legalalien

Slarti - re permits - that was back when the problem being addressed was through traffic - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/11871/OHS-Dulwich-Phase-3-FAQ-updated-3rd-February-.pdf : " Most of the traffic through the area is through traffic using residential streets as short?cuts to avoid congestion on the main roads." As you say, the Council has been somewhat..flexible.. about the rationale for the various measures. I think they may have made a mistake in leaping on the COVID justification. Actually that reference to congestion on the main roads is interesting as it indicates the Council were well aware that they would be re-routing traffic onto roads already at saturation point. Anyone like to bet that whatever the new proposal is, it will involve a CPZ? I don't (or maybe I do) understand why the council is so keen on these when if wants to get rid of cars - surely the solution is simply to remove on street parking altogether (this would also make space for cycle parking). Or if they do have residents' parking permits, to limit them to those without off street parking?

Just to clarify - totally agree about the signage for this particular junction and I?ve moaned about it before. My (very unclear) comment was about the proliferation of road signage generally - sorry to confuse!

Someone mentioned the concept of emissions-based parking charges in the Environmental Scrutiny Commission meeting this week so I thought I?d take a quick look. I was aware that there was a discount for residents? permits for hybrid and electric cars (see https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits/on-street-permits/resident-parking-permits). The draft schedule of 2021/22 parking charges being considered at Monday?s Overview and Scrutiny meeting seem to show increased charges for residents parking permits for diesel/ non ULEZ compliant vehicles. - see p12 here http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s93134/Appendix%20G%20Fees%20and%20Charges%202021-22.pdf I?m not quite sure how this fits with the various ULEZ exemptions or where the underlying decision is - there was a recommendation in the draft Air Quality Commission report back in June. I gather there was some sort of discussion about it in 2011 - see http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s22389/Report%20Parking%20Charges%20for%20Residential%20Permits.pdf. Anyone know?

I am not, however a motorist :) For the purpose of Southwark making its decisions, a national survey is irrelevant. It needs to look at the representations it has received before making that kind of lazy generalisation in relation to the specific schemes mentioned in the report.

Just flicking through the most recent version of Southwark's Econmic Renewal Plan, which is appended to the report for this week's Brexit Panel meeting. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6897/Public%20reports%20pack%20Thursday%2028-Jan-2021%2018.00%20Southwark%20Brexit%20Panel.pdf?T=10 Helpfully they'e included the various links to the decisions on the Dulwich LTNs (about page 34/35), looking at them again, they are indeed very tied into the TFL Plan and include a lot of justification arooun the need for social distancing for COVID and the potential traffic effects of people not using public transport. Looks as though the Equality Impact Assessment was done at Movement Plan policy level rather than in relation to the individual measures. The Council describes opposition to the closures as " A vocal minority of motorists resisting change and some negative public feedback in terms of increased journey times.", which I don't think is all that appropriate / accurate - but if they want to create a documentary record that sets the scene for future allegations of apparent bias, who's to stop them?

I would but I don't actually need to go north of the river and we are in a lockdown :) Instead walked around our local LTN with the dog for 45 mins and saw precisely two bicycles - a dad and his child (about 8-10) both of whom were riding on the pavement despite there being zero cars on the road. But I accept there's a lockdown and this is, as a result, not particularly reliable evidence of potential use, even if it is a bit annoying that we've closed roads to allow cycling and that many cyclists are still using pedestrian space. None of the evidence at present is reliable as an indicator of "normal" traffic and I hope no-one will use it as such, one way or the other.

Do you not think it reads a bit like an attempt to explain / excuse the fact that we?ve created a lot of cycle friendly infrastructure at great expense, but very few people are actually using it? malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting blog from Sustrans on health streets > with loads of links. Worth flicking through at > your leisure > > https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/opinion/2021/ > january/it-takes-both-bollards-and-behaviour-chang > e-initiatives-to-change-how-people-travel/?utm_sou > rce=Sustrans&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1208638 > 1_The%20Network%20January%202021&utm_content=Lucy% > 20Saunders%2C%20public%20health%20specialist%20and > %20transport%20planner%20explains%20why&dm_i=6EB,7 > 71WT,A1PZC8,T5JZB,1

More cases in the pipeline, according to the Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/at-least-ten-legal-challenges-mounted-against-pro-cycling-road-closure-schemes-mqp7bjnpz?shareToken=829d7ddb5abfb5d322263d50e41309fe

Haven?t read it yet but here?s the link to the judgment. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/72.html Edited to add: quite a bit of taxi - specific stuff, but worth looking at paragraphs 142, 179-186, 191-193, 255 and 266-274 for some comments of more general relevance (criticism of the failure to do an adequate Equality Impact Assessment, and on the rationality (in a technical legal sense) of TfL's guidance). As with all judgments this is specific to the issue before the court, but it will raise questions about the adequacy of councils' equality impact assessments and decisionmaking based on the "flawed" TfL guidance, no doubt... A quote: "In my judgment, the flaws identified were symptomatic of an ill-considered response which sought to take advantage of the pandemic to push through, on an emergency basis without consultation, ?radical changes?, ?plans to transform parts of central London into one of the largest car-free zones in any capital city in the world?, and to ?rapidly repurpose London?s streets to serve an unprecedented demand for walking and cycling in a major new strategic shift? (Mayor?s statements on 6 and 15 May 2020). This approach was consistent with the additional guidance from the Secretary of State for Transport dated 9 May 2020 where he advocated a shift to walking and cycling and said: ?We recognise this moment for what it is: a once in a generation opportunity to deliver a lasting transformation in how we make short journeys in our towns and cities?? 267. The scale and ambition of the proposals, and the manner in which they were described, strongly suggest that the Mayor and TfL intended that these schemes would become permanent, once the temporary orders expired. However, there is no evidence to suggest that there will be a permanent pandemic requiring continuation of the extreme measures introduced by the Government in 2020. 268. The Guidance advised that, pursuant to the Plan: ?We need to urgently reconsider use of street space to provide safe and appealing spaces to walk and cycle as an alternative to car use in the context of reduced capacity on the public transport network. Suppressing motorised traffic while allowing essential journeys to take place is key to ensuring we manage our road and public transport network to maximise our ability to keep people moving safely.? 269. The stated justification for the restrictions on vehicle access, namely, that after lockdown, because of the limited public transport capacity, there would be a major increase in pedestrians and cyclists, and excessive traffic with consequent risks to safety and public health, was not evidence-based. It was mere conjecture, which was not a rational basis upon which to transform London?s roads. It must have been apparent to the Mayor and TfL that people were responding to the pandemic by staying at home, especially office workers, and so it was possible that they would continue to do after lockdown, to avoid infection. Central London was deserted during lockdown. Even once the lockdown was relaxed, and the government exhorted people to return to work to boost the city centre economies, people chose to remain at home where possible. There was no evidence to indicate that the predicted five-fold increase in the number of pedestrians and ten-fold increase in the number of cyclists in central London occurred. " ... "273. If the Mayor and TfL had proceeded more cautiously, monitoring the situation and acting upon evidence rather than conjecture, their proposals would have been proportionate to the difficulties which needed to be addressed. As it was, the measures proposed in the Plan and the Guidance, and implemented in the A10 order, far exceeded what was reasonably required to meet the temporary challenges created by the pandemic. It was possible to widen pavements to allow for social distancing, and to allocate more road space to cater for an increase in the number of cyclists, without seeking to ?transform? parts of central London into predominantly car-free zones. 274. In my judgment, it was both unfair and irrational to introduce such extreme measures, if it was not necessary to do so, when they impacted so adversely on certain sections of the public. The impact on the elderly and disabled who rely heavily on the door-to-door service provided by taxis is described at paragraphs 130 - 136 above. See also the adverse impacts identified in the EqIA (paragraphs 189-192 above). Taxis are a form of public transport. Travellers may wish to travel by taxi for legitimate reasons. Taxis have been valued by the NHS and vulnerable groups during the pandemic because they are safer than trains, buses and private hire vehicles. The detriment suffered by taxi drivers and the potential impact on their A1P1 rights, is set out in Ms Proctor?s first witness statement, paragraphs 26 - 30, and Mr Da Costa?s first witness statement at paragraphs 10 - 11. These impacts were either not considered, or automatically discounted because they were considered to be in conflict with the objectives of the Plan. 275. I conclude that the decision-making processes for the Plan, Guidance and A10 Order were seriously flawed, and the decisions were not a rational response to the issues which arose as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. " Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The trumpeters are surrounded the walls of Jericho > > > https://www.cityam.com/high-court-rules-tfls-stree > tspace-plan-unlawful/

I agree Nigello and I plead guilty myself - one of the other posters here said similar and spurred me to pay attention a while ago. I think that the decline in local newspapers has caused quite a bit of this (I?ve never bought one and until recently had never looked at one online - and that?s probably true for lots of people.) I do think civics at school should be a thing - but I guess one of the issues in this area is that a lot of people have moved here from a range of different places / backgrounds. Not sure of the solution. Maybe some sort of basic sheet that gets sent out with the council tax bill saying what the council does, what you can expect from your local councillors / who they are, where to find information (including local news sites)... ? Am conscious that moaning without thinking of practical things isn?t particularly constructive. Worth reflecting on.

I think one reason people support One Dulwich/ Dulwich Alliance, is that in the absence of proper transparency / engagement by the council with the public at large, it looks and feels like (and is?) the only vehicle for registering opposition to the ETOs in a meaningful way. The petition is not focused on residents' permits. There will be some people who would, for example, like permits for local traders and their suppliers, for those who live in or reasonably need to access the area but are unable to walk or cycle, for people working in the LTN (eg staff at the schools within the LTN); some people who would support a reduction in the hours of closure for various reasons (eg access to sports grounds); some who would like all or some of the closures removed to reduce traffic on surrounding roads (with consequent air and noise pollution) and to reduce the adverse effect on bus routes on those roads and some residents who want a residents' permit scheme. Really what people want is proper engagement: as I've said before, I don't think the Southwark processes work very well in terms of genuine public engagement. That's partly due to process flaws (having spent some time in the last few months reading a fair few council documents, all too often papers in a range of different policy areas say that there has been communication to the public through "usual Council channels" or "stakeholder groups". Council channels seems to mean a combination of social media channels (which Joe public seldom follows), Southwark Life (which I've received two or maybe three copies of during the last decade - although I have sometimes received two or even three copies of identical Southwark COVID flyers on the same day in recent weeks), and emails to known council stakeholder groups and email addresses, whose identity is shrouded in secrecy (two months after my FoI request I'm still awaiting a response to my query about who is involved in the Climate Emergency planning group). The commonplace thing is, imho, an epic fail as a tool to gauge local public opinion - since lockdown at least, only small / well-connected groups have been aware of the consultations / have digital access, and there's no way of knowing where the comments are coming from). The fact that local councillors have been such strong cheerleaders for the LTNs on social media leads many people to think that there is little chance of their giving fair consideration to alternative viewpoints. I think it's also the case that there is a degree of variation in the level of engagement that ward councillors have with their constituents. Looking at the Southwark calendar some wards seem to have more public meetings than others, and some wards have much more info on facebook than others as well. All that said - northernmonkey, I do agree that residents' permits wouldn't fix the displaced traffic on its own. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By this logic people are supporting One Dulwich > because they are concerned about displacement onto > other roads. If the One Dulwich /Dulwich Alliance > plans are put in place to allow for timed > restrictions with a permit system for local > residents this will mean that residents can can > pass through filters but no one else. > > How will this help? . > > For the permit system to address the concerns it > must either mean that > a) all the traffic people have concerns about > relates to local residents from SE21 driving > around the local area. > or > b) a much wider group of SE London residents > believe that they would be eligible for permits > too. > > > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I suspect that many of those supporting One > > Dulwich and opposing the closures are doing so > in > > response to the traffic problems caused on > > surrounding roads, rather than because they want > / > > need to drive through the LTN area - so their > > personal entitlement (or otherwise) to a permit > is > > neither here nor there. > > > > > > northernmonkey Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > It was heard at the last council meeting - > > there > > > was a thread on it somewhere. > > > > > > I'd imagine there is a lot of overlap between > > the > > > signatories and one Dulwich membership - and > > > looking at the map of addresses, I do wonder > > how > > > many of them would get a permit under the One > > > Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance plans? My initial > > > sense is not many!

I think the problem now is that there are way too many signs about the place!

I suspect that many of those supporting One Dulwich and opposing the closures are doing so in response to the traffic problems caused on surrounding roads, rather than because they want / need to drive through the LTN area - so their personal entitlement (or otherwise) to a permit is neither here nor there. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was heard at the last council meeting - there > was a thread on it somewhere. > > I'd imagine there is a lot of overlap between the > signatories and one Dulwich membership - and > looking at the map of addresses, I do wonder how > many of them would get a permit under the One > Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance plans? My initial > sense is not many!

Very little consideration or feedback tbh - it was raised at the cabinet meeting and there was a general commitment to do some consultation - see minutes here http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6663/Printed%20minutes%20Tuesday%2020-Oct-2020%2016.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=1 Then one of the Lib Dem councillors raised the issue at the Council Assembly meeting on 25 November and didn?t get a very helpful response - see question 6 here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s92306/Members%20question%20time%20with%20responses.pdf There were several public questions asked at this morning?s cabinet meeting, which have apparently been given written responses - those don?t seem to be up on the website yet. You can see the meeting on YouTube at from about 7:20 onward - I half- listened to the first bit and it seems as though there will be further evidence gathering / analysis/ consultation kicking off in early February... some reference to discussions with undefined ?stakeholder groups? happening. I don?t believe OneDulwich/ the new alliance thing have a fixed proposal on permits - their point is that there should be a proper community discussion to consider and decide that point. I?d imagine some suggestions would be more controversial than others...

Try this: Go to https://www.southwark.gov.uk/ Click on the "Services" icon at the top right to bring up the page showing the icons for the full list of services Click on the Engagement and Consultations icon, on the right hand side (you need to scroll down a bit, it shows three people with a bunch of question marks above their heads), then when you get the pop up box, click on "All Services in Engagement and Consultations". Then click on "Have Your Say". Then, when the new screen comes up, click on "Petition Scheme". Scroll down the page and near the bottom there's an embedded link saying you can create or sign an epetition. Click on the link. It should bring up a page with a list of petitions (this page http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgepetitionlistdisplay.aspx?bcr=1). Hopefully that works! The website is quite functional if you spend some time digging around in it, clicking on random things to see what comes up, but not particularly intuitive (for me, anyway)...

Not sure will take a look... Edited to add: details here https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/have-your-say/democracy-in-southwark/ask-a-question?chapter=3 Details of the Tuesday cabinet meeting which is at 11am are on this link, including details of the officers who I think questions need to be sent to (I?ve never sent a question so just going with what is on the website). http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6665

Just to add a couple of things: (1) worth reading the background and criteria in the report. I?m not entirely convinced all of these actually meet the stated criteria, particularly the idea that these should really be up front capital sums that ?Just need a one-off sum of money to get started (and not require additional funding from the council in future)?... (2) the ward councillors seem to be the ones who make the selection from the list of projects proposed. (3) the deadline for public questions for matters raised in this meeting is midnight tomorrow, Weds 13 January. Edited to add: as with many, many Southwark consultations this was another one I had never heard about. Have managed to find the commonplace site that was used and it seems few others had heard of it either.... not the most subscribed one ever! https://dulwichvillagecilmap.commonplace.is/comments

Hi all, quick heads up about the Cabinet meeting on 19 January that will consider the allocation of CIL funding for the Dulwich and Camberwell wards - link to report here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s92946/Report%20Allocation%20of%20local%20CIL%20Southwark%20-%20Phase%202.pdf Several things that are probably of interest to those on this thread: - bulk of Camberwell funding going to a feasibility study and projects relating to cycling and pedestrian routes in Camberwell - Dulwich Hill funding for (I) Installation of on street cycle hangars in the Dulwich Hill ward, subject to final confirmation of locations to including Peckham Rye / Forest Hill Road / adjoining roads (sounds like one for Rockets to follow up!) (Ii) Introduction of traffic calming measures on residential roads between Forest Hill Road and Underhill, including St Aidan?s Road, St Dunstans Road and Ryedale, with a view to introducing resident access- only restrictions and/or one-way operation, subject to feasibility and local consultation. Most of the Dulwich Village funding is going to the somewhat vaguely expressed ?initial feasibility and design work into potential projects to support the implementation of active travel opportunities such as walking and cycling, reducing traffic volume, improving air quality and making streets safer and healthier. Establish a network of safe walking and cycling route which connect with similar in neighboring wards, supporting active travel and preventing increase of traffic and pollution; Addressing commuter parking, and monitoring air pollution levels.? Goose Green funding for (1) Feasibility study into the potential to create safe cycle lanes on the East Dulwich Road / East Dulwich Grove (A2214) and beyond. (2) Feasibility and initial design work to a potential to improve the area outside East Dulwich station, establishing a public square with improved pedestrian and cycle routes. Options to be considered include: - Raised & realigned pedestrian crossing; - Raised loading bays; - Decluttering the public realm, including removing pedestrian guard rails, relocating bins and cycle parking; - Improving pedestrian and cycle routes in the vicinity including around Vale End, Melbourne Grove and Railway Rise.

Not a strictly ED question, but they're renovating Ken's Fish Bar in half moon lane at the moment and you can see the "ghost sign" of a previous incarnation it's something Wood and Co (maybe CWE Wood?) just wondering what it used to be...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/street-closures-spark-a-new-culture-war-h5wgp7jl3?shareToken=6c1892d69dbd6ea76b851b8e16dfdf57 Article fom Janice Turner in The Times today sums it up for me - I expect it's behind a paywall though...

Hi Redjam - Dulwich Village itself has restrictions on northbound traffic during the periods of the timed closures. These are effected by two "bus gates" (ie only open to buses, taxis, cycles), both of which are at the Gallery Road/Burbage Road/Dulwich Village roundabout. If you are coming up Gallery Road during the restricted time periods (8-10am and 3-6pm monday to friday), then you must not (i) turn left into Burbage Road; or (ii) go straight ahead into Dulwich Village (ie you can only head back to the South Circular via Gallery or College Road, so no point driving up Gallery Road in the first place). There are blue signs indicating that this is the case. Hope that helps.

As someone who grew up outside the EU and now lives here (and who travelled about a bit in my youth / studied at a UK uni), I think we need to stop talking ourselves into the idea of a "catastrophic loss of opportunities for youngsters" thing. Young people from non-EU countries do plenty of travelling, studying and working abroad both within and outside the EU. As it stands, I read somewhere the other day that more UK students study at tertiary level in the US plus Australia, than in the EU countries combined. Yes, there might be a few more forms to fill, but there will still be opportunities out there...

I take the same view as Bicknell. I?m reading it as something designed to open the conversation - I don?t doubt that those who have set up the petition have their own view on a solution, but I wouldn?t want that to stop people from voicing their concern with the existing scheme. It seems designed not to split the numbers of those who disagree with the current scheme (ie it?s carefully not like Australia 1999)

I think we've had a couple of redwings at ours. I thought they might be some sort of song thrush but the didn't look quite right... We have a crabapple tree which still has some fruit on it so are getting a range of hungry birs this week.

The less people driving means the average air quality is improved. It doesn't automatically mean better air quality for everyone. Depending on design, it may worsen air quality for those who already have poor air quality and improve air quality for those who already have relatively OK air quality. Which is why the Guys etc project has clearly spent a lot of time and effort on site selection ( to try and benefit those with the worst air quality) and are emphasising the importance of monitoring. It feels a bit like this