legalalien

I think there was some reference to exchanges that were going on in parallel on the ?chat? function on the zoom call. We don?t know what these were? Interesting academic question about the appropriateness and nature of parallel chats in what are supposed to be public meetings - stuff above and beyond people putting their hands up to speak. One for a rainy day. Should probably be a standard protocol if online meetings become the new norm for local government.

My best guess on the "abrupt shut down" is that cabinet has lots of other things to get through and the non-local councillors are getting a bit bored with hearing about the Dulwich LTN.

Thanks, have come across Fitzroy a couple of times and agree he is very helpful.

I completely agree with your comments on the inadequacy of commonplace as a measure (in fact I filled in a feedback form to that effect) - but if the council is going to hold it out as its means of collecting data, and in the absence of ?proper? data, you can hardly blame people for trying to do something with it. I?m not quite sure what I think the role of residents? associations should be in all of this - I?d say to be conduits for communication rather than any of them coming out ?for? or ?against? based on their (probably) unscientific perception of their residents? views. Our local one forgot to include us for many years after we moved in. Out of interest do residents associations have any formal standing with the council?

Why is there only one for Dulwich Hill residents? Does anyone know if there are similar meetings for other areas?

Partial update: the highways team has (promptly and helpfully) advised that anyone wishing to check on the details for a particular area can email them on the traffc orders email address above and ask to be emailed a pdf map for the specific area. They weren't sure about the diesel parking charges point and suggested emailing the parking team. Have done so and will post if I get a response.

Worth watching the youtube clip. Think it's worth keeping a close eye on the process, seems the commonspace responses are less important now that they oppose the scheme: the councillor response seemed very scripted. There will be some sort of "targeted" survey of residents' experience and perception to be included, amongst other things, and safety rather than active transport looks like the new focus. (Seen through my own prism - watch it yourself, like everyone I come to it with my own biases).

Have had a quick check for the main categories of permit against the Southwark website (existing charges at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/find-somewhere-to-park/pay-for-parking?chapter=5 and https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits). All the permits look like the same rate (there is an existing discount scheme for hybrid and electric vehicles for permits), but the differential parking charges for one off "pay for parking" seem to be new - i.e. the different, higher rates for diesel vehicles. Does anyone know whether there is a different diesel rate on the existing "pay by phone" meters etc? (I guess it's possible the Southwark website is not up to date, and this already exists)? If this is a new rate, and they're including it in the consolidation order then it does feel a little as though it's being put through "under the radar" - but I guess they don't technically have to consult on price rises. The order itself says that "There will be no material change to any of the operational specifications or dimensions of those restrictions", and I guess price isn't an operational specification, so that's true! On a related note, I put a link on another thread to some proposed changes to parking charges that were included as an agenda item for a recent Overview and Scrutiny committee meeting - these did vary depending on ULEZ compliance, but not sure where that discussion/ proposal has got to.

I knew the petition was on the agenda, but didn't tune in to watch - I suspected it would be noted and some sort of comment made about an upcoming review. Did anyone attend/ see it? Looks like the meeting is on youtube https://www.youtube.com/user/southwarkcouncil

I wouldn?t read too much into the ?about us? clue - more likely that a local group has cut and pasted the wording from a website it?s seen. When e-commerce first became a thing, copying website terms and privacy notices from existing websites was rife amongst small / independent traders...

No idea, I wonder whether they are knowledge sharing / coordinating on FoI requests to central agencies such as TfL and cutting costs by sharing legal advice... would make sense/ be more efficient.

Just rereading the fine print, ?Copies of this notice, the proposed orders, and a statement of the council's reasons for making the orders may be found online at www.southwark.gov.uk/trafficorders, paper copies may be obtained from Highways, Environment and Leisure, 3rd floor hub 2, 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH and/or access to the map-based Schedules may both be arranged by appointment only. Email [email protected] (or call 020 7525 3497) for booking details.? So seems as though access to the maps is by appointment. I assume you can get remote access, as going into the council office to have a look would be illegal at the moment (no justifiable reason for leaving home)? If that?s the case I don?t think this would work as a consultation - from a quick look at similar consultations done by Kingston and Wokingham a few years ago (these come up if you google), it seems clear that the general rules on TMO consultations apply even though this is a consultation). Given the nature of the order this shouldn?t be a massive deal, but given all the permit rules etc are being harmonised, I guess issues may come up if there have been any ?special cases?in the past that haven?t been picked up by the council?s internal processes...

Have just spotted this Draft TMO on the Southwark site. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/32142/Map-based-system-static-restrictions-notice-dated-21-Jan-2021-.pdf Long and detailed, but according to the explanatory note it: ?constitutes a re-drafting of the existing parking places restrictions within the London Borough of Southwark to be compliant with the requirements of map-based Traffic Management Orders; (ii) the implementation of this Order shall revoke all references to any previous Orders enacted by the London Borough of Southwark in relation to any restrictions represented in this Order and make no material change to any existing restriction; and (iii) those existing restrictions enacted through on-going Experimental Traffic Orders will continue to progress through to the evaluation and completion of each scheme.? There is a similar order for waiting / loading restrictions. The public notice says that ?the effect of the proposals is to reintroduce all static parking, waiting, loading and stopping restrictions borough-wide into a new map-based format. There will be no material change to any of the operational specifications or dimensions of those restrictions.? I imagine (don?t know) they?re implementing something along the lines of this https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/Buchanan-launches-traffic-order-data-open-API-for-ParkMap-/5444. Hopefully ex-dulwicher or someone in the know can come along and enlighten us! Consultation closes on 11 February. I guess if anyone has any particular issues / things they want to double check have been properly transposed (thinking things like loading bays for businesses) it might be worth doing so...

From today?s Times The Times view on Covid street closures and cycle lanes: Road Rancour. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-covid-street-closures-and-cycle-lanes-road-rancour-fmcstn3jm

Do you not think that?s just a little bit ... troll-like? You have no idea what anyone on here does with their free time. And nor does it matter. malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a shame that as so many of you have lots of > free time you cannot use your time more > productively in improving the world rather than > use all your energy on a very parochial matter. > Feedback is not a scientific survey of attitudes. > Most just go with the flow.

The most recent petition is due to be considered at the Cabinet meeting on 2 Feb, the deadline for public questions is Weds 27 January. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6666&x=1 Perhaps worth asking what the sources of evidence / scope of the review will be - or at least ask whether / how these will be made transparent to the public in a timely fashion... Or maybe a question about FoI requests...

Hi all, A range of new minor traffic schemes proposed for the Dulwich area are up for decision - see http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50024108. Haven't read them all, mostly yellow lines etc, looks like a timed school street for Heber, some passing bays in St Aidan's Road and a strengthening of parking restrictions around DPL to include no loading signs, among others...

Completely random idea : some of them could band together and offer short break virtual holidays in school holidays - say three or four country "themes" to choose from, a different restaurant delivering dinner each night (and maybe daily breakfast / packed lunch hampers), a set of "holiday reads", activity books for kids, some nice flowers, some spa stuff, a mystery item from duty-free, some sort of back yard sports activity, a daily entertainment item (on zoom or if we are allowed out, at your house). Am thinking a cooking class, a magician, something related to the theme country. You could do it for the Easter holiday actually, and also supply chocolate eggs. All in the packaging in terms of making it properly and thoughtfully themed - the aim being to take pressure off parents tired of thinking up menus and things to do! (Am thinking the back yard equipment could be delivered for use for the break eg petanque, pop up swimming pool, table tennis... and picked up / reused for the next customer)..

The Seven Kingdoms, surely? Cornwall joins with Wales on this model. Or too GoT?

Also worth bearing in mind that the ones shown on that website are only a proportion of the requests actually made - I have no feel for the numbers of requests that Southwark get. . TfL publish all their resolved requests on their own webpage and estimate they get about 3000 a year - although if the most recent ones are anything to go by I think they?ll have had a lot more this year as many are LTN related. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information . They?ve adopted a strategy of publishing lots online to reduce the number of requests. When I sent one in they were particularly efficient and helpful - I was quite impressed. Edited to add- a particular shout out to the TFL lady who took the time to help with a request about A level geography homework. I suspect that made her day... https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1819-2021

There's also this follow up to the meeting.. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/704144/response/1702264/attach/html/6/FOIA5466.1%20LTN%20Redacted.pdf.html

Not to mention the fire brigade?s comment that ?traffic is also being pushed on to main roads which holds us up further.?

Exdulwicher I think the point is that they have an obligation to comply with FoI they?re just not doing so within statutory timeframes in all cases at the moment. I put in a very simple request in mid November and apart from the automated response initially (which had some wording about being busy due to COVID) have heard nothing (have now escalated to the internal Southwark address, if still no response then I guess ICO). If you look at the whatdotheyknow site there are some being responded to, some overdue etc. Interestingly someone?s managed to get the minutes of the council?s meeting with the emergency services in mid July, https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/704145/response/1687329/attach/html/3/Emergency%20Services%20feedback%2016072020.pdf.html

I did (I was using the PDF page numbering rather than the hard copy page numbering - hence the confusion! @Woodwarde Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Legalalien - did you mean pages 14-15? Under the > Transport section

I actually agree re the resident permit point. I understand the theoretical difference between ?two schemes? but the reality is that the council pushed through its existing scheme in experimental form in order to get the TfL funding. As the councillor said at the time: ? ?In a sizable consultation response, 55 per cent of local residents supported the council?s Our Healthy Streets: Dulwich proposals which include this closure. ?The right way forward is the one the council is taking: to introduce this as an experimental measure to see if it works. ?Going back to the drawing board at this stage would just mean months of delays in putting in place measures to clean up our air and to make walking and cycling safer in Dulwich.? Nothing there about COVID.