legalalien

I would agree with a ban, at least in cities for those with alternative heating - there was an article in the Times about this a couple of days ago - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wood-burning-stoves-are-biggest-source-of-dangerous-air-pollution-in-cities-dxqxbtk8n. Most people in cities using wood burners are well off and have an alternative.

I think you?re right Slartib - the same small group of people keep republishing the same small pieces of selective data under different names to make it seem like new and more objective info. The two contacts on the document are Active Travel Academy (at UoW, director Rachel Aldred), and a freelance campaigner who has worked for SusTrans and Waltham Forest Council, writing a piece about Rachel?s LTN research, how good Waltham Forest is - and including Rachel?s colleague?s frankly risible Dulwich snapshot cycle count to give the headline that cycling has doubled in Dulwich (we?ve discussed the flaws in that already). The DfT data, which we now know is hotly disputed by TfL, remains a centrepiece... What we need is some independent local monitoring and to see traffic modelling for the Dulwich LTNs and critically all the relevant boundary roads.

"it's clear that the effects depend on local conditions. If indeed the schemes have led to increased traffic then they are not successful. That's what we need to know more about. " And I would add also not successful if they result in essentially the same amount of traffic distributed in a much more uneven way. People understand that it will take a while to get the monitoring data, and that the data being collected recently is not representative of a normal, non COVID situation, but knowing exactly what is being monitored and what success and failure look like would be a really good start. I appreciate this is probably out of your control.

Southwark are currently carrying out a consultation on licensing of private sector rentals, this may be of interest to any private landlords or tenants locally as it includes (asI understand it) a proposal to roll out "selective licensing" of rentals to/by single family groups or two sharers, initially to the Champion Hill and Goose Green wards among others ( with future plans for most other wards inc. Dulwich Hill and Dulwich Wood, subject to govt approval). Essentially a landlord renting to just one family would need to be licensed and comply with various conditions. There are already schemes in place covering rentals to larger numbers of unrelated people. The website says that they are keen to hear from landlords and, in paricular, tenants. More generally, the accompanying report is an interesting / eyeopening read about the levels and state of private rental properties in the various Southwark wards. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/2021-private-rented-sector-property-licensing-prop/ https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/2021-private-rented-sector-property-licensing-prop/supporting_documents/210209%20Information%20for%20consultation%20on%20licensing%20V2.2%20Final.pdf

Alice - this is a good question, as lots of reports to cabinet / committees etc refer to something along the lines of " usual council channels". Which I think means the hard copy of Southwark Life (which is supposed to go to everyone, although historically I'm not sure the delivery process has been perfect); email communication to anyone who has signed up online or previously been involved with the council in a relevant way and found themselves on a distribution list, council facebook pages (whose activity varies between wards), and being in a group that councillors see fit to engage with. I'm not sure it works as well as it could - info is not pushed out as widely as it could be: on the other hand, those who are proactive in finding out info can't be criticised for that. I've been trying to contribute by posting stuff on here, but that's not a comprehensive audience, obvs. Interesting discussion to be had on how this could happen better.

Or it could be that more people in these wards are aware of funding opportunities and make proposals?

I think you could ask the relevant councillors, who will presumably be looking at the underlying proposals. If I had to guess, I'd say East Dulwich Square will be at the melbourne Grove / grove lane junction. Ie an element of pedestrianisation there?

Nigello - I'm guessing it doesn't really make sense for the Council to do that, until such time as the relevant orders are made permanent - as there's a risk that the expenditure could be wasted. (Or to look at it another way, spending the money now makes the whole "experiment" appear to be a fait accompli, and could open the decision-maker up to challenges of pre-determination /bias when the final decision on whether to make the closures permanent is made.)

I would add my recommendation to those above - Billy came to service our boiler yesterday and was friendly, efficient, and managed to ring around and find some replacement parts which were needed. I have booked in for next year's service!

Here's the agenda for next week's South Multiward forum meeting. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6871 It will be - announcing funding decisions on the list of applications for Cleaner, Greener, Safer funding (list of applicants attached to agenda) - about ?250k in total. A few cycle parking things that people might be interested in - announcing funding decisions on the list of applications for the Neighbourhoods Fund, I think ?10k per councillor. List of applicants also attached, including a ?3k application from Friends of Dulwich Square for a minimusic festival on the square, the aims of which are " To bring the local community together, support local businesses and showcase local musicians & artists. The closure of the junction in Dulwich Village has been controversial and has caused divisions with some in our community. The concept of a mini music festival on the newly formed public space is to demonstrate the positive potential of this new community space that was once a dangerous and polluting road junction. We hope to encourage footfall to help support the local businesses in Dulwich Village." Lastly, approving the allocation of "Devolved Highways Funding" for particular highways projects suggested by the local community(As I understand it, local councillors hold the purse strings on this funding pot). Here's the link to the list.http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s93813/Appendix%201.pdf. No entirely clear to me whether they all get funded (about ?140k available) Anyone know /want to guess what the following are: East Dulwich Square Dulwich Village Cycle Roundabout ( something to do with the Burbage Roundabout, or will it go around "Dulwich Square"?) "Measures to complement the Streetspace programme". College Road and Huntsslip road safer routes masterplan (its the word masterplan that makes this sound sinister!) More seriously, worth taking a look, as seems to give an indication of things that are being proposed by the community / considered. Various road calming and cycle parking measures, the proposal for traffic lights/ ped crossing at LL/EDG junction, a proposal for less pollution on EDG. You can't see the details, but if anyone feels strongly about any of them (for or against), may be worth emailing the relevant councillors to share views in advance of the meeting/decision.

As noted above, I find conducting the argument at the macro level unhelpful - I'd love it if people could stop generalising and focus on each scheme on its merits. Tbh I suspect the Dulwich scheme is a bit of an outlier - it's very large, in an area with poor public transport and few east- west routes, and described from the outset as "complex". I'm not sure what the consequences for this sort of devolved approach would be on the big picture (are they all flawed? Do some make sense?) because I've only looked at the LTNs near me. When discussing generally I extrapolate from what I see locally, which is probably wrong, and people in different LTNs seeing different things and with opposing views probably do the same thing. I read the DfT external consultants'report about previous studies on modal shift etc, referred to in the Times this morning. Was going to post the Times link, but refrained because (i) felt that they were slightly cherry picking and (ii) having read the underlying report there is lots of room for everyone else to as well - the main thing I took away from it was that there really isn't any / enough hard data about what works to generalise even on a city basis, let alone anything concrete enough to add usefully to a discussion of the LTNs in Dulwich. End of the day, I just want the council to comply with statutory requirements, monitor and get as much hard evidence as they can, and be as transparent and accountable as possible in a timely fashion (and if they do that genuinely and it means an outcome I wouldn't choose , then I'll give loser's consent); our local councillors to operate with an open mind and comply with their obligation to represent constituents whose views don't accord with their own as well as those whose views do; a system of local government where councillors have more independence and less whipping. And maybe a world where people could acknowledge the flaws in their own arguments and recognise the need for nuance (that's not directed any anyone / any side of the argument in particular). On which note I'll continue to stay off Twitter! ETA: sorry about the earworm 😉

I know very little about this, but the Council are about to embark on a flood alleviation scheme for Peckham common - details here - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/flood-risk-management/notice-of-proposed-flood-alleviation-works-on-peckham-rye-common. If you click on the link to the project information board you?ll see they?ve done a hydrological survey, and there?s some modelling of once in a lifetime storm events. Maybe this being published is affecting premiums? But then if the scheme is effected there should be a consequent reduction of risk?

Hard to tell without seeing the underlying Q and A. For example, "no such schemes were implemented without the relevant trust?s knowledge" is different from saying that the statutory obligation to consult the trust was discharged - they could eg have been emailed the day before and informed of the closure. For the Dulwich ones, the specific FoI requests already made show the LAS view. I remain of the view that we need to stop generalising about LTNs and consider each on its merits (although some of the process flaws involving DfT /TfL are generic and it makes sense to comment on those generally). Not all LTNs are necessarily bad just as they are not universally good...

"Village-lens"? Rest assured that there are large numbers of people living in the Village Ward who oppose the measures and who are wondering what on earth has happened to representative democracy. ETA: article in the Times today about LTNs and house prices: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/low-traffic-zones-force-cars-into-streets-where-poorer-people-live-6svsbck3k?shareToken=aa4f58f43d9a69d35a1c20f43b802d7e

So - Twitter. Reporting Elm Lodge surgery no longer supporting Dulwich Alliance as it?s possible to get there outside the closure hours. Fine. But then this comment about how everyone in Dulwich can afford a taxi anyway (see attached).

Meanwhile, over in Ealing, according to Twitter the Council has sidestepped the court case by cancelling its experimental orders and replacing them with new ones (presumably now backed by an equality assessment etc)... not a good look

Our neighbour had a grey heron visit a couple of days ago. It sat on the fence for ages in the snow, looking cold, then dropped down to ground level and did an elaborate slow motion performance of sneaking up on their pond. Unfortunately (for me, perhaps not the fish) it was startled and flew off before reaching its destination...

Looks as though Sutton Council (which is controlled by the Lib Dem party) plan to take out their temporary LTNs and do a proper consultation - meeting to decide / confirm that decision today. Interesting statement saying that they (not sure whether ?they? means Sutton or the Lib Dem party more generally in this context) raised concerns about the ?no consultation? approach at the time but were effectively banned from consulting by the DfT/ TfL terms: https://www.suttonlibdems.org.uk/low_traffic_neighbourhoods_update. They believe they have no choice to take the steps they propose because of the HC judgment. Additional article here: https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/19080195.controversial-sutton-ltn-barriers-removed/ Given it was one of the LD councillors on the Overview and Scrutiny Commission who reminded the committee of the need to discuss LTNs at the end of their recent meeting, perhaps we might see a push from them for a more ?listening? approach...

A few new pedestrian proposals lately. New decision notice re a pedestrian crossing on Whateley Road, subject to statutory consultation. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50025299

The appeal was inevitable - leaving the judgment as it stands allows a precedent that would cause many schemes to fall - not to mention raising question marks over the release of the funding by DfT. With more court cases in train, it?s important for scheme supporters to try and get a Court of Appeal judgment that overturns the HCcase and will then be binding on judges making HC decisions in future cases. City am article here: As I understand it (not a litigator), there?s an initial hurdle in getting permission to appeal - CA decides whether appeal has any chance of success- and then if/ when that?s given there?s the appeal itself. Important to remember that these judicial review proceedings are all about whether the proper process has been followed, rather than the merits of the underlying scheme.

Thanks Rockets. Would be interesting to see whether Croxted Road is included. Champion Hill is interesting as it seems the Council put in an experimental order extending the original 18 month order. I have some doubts about that approach as it makes a mockery of the 18 month maximum on experimental orders set by legislation. Not sure what happened there. ETA: have now watched last night's Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. It was really interesting, especially the secnd half, from about on hour onward, where a community campaigner named Eileen Conn gave evidence on the subject of regeneration, quite a bit of which related to the issue of council/ community engagement - on the specific issue of planning but I think the same principles apply to road network management. Link here if anyone is interested in watching - starts about an hour in. There's a related article here: https://www.grosvenor.com/our-businesses/grosvenor-britain-ireland/positive-space-our-community-charter/inside-out-development Dates mentioned at the end: LTNs were said to be on the agenda for the Environment Scrutiny Committee meeting on 11 March (delayed because officers papers weren't in order). That meeting is showing as 9 March in the council calendar at present. And they also agreed that they should ask Cllr Rose to attend the second Overview and Scrutiny Commission meeting in March to update them on LTNs and other environmental issues - looks like that is 22 March.

Just finished a different meeting and went to see whether the dulwich Hill meeting was on YouTube (it wasn?t). Instead caught the tail end of the overview and scrutiny committee meeting with lots of subdued councillors, sounded as though someone had complained about being excluded from council Comms - hard to tell. Followed by a q from Lib Dem councillor Victor about when committee would look at ltns (apparently some sort of delay due to papers not being in order - think they said late Feb)? But also mentioned that Cllr Rose would be before the committee for an interview shortly. Sorry to be vague - was multitasking - will watch video back when available.

I think everyone attending should call themselves Britney Spears in honour of Jackie Weaver.

I guess they?re aiming to address everything in one review, and don?t want to spend money on ANPR until after that?s done, but you?d think that with feedback like that from emergency services, they?d replace the planters with something more moveable in the meantime, to be on the safe side. Just been reading this report on LTNs and the local authority consultation process by a disability group - see here https://www.transportforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Pave-The-Way-full-report.pdf . It?s a small study of 84 participants (many in Lambeth) - there are some figures that people could seize on but I think it?s more useful in the way it presents the perspectives of different people and how they are (and feel) affected, positively and negatively, and how unhelpful a polarised debate is. Interesting that only about half the respondents with disabilities were blue badge holders - so let?s stop referring lazily to access for blue badge holders... and lots of other food for thought - reinforcing my personal view that when it comes to these schemes the devil is really in the detail, and generalised arguments don?t help. From what I can gather from news reports, allegations of failure to comply with equality legislation will feature in the various judicial review proceedings down for hearing shortly (Friday I think), which could set an interesting precedent).

Actually, looking at the most recent (December) update to the Empowering Communities Programme web page, seems as though the number of mandatory ward meetings has been reduced from 6 per year to 2 due to COVID. No idea why that should be the case due to the availability of Zoom, which is being used regularly for other council meetings? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/empowering-communities/empowering-communities-programme. I need to check to see whether that means the Village Ward can now just count the 2 ?multi ward? meetings (where the public don?t get to speak), canning any stand alone ward meetings where the public do get to speak. I hope that?s not the case, but it?s noticeable that some wards are having more ward meetings than others. I find it odd that the site says ?Ward Councillors have the responsibility for shaping the agenda and managing the meeting process, but for the time being, officers will be required to administer the online facility.? It sounds a bit as though officers are sick and tired of trying to chase councillors to sort meeting dates - there have been several arranged and cancelled. I am not feeling very empowered.