legalalien

So really - what a consultation needs to do, is be designed in such a way that it accurately identifies what most people feel about proposals (ie no skewed questions), but more importantly, in a way that allows the decision-maker to collect enough information to make a properly informed decision, in particular, knowledge about the likely impacts on all of those affected. It isn't, after all, a referendum - I think everyone accepts that. And then if the decision-maker makes a decision that is clearly against the wishes of the majority of those consulted, they should be required to give a transparent, reasoned justification for their decision. (ETA actually they should do that in all cases). The design needs to make sure that everyone involved has equal levels of transparency and opportunity to give input throughout the process ie from an early stage, before a "de facto" decision is made, and that there is adequate and unbiased collection of critical data. That's what most of the people complaining about the council on here want, I think - it just isn't being delivered. And even if some of it is being delivered, it certainly doesn't appear that way - which is a problem in itself. The thing is, Peter, you say you were "asked along as a local". You can't really believe that's true - what other "locals" are randomly asked along to speak at council meetings? No-one else gets a chance to speak at them without applying to make a deputation and if they are accepted, being given an extremely limited window. You were asked because you were a potentially influential journalist with an interest in active travel issues - who those present and taking the minutes thought of as a "cycling campaigner" and someone those who issued the invitation would like to have "in the tent", surely? You must see the impression it gives? If you look back to the meeting, the people invited were a lady from a Play Street charity, you and Simon Munk of LCC apparently together, and a lady from Living Streets London. There is no suggestion of inviting anyone to give an alternative perspective. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6464/Printed%20minutes%20Wednesday%2004-Dec-2019%2019.00%20Environment%20Scrutiny%20Commission.pdf?T=1 Lastly - a plea not to use the term "anti-LTN types". This kind of language, which suggests that everyone either supporting or against the specific LTNs with which this thread is concerned share the same views and are vehemently in favour or against each and every LTN in the world, is a big part of the problem imho.

I think I heard somewhere that the funding is for a feasibility study rather than putting in the crossing at this stage. But I'm not sure where.

Watching Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. Network Rail presentation on Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye stations. Mock up of Peckham Rye looks great. Apparently new public square outside, but seem to be some concerns about ability to retain existing local business. Not sure if there are issues there.

That's a good point - plenty of room to discuss / influence detail, not just talk about the point of principle. Given how much I moan about LTN arguments being too binary I should have been thinking along those lines. Maybe we could all look to frame the inevitable CPZ debates along those lines rather than CPZ good v CPZ bad...

I don't know, but when you think about it, if there's an approved borough-wide Movement Plan that says "CPZ everywhere", it's difficult to see how the result of a statutory consultation on a particular CPZ would come out other than in favour of the CPZ unless there were some very specific objections that couldn't be ignored? There's an interesting situation in Bermondsey as they seem to have run a consultation in May, then decided to implement, then realised that the consultation info hadn't got to many people in lock-down, and are now re-consulting. The report says this: Stat consultation May '20. Objections received but placed on hold due to complaints about order advertising in lockdown. Stat consultation to be re-run May '21 with enhanced publicity. Implementation 2021 (article in Southwark News here: https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/cpz-extended-in-bermondsey-after-council-says-there-were-no-objections/?cmpredirect).

In case of interest- an overview of the council's proposed timetable to roll out CPZs to remaining areas of Southwark is on the agenda for next week's Environment Scrutiny Commission. Not formal proposals at this atage but gives an idea of the direction of travel. There will have to be statutory consultation in due course. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s94318/Parking.pdf A big chunk of East Dulwich is coloured magenta on the map, with "to be confirmed" against it - I expect that relates to dates, rather than existence of CPZ, as I believe a borough wide CPZ is contemplated by the overall council Movement Plan.

Just to update on the higher diesel rate for pay and display bays, one of the briefing notes for next week's Environment Scrutiny Commission indicates that "A diesel surcharge in pay and display bays was agreed by Cabinet through the budget setting process in 2020/21 and will be implemented this financial year." The council is considering other options in relation to an emissions based parking policy. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s94320/Air%20Quality%20Climate%20Emegency%20Community%20Energy%20recommendations%20tracked.pdf There's a separate paper re further CPZ roll out which I'll post separately.

Just read the report, it is interesting, including the acknowledgement that the Dulwich scheme can't be justified on equity grounds: "We are also aware that some districts initially implemented emergency measures based on schemes already under consultation before the Covid-19 pandemic. This is unsurprising given the very short timeframe (around 4 months) within which districts were expected to submit and then execute their plans, but may have meant that equity was less a consideration than expediency for the very first schemes. For example, Southwark implemented oneof its first measures in the most affluent partof the district, based on schemes already under wayin that area." I was glad to see the express acknowledgement of the problem with using 2011 census data. Many of the schemes, including those in Hackney, which has the most schemes I believe, are in areas which have seen extensive levels of gentrification over the last decade and often (if what you see on the internet is to be believed) it seems to be the incomers supporting the schemes over those who have been there since pre-gentrification. Lambeth, another area at the forefront of LTNs is also an area where gentrification is happening... So I'm not entirely convinced that the data being analysed is entirely correct. But in any case, the question of which areas the LTNs have been put into is from my perspective less of an issue than the unacceptability /inequity of deliberately creating unacceptably high levels of congestion and pollution on the boundary roads - which as mentioned, this report does not address.

Camee across this interesting statement in a TfL response to a cycleway question last week "TfL has also recently acted to strengthen the liaison between boroughs and the emergency services, and to ensure that feedback about projects continues to be listened to after the introduction of projects. This has allowed any specific local issues to be raised and addressed, and has led, for example, to the much more widespread use of camera enforcement rather than physical barriers to close roads with easy access for blue light response vehicles." Sounds like an acknowledgement that things weren't being handled properly initially. Good that steps are seemingly being taken to address the issue... https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-2159-2021

Agenda now up for the Environment Scrutiny Commission on Tuesday 9 March, which will focus on LTNs. Southwark?s head of highways will be there to provide an update on the Dulwich LTNS and Cllr Rose will be interviewed by the committee, with Cllr Burgess also to attend. Usually they?re on YouTube but it doesn?t say so specifically, so probably worth emailing to ask for an invite if you want to attend. Full details here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6745&x=1 ETA there is also a paper on proposed CPZ roll out across the borough, which I haven?t read properly yet, but I note that the description of the proposed DV roll out in the Appendix says ?Separate to East Dulwich; public engagement to be carried out at same time as consultation on Dulwich Phase 1/2 Streetspace/LTN measures (June/July 21); go live 22/23? So I guess the LTN consultation will be June/ July.

I know issues about dogs in public spaces get a fair bit of airtime here, so thought it worth flagging that the council is proposing to extend its current dog antisocial behaviour rules which include rules about dog fouling and the number of dogs that dog walkers can have on/off leash) until 2024, with a consultation exercise to run from 2022 to decide what happens after that. Further info here http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?id=59585&LLL=0. The background report summarises the existing rules, including rules about various cemeteries. They are going to review the signage in the Camberwell cemeteries in the near future.

I agree with you Penguin, I was just starting from the assumption that the Council would choose not to disclose, even if permitted to do so. As far as I can see the only statement on the application document is Data Protection Act Statement London Borough of Southwark holds and manages data in strict accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. Southwark Council is the data controller for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. No personal information you have given us will be passed on to third parties for commercial purposes.

I don?t think they?ll proactively publish the info (Cllr Leeming has said as much on Twitter, citing GDPR). That?s assuming that the application was put in by individuals and FoDS isn?t a separately constituted organisation. You could put in an FoI request. In terms of individual names, there?s not a blanket exclusion on release of personal data in response to an FOI request, you?d need to head off a response relying on GDPR by making some arguments about legitimate interests and necessity (see about page 17 of this ICO document https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1213/personal-information-section-40-regulation-13.pdf, and see what the Council decides. Worth noting that where individuals (as opposed to organisations) apply for funding they have to specify a properly constituted organisation to receive the funding on their behalf, as Southwark won?t pay money into individual bank accounts. So information about the identity of the organisation put forward to receive the funds should be disclosable without any GDPR concerns arising. (Info about this is in the guidance notes for the application https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/10382/Neighbourhoods-Fund-guidance-notes-2021-22.pdf) Depends how much people really want to know! Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so @legalalien do you know if people can ask to > see details of who is behind this project? the > councillors must know so isnt this public > information?also if something depends on whether > or not they get a license, what happens to the > money if the license is refused?

Or, if there?s no road closure and a plan to direct bicycles around the edge in some yet unspecified way, arrange a mass cycling protest on a circuit through the junction... this space is actually supposed to be part of the Quietway after all :)

It's actually part of the Neighbourhoods Fund. (Info here https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/grants-and-funding/neighbourhoods-fund-2021). The decision notice isn't published yet so can't double check which of the other projects may have been partly funded rather than funded in full - the ?3k could possibly have been used to top up other projects. Alternatively, the DV ward could have picked up a bigger share of the Dulwich Festival funding this year, which would have freed up the ?3k for projects who had applied to the Dulwich Hill and Dulwich Wood and Goose Green wards. So I don't buy the "we had no choice but to fund" argument. The bigger point is why there weren't a bigger range of applications for funding in the DV ward and I see this as a failure by the local councillors - as Labour councillors in particular I would expect them to be more active in encouraging a wider range of community groups to apply. Which is a small part of my larger concern about the council's "selective engagement" generally (and the decision, as I understand it,to reduce the mandatory number of ward meetings this year from 6 to 2, and to allow both the "south multiward" meetings, where residents do not get a voice, to count as those 2). While on the subject, just to raise awareness, there is a Democracy Fund of ?20k available to fund events for discussion of local issues. Last year's funding was "repurposed" for a charity Xmas project (as large group meetings weren't possible last year), but applications for this year open on 1 April on a rolling basis. I do wonder whether they might be asked to fund publicity for on online meeting to discuss LTN concerns, or an actual meeting once regulations permit. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s92338/Report%20-%20Repurposing%20Democracy%20Fund.pdf PS : it's now academic but if the Democracy Fund can be repurposed by an executive decision by the Leader, I would imagine the same is true of the Neighbourhood Fund - I don't think it's like CIL funding which has a specific statutory basis. I personally would have been happy to give the Dulwich Festival a miss this year and use the funding for something else - but I guess we all have our own priorities...

I always think of the show "Capital City" when I think of yuppies. Just googled and found/ read this - suggests that whereas 80s yuppies were about conspicuous consumption, it's now all about "inconspicuous" consumption... https://newrepublic.com/article/143609/new-yuppies-how-aspirational-class-expresses-status-age-inequality

Rebecka Martinsson on 4 and I like Great Pottery Throw Down although perhaps not hugh brow enough for this thread :) Watched both series of All the Sins (also on 4)recently but not sure whether I enjoyed them. Watched first one and a half episodes of The Serpent but couldn't get into it. Just seen the Laurel and Hardy film is on BBC, didn't see it on release so may give that ago.

Without knowing the area - seems like linking this to an LTN is a bit meaningless / trying to jump on the bandwagon of the current controversy about LTNs? Hoping that joyriding around quiet streets is not a thing.

Yes i think they said ?300 now but they had a quote of ?40-?50k for the long term? What interests me is communities funding being funnelled into the highways budget. Vaguely recall that quite a bit of the DV CIL funding went the same way. But that aside, some great community projects across the wards.

?3k for that thing in ?dulwich Square?. Cllr Leeming feels the need to point out that neither he nor Cllr Newens have ever called it that and that it will be subject to appropriate licensing and social distancing.

Watching the South multiward meeting . Cllr Charlie Smith explaining demand for cycle hangers in GG ward - some new ones going in. East Dulwich Square is the bit outside East Dulwich station. ?12k for a feasibility study into traffic lights or a ped crossing at EDG/ LL. will post details when they go up on the website.

Apparently sparrows (and probably squirrels) mainly only eat yellow crocuses, something to do with carotenoids to correct vitamin c deficiency. Have learned something new today! https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg23130921-200-crocked-croci/

Can recommend Blythe Hill Fields from our recent walking excursions, also a good walk up to the Peabody Estae above Rosendale Road. We actually walked to the Rookery Garden in Streatham the other day (bit of a hike but got to see something different)!

Just watched the first half of the Education and Local Govt Scrutiny Commission meeting tonight live on YouTube. A Q and A with the cabinet minister for Equalities. Was interesting, discussion about the importance of gathering data from communities; not just paying attention to entrenched interest groups (ie diversifying the consultation base) and some questions about equality / air quality from Cllr Ochere which were pretty much batted away and not answered. I hope he perseveres. ETA: just rewatched the first 40 mins or so of this. I found it pretty uncomfortable viewing in a number of respects. Link here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OYVTKN_5AR8. Will leave people to form their own views. EATA: I found this development in Tower Hamlets quite interesting - residents writing to local councillors to demand that they be heard and ask that councillors not be ?whipped? on Liveable Streets issues https://www.eastendenquirer.org/2021/02/bethnal-green-residents-demand-their-councillors-stand-with-them/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Red Bounty bars or blue ones? In the hope that the debate may split along different lines for a change - I am firmly in camp red.