon Prime thing. It's so tempting! But really, one Amazon delivery per street per week would be fine. I've never used Uber and am trying to do a non-Deliveroo thing from now on - and am only using Amazon for things that I cannot get locally. I'd be happy with eg "Amazon Thursday" on my street.

Just don?t fall into the trap - it really isn?t ?them and us? based on geography. I repeat - plenty of people on the inside of the DV LTN are opposed to it. The local councillors need to understand that, and suggesting that everyone ?inside? is a supporter doesn?t help in convincing them that this is the case.

What's odd is that most of the people I know, including those living inside the DV LTN, are not in favour. So we all clearly live in our own social (rather than geographic) bubbles, and make assumptions that may or may not be correct. This division of opinion is not one between those living inside and those living outside the LTN, by any means. So yes, formal, fair, open. BUT at the end of the day, we have to recognise that this is probably not going to be determined by some sort of referendum process (consultation is about ensuring enough info is gathered to enable the decision maker to make a proper decision - it's not a popularity contest). I have been reflecting on this, and think that in some ways, an on the ground experiment is possibly more equitable than formal consultation, absent a super-efficient engagement and consultation process. Those who would not normally engage in a consultation exercise become aware of the costs/benefits that the experimental proposal brings and that then enables them to be part of the discussion before a final decision is made. But that sort of experiment has to be nimble/ deal with detrimental effects quickly/ be very transparent and completely open to "tweaks". That's not what we are seeing in practice, I don't think. On a more practical note, I've always thought that a big part of the school run traffic problem is caused by those with children at each of DC/DPL on the one hand, and JAGS/Alleyns on the other, who need to do a double drop and travel through the Village (or now some alternative route) for that purpose. If the schools could arrange for a single drop off point at each end and an active travel option or minibus between one end and the other it might help? Pre closures I always thought that a drop off point in Dulwich Park and then some "walking bus" arrangements from there would be the go.

Or even better, those located within the Village Ward and more in need being engaged better and a broader range of applications for funding? I don?t think it?s so much the share that Village Ward gets as the distribution that is the problem. The Cllrs have said they can only fund what is applied for, so challenge to the locals to disseminate info/ encourage more and different groups to apply next year and see what happens.

I know several of the sports grounds are also having problems with people breaking in / trespassing and causing various degrees of property damage.

Just following on from Cllr Burgess? statement that the council should involve their public health team in the discussions on LTN strategy, I note that the Health and Well-being Board is meeting next Thursday afternoon and there is a public question time slot. The deadline for questions was midnight yesterday but if anyone has a question might be possible to get it in over the weekend. ETA link to meeting info http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=365&MId=6889 This issue seems to be within their remit as air quality is firmly in the existing plan for which they are responsible. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/health-and-wellbeing/public-health/health-and-wellbeing-in-southwark-jsna/wider-determinants-of-health?chapter=3

Reminder that Cllrs Rose and Burgess are due to be interviewed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Monday 22 March - details at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6881&x=1 (including how to request a link so that you can attend live - you won?t be able to speak but I think it?s good for the councillors to see how many people are interested). Also, the minutes of the last cabinet meeting have now been posted online, including written answers to a large number of public questions about review of the Dulwich LTN. None of the answers is particularly illuminating - essentially, we?re going to have a thorough review, we?ll let you know in due course. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6667/Printed%20minutes%20Tuesday%2009-Mar-2021%2011.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=1

I think an emergency and potentially blue badge access route combined with a major cycle corridor is inconsistent with a square. Indeed some (including cyclists) might think that the major cycle corridor is inconsistent with a square. Would be interested in hearing from those supporting the experimental scheme as to how important they see the square as being to the scheme as a whole. Incidentally, did I hear Cllr Leeming mention a quote for the square in the region of ?40k at the most recent south multiward forum thing? It was in the context of a much smaller award for planters or something in that area. Not on youtube so I can't double check, but maybe someone else listened live? It was a bit of a throwaway line.

Just watching the last part of the meeting now where they start to formulate recommendations / areas to gather evidence and more focus. Cllr Ochere has suggested something around impact of air pollution on schools, particularly those with high FSM / ESL (in conjunction with Education Scrutiny team)- refers back to risk of displacement and schools on main roads: also, that together with Local Economy commission, should work to try and understand impact of LTNs on local business. Cllr Flinn wondering whether should be considering whether to have limits on impacts on schools / main roads negatively impacted by traffic measures, to have a set of agreed measures so that plans can be risk assessed. Cllr Neale wants the commission to look at parks and trees. Also recycling and waste management eg how efficient recycling is. Jeremy Leach (why is he a coopted member with the ability to give input to the agenda - does anyone know?). Emerging narrative around Southwark roads and TFL roads and what happens to traffic that goes on TfL roads. Charging for parking. PTAL ratings (better to address low PTAL than charge for parking). Sustainable freight. Cllr Morris - does this commission have a role in monitoring planning dept/ committees to make sure developments are delivering what they say they are going to. Both about checking and also about what is being approved in the first place. Particular reference to carbon considerations. Cllr Flynn. How does council need to do to take account of changes in work patterns that may arise as a result of COvID. Cllr Newens - need work on how to encourage people to get on a bicycle in the first place. How to get people to embrace active travel in communities not inclined to do so. Cllr Werner - look at nests where online shopping is delivered to hubs. One strange thing about this meeting - the agenda said there was going to be a specific discussion of the Dulwich LTN and unless I zoned out for a bit, there just wasn?t, they launched straight into the Councillor Rose presentation. Then if you look carefully at the Cllr Rose presentation slides, the footer on the slides varies from ?dulwich experimental measures Part 2? to ?Walworth Streetspace Experimental Measures?. Strange. Perhaps a change of content relatively late in the piece?

Also worth mentioning, Zero Emission Zones came up in the ULEZ talk and the idea of ultra-local ZEZs. I wouldn't be surprised if Southwark started thinking about these soon. There are already some ULEV street schemes in Hackney https://hackney.gov.uk/ulev-streets

Rockets - if they put cameras in at Calton/Court Lane, then they'd presumably have to let the blue badge people through as well as the occasional emergency services vehicle - which would rule out Dulwich Square. Might that be the reason?

yes, everyone looked pretty uncomfortable about that 51 out of 170 figure. He did say that there might be some variation in what was being reported, I think? But this is a pretty substantial proportion of the overall number. slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @legalalien > A good set of notes and I completely agree with > your view that councillors are showing much more > concern about the impact of road closures on > surrounding streets. > > A couple of points on the comments by Darren from > London Ambulance Service. > - I think he said average response times (across > London?) had increased from 14 to 16 minutes > since traffic measures put in, though this may be > down to fewer cars on road as fewer people are > using public transport. > > - He also said they have recorded 170 incidents > across all London boroughs where traffic measures > had caused delays that had adversely impacted the > patient. Of those 51 were in Southwark, if so > that is very worrying. He said Islington, where > they have camera controlled closures, had only > 1(one) such incident.

Also an interesting presentation by TfL/ GLA on ULEZ and related transport policy.

Watching last night?s Environment Scrutiny Commission on catch up. So far - sounds like quite a few members of the public dialled in , the chair did a good job of explaining the point of Commission meetings. Big fan of Cllr Ochere in the chair. - there is a firm plan to exempt blue badge holders, just subject to ward councillors receiving advance note of the public comms. (Presumably this can only apply to camera controlled closures - that wasn?t expressly stated. As I understand it each blue badge holder will be able to nominate a vehicle - doesn?t have to be their own) - discussion with ambulance guy. Comms with council now fortnightly and going well. Wasn?t great at start when all schemes went in at once (not just a Southwark related problem). Discussions need to be more linked up with TfL and neighbouring boroughs going forward. He comes on again to express a clear preference for cameras rather than planters and points out the emergency responders are broader than what people might think eg network of people who jump in their car and bring a defibrillator, and that the impact of schemes on nurses, social carers, people travelling by car to cancer appointments etc also need to be considered - good question from one of the councillors about the need for robust data and the fact that talking in percentages is unhelpful eg a small reduction in traffic on a quiet road gives a big percentage, a much larger increase in traffic on a busy road can give a small percentage. Requested that council make relevant data available to public as ?open data? - Cllr Morris suggests that too much was done too soon and that council officers have basically been swamped as a result. May need to bring in more resource to deal with monitoring and engagement (aim for ?calmer streets and calmer residents?). Some acknowledgement about workload. Unrelated, mentioned that there?s a new director of environment appointed 8 days ago Cllr Newens asked for an update on timetable for review/ consultation and didn?t get one (but there is significant comms work being done - lots of talk about equality and SST policy. Cllr Burgess mentions that pollution on main roads should be a Labour concern, mentions PSED and the need to include colleagues from public health in the assessment/ make sure there is robust data around health impact - some mention of data collection. If I heard it correctly it sounded like the air pollution measurement would rely on the existing air monitoring infrastructure in conjunction with modelling. -Cllr Hamvas makes the point that channeling traffic onto main roads has a negative impact on those attending / travelling to schools on main roads. Cllr Rose makes a brief mention about green screening (later described by Cllr Burgess as a ?sticking plaster?, while describing one of her main road schools as having high levels of FSM and ESL - Cllr Rose makes some mention of the ?next generation of school streets? (this didn?t sound like something already in the planning stage) Cllr Neale still asking for the parking info (should I send him a copy?), and Cllr Burgess mentions the need to start talking about alternative kerbside uses (I think she gave removing on street parking from one side of roads as an example) Cllr Burgess mentions Climate Emergency strategy and acknowledges the schemes will be counterproductive if increased journey miles etc result in a net increase in pollution/ emissions - need to do some sort of ?climate change calculation? I would make a rubbish stenographer. Best to watch online if interested enough! But hopefully gives people a flavour.

Was only half-listening, but there was a lengthy discussion about this at this morning's Cabinet meeting, apparently the consultation on the original rules was the most responded to consultation ever. If anyone is really interested they will be able to watch the meeting back on the Southwark youtube channel.

I suspect we?re not going to get a really accurate picture until everyone is allowed to return to workplaces. There will be some who feel they can do the school run with active travel while working from home but can?t / don?t feel they can once a commute to work is factored in.

Update on today?s cabinet meeting, Cabinet received 24 questions from members of the public and has provided written responses to all questions, no supplementary questions were allowed at the meeting due to number involved and not wanting to unfairly prioritise some questions over others. Questions largely related to review of street space measures in Dulwich - those involved can be involved in the review process as it launches in coming days and weeks. The two deputation requests on the review of low traffic measures were refused, on the basis that those concerned will have a chance to participate in the review process in a number of ways, eg meetings with cabinet members, formal consultations. ETA clearly some discussion in the chat function by those unhappy not to be allowed to speak, subsequent commentary from Cllr Williams re point of deputations being to make Cabinet aware issues exist - and that everyone able to have their voice heard in the review process. Sent from my iPhone

Just wondering whether an increase in CPZ income might be factored into next year's budget - indeed it is, ?422K which I think is increased income including through further roll out across the borough this year - see page 17 of the PDF - Appendix C. Am wondering where parking/ traffic fines are factored in but have yet to find that. Long time since I studied accounting at school. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6774/Public%20reports%20pack%20Wednesday%2024-Feb-2021%2019.00%20Council%20Assembly.pdf?T=10 ETA - there is a random ?210k "uplift in fees and charges" from Environment and Leisure, plus garden waste bin collection going up by ?10 a year. EATA: looking at the equality section in the budget document as it deals with CPZ - says "The movement plan Equality Analysis has been presented and identifies a positive impact.". Interesting to see whether a general equality analysis of the Movement Plan, as opposed to an equality assessment of specific actions, holds up in light of the TfL/taxi case (which is on appeal at present). But more significantly, just goes to show how entrenched the idea of the CPZ roll out is. Presumably these figures relate to the schemes currently consulted on, would be interesting to know whether they include figures for the Bermondsey area on which the council has been forced to re-consult.

I don?t think people are going to disagree on this thread - they just don?t think the particular configuration of closures in this area are an acceptable tool to encourage people to drive less, because of the collateral damage. I?m not going to drive less, though, as I don?t have a licence and don?t drive :) SE22_2020er Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've had a brilliant idea to solve the problem. > DRIVE LESS!!!! > > I think the one thing that everyone agrees on this > thread is that there is too much pollution caused > by people driving. No-one has said that they > want to see more cars on the road. Or have I > missed those posts? > > So, what you should be doing fellow posters is > focussing on the root cause of the problem which > is too many people driving and not enough people > using public transport and active transport > (walking and cycling). > > Am I the only one who is keeping their fingers > crossed that we will get the congestion charge > implemented soon so that people who pollute are > financially penalised for their pollution?

I think that figure of 41 may be the number of current residents' permits on estates in the ward, rather than what they have planned (the stated purpose of the report is to quantify present parking provision in order to support the previous recommendation by the Council's Air Quality Commission that "parking space is treated as a public amenity and reduced over time"). These figures are the baseline they are starting from, as I read it.

I?ll post any other documents I spot about the roll out of the CPZ to the southern wards here. Looks like it is definitely happening, the decision on implementation for the Nunhead /Queens Road area has recently been added to the forward plan - decision due in October with statutory consultation thereafter. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50025506&PlanId=665 Looking again at the council document I posted yesterday, I?m not sure why some areas get ?public engagement? before statutory consultation (Rotherhithe and Surrey Docks, Dulwich Village), while the rest don?t. The Rotherhithe / Surrey Docks engagement exercise has already happened, and it might be difficult not to mention CPZ when engaging on LTN issues in DV, so perhaps it is a general change in policy, not to engage pre-statutory consultation? Don?t know.

I have posted some photos of the original document on the "streets info" thread if anyone wants to read it.

CPZ roll out attachments part 2.

Council briefing on CPZ roll out: although this has been taken down off the website, the good news is that I printed a copy. The bad news is that I printed it in black and white on my elderly printer, so the quality isn't perfect and you can't see the nice magenta colour of the "to be confirmed" zone that is a chunk of East Dulwich.