legalalien

Yes, I noticed that when registering...

I've posted this on a couple of other threads but for completeness here's a link I just found where you can preregister to receive info about the review of the Dulwich, East Dulwich and Champion Hill closures. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-review-registration-form/

Link to register to receive Southwark comms relating to Dulwich, East Dulwich and Champion Hill review process https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-review-registration-form/

Just found a link where you can sign up to receive information about the Dulwich, East Dulwich and Champion Hill LTN review when it becomes available: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-review-registration-form/

I don?t think Living Streets need any more supporters here - the chair of their London campaigning arm seems to be a de facto councillor, coopted to various committees and advising the scrutiny committee on what their work programme should be, if I?m not mistaken.

Our local councillors would say exactly what the Southwark Labour whip told them to say, presumably. Still don?t approve of the whipping arrangements in local govt (or generally). (Just googled and saw this as an example - but must not derail the thread! https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/labour-councillors-break-from-party-in-brexit-vote/) Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Legal - what would our Labour councillors be > saying about that if the Tories or Lib Dems were > the ones pushing these LTNs on the community? > > 22.5k in just over a month is shocking and the > council should be forced to review the signage.

Agenda for next Environmental Scrutiny Commission now up (no parking related documents this time - they are ?to follow?). http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6957&x=1 There are some council answers to specific traffic related questions asked by the Commission including this: ?Answer -During the last year the council has used experimental traffic orders to introduce several Low Traffic Neighbourhoods with complementary modal change improvements to walking and cycling, bringing forward certain cycle lane improvements (e.g. light segregation Cycle Superhighway 7 ? Southwark Bridge Road), work with TfL and Guy?s and St Thomas Trust Charity, and introduce a large number of School Streets. All these schemes have responded to the Covid- 19 pandemic and requirements regarding social distancing, together with other public health and air quality priorities. They also support other highways measures to reduce traffic and encouraged modal shift. But it will require a sustained period of monitoring and evaluation to assess their full effect as they take time to ?bed in? and because of fluctuating traffic levels due to lockdowns, school closures, the backlog of utility works, etc.? Looks like more ?bedding in? and blaming of utility works. They do realise that utility works in general aren?t going to evaporate? It?s now pretty obvious that the Croxted crisis was not caused by the bridge works at Herne Hill. Meanwhile, the tension between the Commission?s recommendation to limit the use of electric vehicles, and the Council policy of encouraging the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles, continues...

So, I gather Southwark have been taking in ?? from the Dulwich LTNs..according to Twitter, quoting an FOI response revealed on radio - nearly 22.5k penalty notices in a seven week period in Jan/Feb. Apparently we have guerilla road user charging... maybe the signage isn?t very good?

The various decision notices seem to refer to the EqIA done on the general Movement Plan, which you can find here https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/transport-policy/policy-and-guidance-documents/movement-plan - there's a 2019 Joint Equality and Health Analysis. Which doesn't exactly help on this specific issue as the evidence for almost all the conclusions is stated as "Consideration has been given to specific impacts that might arise as a result of the implementation of the Movement Plan .The Equalities Analysis has also been informed by feedback through consultation events and responses, our evidence base document and our local knowledge and expertise." Oddly it notes that a pregnant women might rely on using a car but doesn't say the same thing about someone with a disability. The Evidence Base document referred to is at that link as well. alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It says that some roads have up to 60% BAME > residents. As Southwark failed in its legal duty > to complete an Equalities Impact Assessment it?s > difficult to dispute. I had thought they were > going to do it retrospectively but nothing has > happened.

With the possible exception of beer measures, TheCat? TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > malumbu Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Damn. Australia being more progressive than > the > > UK. Damn. And adopting decimalisation earlier. > > > Damn. You will be becoming a republic next. > Well > > that I do approve of. I bet you have also > adopted > > metric units. Not really sure what I am going > on > > about, perhaps somebody could help. > > Australia is totally and completely metric, I'm > sorry to break it to you mal. > > But to be fair to the British system, those two > twins from scotland wouldnt have been anywhere > near as successful if they had to sing about > walking 804.67kms.....

Interesting read - report on a proposed decision to adjust/ replace the experimental orders for the LTN around Great Suffolk Street in the north of the borough. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s94599/Report%20-%20Great%20Suffolk%20Street.pdf. Looks as though the local (LD) councillors have been talking to residents and pushing for tweaks. Gives an idea of council's general approach I guess. Emergency services pressing for cameras, not roadblocks, as they've indicated elsewhere. consultation seems to be commonplace plus some unspecified more detailed consultation. Still interesting that the council rely on their general Equality Impact Assessment in their Movement Plan rather than anything specific to this scheme. I guess the CA might give more guidance as to whether a general or more specific analysis is needed when the TfL / taxi thing comes before them. Must re-read the EqIA for the Movement Plan at some point....

Otto 2 - I think in relation to the private schools, it's really the younger/ primary age groups than secondary - when they generally take the train or coach.

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.