legalalien

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.

Fair enough re the political stuff, I?ll take my process issues elsewhere. The green bus / local bus circuit sounds like a good idea to me. Half moon Lane mentioned? Would it go towards Herne hill as well? I can see it serving different demographics at different times of day.

Funnily enough I?m coming to the view that proportional representation in local govt is perhaps the way forward. But that?s digressing from this thread.

May 2022 sounds good but how does it work practically? As I understand it, council committee positions are based on a sort of proportional representation rule (quoting assembly meeting earlier in the year): ?Note: The political balance rules require that the political groups represented on council have proportionate representation on council committees. A political group must comprise at least two members, so the one Independent member does not constitute a political group. Councils can allocate seats on committees to members not aligned to a group, but are under no statutory obligation to do so.? Given the local Labour councillors seem intransigent about any criticism or proposed modification to the current scheme, and that the listed Lib Dem rep (http://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/dulwich_village_candidates) campaigned to close the DV/CL junction, where does that leave us in terms of an election as a practical solution? Independents only get even slight power if they join a group of two or more candidates; would local Lib Dems in practice be... liberal and democratic? So far I?m kind of getting the impression that they do care about the process issues at least - hence the questions proposed for this week?s assembly meeting, and Cllr Nick Johnson?s blog on Southwark News. I guess we wait and see? (For completeness can?t see voting in conservative reps will be a thing, and even if so, their voices would be less heard / respected by a majority Labour (or Lib Dem) council)? Sorry to bring politics into it, but if the local govt election is supposed to change things, that?s inevitable?

Thanks Robin, I will look forward to seeing your suggestions, as a fellow pedestrian with what seem to be similar views. The ongoing black and white all-LTN vs no-LTN debate, however heartfelt, gets us nowhere. Schemes need to be looked at on a case by case basis, with room for some sensible give and take - and trial and error - that's the whole point of the experimental process. (But while focusing on substance, we still imho need to keep calling out flaws in / non-compliance with government processes - which seem to be a problem at both central and local government level at the moment - these are an important part of the system of checks and balances that make democracy workable)...

That's interesting as I've offered to donate used but good condition children's books to various local schools over the years and been turned down as they only want new books. Does anyone have suggestions of where to donate recent but used (read once) adult books? I usually leave in a box outside with a "help yourself" note on a fine day, but would def donate to a hospital / library etc if any interest.

People on video: "We just keep saying to [southwark council] 'please talk to us'".... Sound familiar? Wasn't aware of this campaign, there's more info here: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-the-cox-s-walk-footbridge-oak-trees. Looks like the council was due to fell the trees last week but there is a sit in going on? https://m.facebook.com/SaveOaks/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=0 Malumbu not quite sure who you are having a go at or why?

It is important though that formal objections get sent to the right place, which I think is [email protected], copying in [email protected], and stating it?s a formal objection to the scheme. By all means copy in councillors, but just emailing councillors risks not being counted as a formal objection, I think?

You can add Rosendale to your list given the post- phase- 2 knock on effects on Croxted Road...

The Met Police run an appeal in association with the Childhood Trust that provides gifts to children in care / living in poverty etc. More info here https://www.childhoodtrust.org.uk/ Health warning- the gifts this year seem just a BIT boy / girl stereotypical...

Exdulwicher - obvs that?s entirely unacceptable behaviour (but rockets was making a slightly different point)? Anyway - question - does anyone know whether, when they measure traffic data, they do it on a 24/7 basis rather than at fixed times of day? We seem to have developed a new rush hour through Dulwich Village from around 6:45 to 8am where all the (presumably) work related traffic tries to get through before the 8am cut off - that?s traffic that hasn?t evaporated but spread out over a longer time period - it sure how this is accounted for? I?m guessing the same is applying across the road network eg more traffic on EDG, Res Post Hill etc as that traffic must be going somewhere?

That Twitter thread...words fail me.

Well, it?s presumably designed so that birds of a feather can flock together.

For those who might not have received a copy of the most recent Southwark Life magazine, am attaching pics of the article about the community discussion etc so far.