legalalien

I didn't get a leaflet. What is it about?

I still haven?t had a response to my query (and then FoI request) about who is on the Partnership Steering group for this, but it appears that Extinction Rebellion Southwark and Fossil Free Southwark are on it, as they are currently threatening to withdraw: XR due to perceived lack of action / lack of citizen engagement on the issues and FFS with similar concerns and (paraphrasing) due to perceived Council incompetence. See https://xrsouthwark.earth/about-us/open-letter-to-councillor-johnson-situ https://fossilfreesouthwark.wordpress.com/2020/11/27/climate-strategy-partnership-steering-group-statement-27-11-2020/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Nearly 6000 people have signed the petition now, and four days until the deadline for felling. It would be great if a compromise could be found.

I think all 32 boroughs including the Kent outer boroughs (bexleyheath and Bromley) are tier 2? See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/full-list-of-local-restriction-tiers-by-area Just put in my grandparents' old address into the postcode checker to see, and it comes up as tier 2. As does the postcode for Bexley high street.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/dulwich-village-streetspace-phase-2-community-meeting-tickets-130809997223?utm_source=eventbrite&utm_medium=email&utm_content=follow_notification&utm_campaign=following_published_event&utm_term=Dulwich+Village+Streetspace+Phase+2+Community+Meeting&aff=ebemoffollowpublishemail Hopefully this works.. Even if you don?t want to attend this one I?d recommend that people follow the link and ?follow? the Southwark Community Engagement team, they seem to have started using this mechanism to notify people of the various consultation meetings.

holymoly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What has happened to a Phase 1 meeting? Or is > Dulwich Village junction being buried. It was a > single initiative with its own period for > objection. No idea. Think the window for formal objections is still open for a couple of weeks?

I?ve just had an ?eventbrite? message advising of the following meeting - similar to the one held re the East Dulwich closures today: ?Dulwich Village Streetspace Phase 2 Community Meeting Tuesday, 15 December 2020 at 13:00? Not sure of the exact link but if you go to eventbrite.co.Uk and search for the Southwark Community Engagement Team it should come up.

Information about TfL activity in Southwark (including funding for Southwark Local Implementation Plans) here: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs-and-communities/southwark#on-this-page-1 If anyone wants to comment on the TfL trial of operating bus lanes 24/7 - the link is here https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/better-bus-journeys/

Update: have had a response from Cllr Newens re TfL?s FoI response - she is unaware of any additional proposed closures. Hopefully Cllr Rose will respond as well. Trying to read the response as though it might just mean additional signs on the A205/ Croxted to warn of the existing closures.. it just doesn?t read like that. But I wouldn?t rule out poor wording. Let?s see....

I think that?s what it is saying - and also access to Belair Park, the drop off for the DPL nursery in Gallery Road, and the DPL sports ground in Gallery Road - and also means the only vehicular access to the major sports facilities in Burbage and Turney Road (including the part of the sports ground accessed from Gallery Road) would be via The Half Moon Lane end of Burbage Road, as far as I can tell. Given that people come to use those facilities from well outside the area (for school sports, for after school training, and for fixtures attended by opposition teams) - this is going to make things very difficult if not impossible for them. All in all the effect would be to close off the green resources of Dulwich to those outside the area. I completely get the aim of encouraging people to do things locally and the 15 minute city type thinking - but we have to be careful that we?re not denying people access to key community facilities and green space just because they live more than 15 minutes away, where there are no similar facilities in the area where they live... I?ll email Cllr Rose and the ward councillors to see If I can find out anything...

As noted on the ?info? thread,boroughs are asked to discuss all Streetspace (including LTN) proposals with TfL. In addition, there is a statutory requirement to make Traffic Management Act 2004 Notifications (TMAN): ?Pursuant to the Traffic Management Act 2004, any activity carried out by the Boroughs using Highways Act 1980 (HA) or Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA) powers which will or are likely to affect the Strategic Road Network (SRN) or the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is notifiable by the Borough to TfL through TfL?s TMAN process.? Section 121B of the RTRA requires TfL to be notified and either consent, or ?not object? within one month. I put in an FOI request to TfL re TMAN applications for DV/ ED closures: just received their response. It says nothing about those closures (not sure that means there were no TMAN notification or not), but here are some new / amended closures that Southwark have apparently asked TfL to consider: ?TfL received a Traffic Management Act 2004 Notification (TMAN ) from Southwark Borough Council reference number N2004545, on the 10 November 2020. This TMAN was relating to Dulwich Village London Streetspace Programme (LSP) timed access restrictions. The scheme notification relates to timed access restrictions on multiple roads around Dulwich village from 8am ? 10am and 3pm ? 6pm. The proposed changes are: restricted access to Turney Road from Croxted Road, to Gallery Road from A205 Thurlow Park Road, and to College Road from A205 Dulwich Common. The information currently provided includes a General Arrangement drawing with proposed signage locations / wording and scheme impact monitoring document highlighting ATC camera positioning on East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. Please see attached. At present we are still reviewing the detail of the LSP and what implications the restrictions may have on the Transport for London Road Network and the Strategic Road Network (TLRN / SRN) corridors, especially the potential for traffic reassignment on the SRN corridor Lordship Lane and the potential for impact to bus services along this corridor. TfL will need to agree a monitoring strategy with Southwark.?

Yes but do note the expanded scope of the closures they are now speaking to TfL about. I failed to notice this non the first read through, but it does look as though they are planning to expand Fortress Dulwich a little further (or at least shore up the defences...)

To change the subject slightly. As noted on the ?info? thread,boroughs are asked to discuss all Streetspace (including LTN) proposals with TfL. In addition, there is a statutory requirement to make Traffic Management Act 2004 Notifications (TMAN): ?Pursuant to the Traffic Management Act 2004, any activity carried out by the Boroughs using Highways Act 1980 (HA) or Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA) powers which will or are likely to affect the Strategic Road Network (SRN) or the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is notifiable by the Borough to TfL through TfL?s TMAN process.? Section 121B of the RTRA requires TfL to be notified and either consent, or ?not object? within one month. I thought it would be interesting to know whether Southwark had gone through the TMAN process for the village junction closure and/ or the Turney, Burbage, DV times closures, and the Melbourne/ Elsie etc closures given the potential knock on effect on Lordship Lane, so I put in an FOI request to TfL. Just received their response. It says nothing about those closures (not sure that means there was no TMAN notification or not), but here are some new ones that Southwark have apparently asked them to consider: ?TfL received a Traffic Management Act 2004 Notification (TMAN ) from Southwark Borough Council reference number N2004545, on the 10 November 2020. This TMAN was relating to Dulwich Village London Streetspace Programme (LSP) timed access restrictions. The scheme notification relates to timed access restrictions on multiple roads around Dulwich village from 8am ? 10am and 3pm ? 6pm. The proposed changes are: restricted access to Turney Road from Croxted Road, to Gallery Road from A205 Thurlow Park Road, and to College Road from A205 Dulwich Common. The information currently provided includes a General Arrangement drawing with proposed signage locations / wording and scheme impact monitoring document highlighting ATC camera positioning on East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. Please see attached. At present we are still reviewing the detail of the LSP and what implications the restrictions may have on the Transport for London Road Network and the Strategic Road Network (TLRN / SRN) corridors, especially the potential for traffic reassignment on the SRN corridor Lordship Lane and the potential for impact to bus services along this corridor. TfL will need to agree a monitoring strategy with Southwark.? May explain why only a temporary sign has gone in on Turney Road going towards the Village? Tell me I?m reading this wrong....

Decision notice on the first batch of Guys and St Thomas schemes at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s92258/Record%20of%20Decision.pdf. Interesting read as it records all the various concerns raised by the local ward councillors, Cllrs Burgess and Wingfield, including effects of displacement, social justice concerns, lack of air quality monitoring, lack of consultation. Going ahead on an experimental basis, decision notes that "The proposals have been assessed and the locations chosen based on an assessment of the indices of multiple deprivation to ensure it is being delivered in an area that is most in need. While it is accepted that there will be some displacement of traffic on to the periphery roads it should be noted that this is a trial scheme and a robust system of monitoring will be put in place to measure this and the results of this will be considered as part of any further decision making over the future of this scheme. This traffic flow data will also allow the council to make an assessment of any air quality changes that may occur as a direct result of the scheme without the figures being affected by the many other sources of pollution or prevailing weather conditions. Additional investigation work will also be carried out with air quality monitoring specialists to determine if there is an economically feasible methodology to more accurately assess air quality changes. The principle of an experimental order is to allow people living in the area to experience the changes to help them form an opinion. Full consultation will be carried out following the implementation of the measures and the council will respond to any representations received during the initial monitoring period. As part of the public engagement for the scheme officers will ensure proper discussions with Orchard House are carried out. It should further be noted that the proposed monitoring regime for the schemes is far more comprehensive than anything else associated with LTNs across the borough. This, in conjunction with the reference sites, should allow a comprehensive assessment of the effects of the proposed measures."

There's a written response from the cabinet member to Mr Rates' question, added to the supplementary agenda in advance of tonight's assembly meeting: " Recent changes to the measures in Dulwich have involved a move to timed restrictions on many roads. This was partly in response to the area wide traffic counts that indicated that the ?peaks? for traffic volumes were spread over much longer times than the usual morning and afternoon peaks. The measures introduced in Dulwich were also based on the previous consultations undertaken over the past 18 months as part of Our Healthy Streets Dulwich, and initially included those measures that had a majority of local resident support. We will be carrying out an in depth review process and consultation that targets the local community. People will be asked to supply an address so that we can understand how the views of the residents compare with the general feedback from the wider area that we are receiving. We will also be continuing our conversations with local groups. We are already looking at and working to ensure that the issues raised by our most vulnerable residents and those with specific acute needs are dealt with prior to that process. Whilst it was necessary to take immediate action in response to a public health emergency, the council has always planned to carry out an in depth discussion on these measures, as it has done in the past with any major change. However any really meaningful discussions around long term sustainable change take a considerable amount of time. For this reason it has not been possible to have these conversations prior to taking action to revise the first phases; however we will be carrying out detailed engagement before any decisions are made on the future of these measures." http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50012428/Supplemental%20Agenda%20No.%202%20Wednesday%2025-Nov-2020%2019.00%20Council%20Assembly.pdf?T=9 The answers to the two additional questions asked by LD councillors are also in this document. Note this: "....This does make directly monitoring emissions very difficult as they are subject to so many other sources. In order to ensure a scientific approach we must isolate what we are measuring from other factors. The answer to this is simple; less road traffic equals less pollution. The council is working to achieve a net reduction in the numbers of vehicles on our roads and this is the primary measure that we will judge schemes against. Obviously, there will be some displaced traffic, and we recognise that we will need to monitor the area around these schemes too to ensure there is a true net decrease, not just displacement." Note, seems to suggest that the measure is number of vehicles without account of increased traffic or increased journey times - which would suggest traffic counts at particular points remain the main measure.

Our milkman still delivers in an electric vehicle and does quite a lot of the houses in the street. Maybe we are in a timewarp? I wonder If we might come to an agreement on street-wide grocery delivery. Food for thought/ thought for food.

There?s a piece around delivery times / speed of delivery to be considered presumably? I have milk delivered, same times, same days every week and same with groceries, I have a ?green? slot weekly or fortnightly which is at the same time as close neighbours so we?re on a fixed delivery circuit. If I start ordering all manner of things on Amazon prime with 24 hour delivery, that?s when the extra traffic starts...

It?s not about falsification - it?s about selective measures and selective interpretation. I think Rockets is right on this one - it?s almost always possible to find people who will spin data to fit the argument you are making. That?s hardly news.

It?s a massive issue in the pharma industry, see eg https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article/18/6/565/516238 Drugs trials are heavily regulated which mitigates against this. Am sure I?ve read before that the main cause of bias is whether or not publication happens: positive results for pharma companies are published and negative ones are buried.

Thanks, will read. Generally in favour of ?polluter pays?, which this is a subset of. obvs businesses that experience increased costs as a result will pass these on to consumers, but that means consumers get a better picture of the real cost of things they are purchasing...

My suspicions were correct!!! Good work James (but it is a little depressing to see how the residents of some wards are represented more effectively than others). I won't hold my breath regarding a meeting on the DV closures.

Popped past today... Some more info here. https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18892275.campaigners-camp-stop-southwark-felling-oak-trees/. Seems Southwark are seeking a high court injunction to enable police to remove the campaigners so that felling work can go ahead.... I was told that the current felling order expires in early December so the council is keen to fell the trees before then. Incidentally, on the original subject of this thread, I saw three separate sets of cyclists riding / struggling through and cursing at the kissing gate in the brief period I was there and there are a number of mountain bike track marks through the woods. I don't think cycling is permitted?

For info, Southwark's " Additional Restrictions Grant" scheme opened to new applications today. There is info about it at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/business/business-support-and-advice/covid-19-support-and-information-for-businesses-and-employers?chapter=7. It is described as follows: "This grant scheme is for micro and small businesses in Southwark that have been legally required to close between 5 November and 2 December 2020 (but are not business rates payers/account holders) and those that may not be required to close but have been severely impacted by the restrictions put in place to control the spread of COVID-19." The website says that "For those in the second category, we particularly welcome applications from businesses that supply the retail, hospitality, and leisure sectors, as well as businesses in the events sector and market traders." From the underlying decision notice looks like ?6.37m allocated to Southwark by central govt for this. Southwark Plan to advertise "through council channels, business networks and our business mailing list", as I imagine some micro-businesses not paying rates might be off Southwark's radar, thought it worth posting here.

Perhaps the goose green ward councillors asked for it?

Quick reminder that the Council Assembly meeting is tomorrow evening. A supplementary agenda has been posted on the website, this includes two LTN related questions from the public: 1. QUESTION FROM SACHIN SHAH TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR LEISURE, ENVIRONMENT AND ROADS Is it the Council?s intention to channel traffic into residential roads where it can affect the lives of residents more than when kept on main roads ? with more noise, pollution and danger on foot/cycle? The changes to The Cut have left residential roads bearing the burden of displaced traffic. 2. QUESTION FROM CLIVE RATES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR LEISURE, ENVIRONMENT AND ROADS In consultation, the aim of proposed roads measures were "to tackle only through traffic at peak hours? and to ?minimise inconvenience to local journeys?. Given that the measures in Dulwich Village are not consistent with those aims, how can Southwark claim there is significant support among residents for those measures? These are in addition to the two questions being asked by LD councillors, mentioned previously. Lots of other areas of discussion. Info at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=6773&Ver=4, will be live-streamed on YouTube.