legalalien

No he?s referring to the three Guys etc schemes which don?t include dulwich

And the Southwark chap has just said that the guys and st Thomas schemes differ from the dulwich one in that they have proper before and after monitoring whereas the dulwich one doesn?t...

This is really good. There has been a whole new spiel about public participation (not sure anyone has attended the zoom meetings before)and now the councillors are introducing themselves. Transparency happening and will be available to people who can?t make the meeting, in recorded form.

Conspiracy :). Not at all. Southwark choose to consult Southwark Cyclists, presumably so they can get their views (although if there is a conspiracy, take their instructions!). Rather than complain about that, better to request they consult other groups as a matter of course eg residents associations, or maybe we should ask them to post on local bulletin boards like this? An RSS feed? We want more transparency, not less - I think so anyway. On that note, the Southwark Cyclists AGM is on next week (online) and open to all... https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/events/southwark-cyclists-agm/

Agree. Although the idea of a box of votes sitting in a room in philly, awaiting a court decision to determine the outcome of the election, has lots of dramatic tension..☺️

there seems to be a bit of a toxic relationship: (I) trump loves winding the media up and making grandiose statements that are open to a wide range of interpretations, i think deliberately, and then each side reads into them what they want to (ii) the media is a bit hysterical and Trump may have a bit of a point when he says they don't always give the full picture. Take Trump's speech this morning and the bit about the Supreme Court. My first thought was that there probably isn't a way to go directly to the Supreme Court, there would have to be some lower level court proceedings first - so google and you find (in less than 5 mins) this helpful Guardian article from last week which describes the recent wranglings whereby the Democrat controlled State supreme court in Pennsylvania has authorised a change to state law permitting a three day extension post election day for postal votes; republicans appealed to the US supreme court for an emergency decision on this pre election but were denied in a 4-4 split, and the case still potentially remains to be heard. The votes concerned are being kept separate from the other votes in case this goes to court / is decided in favour of the republicans. I gather there's a constitutional issue as to whether state courts should be able to override state legislatures around voting rules. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/28/pennsylvania-elections-ballot-extension-supreme-court All the reporting makes it sound as though Trump just wants to put peoples votes in the bin for no reason, but surely some of the reporters must know about this background? Trump could have been more specific and avoiding the ensuing media storm - he no doubt has his own reasons for that. The polarisation of everything is just exhausting.

I see on Twitter that Ealing MP Dr Rupa Haq is raising the issue of the LTNs in Parliament today https://calendar.parliament.uk/

I actually have some empathy with the team that?s having to handle all this stuff. There?s an unusual volume of it you?d think - I?d be tearing my hair out! These detail focused tasks are a nightmare and I bet the people doing them aren?t terribly well paid / aren?t the people making the decisions. Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > (at the risk of being slightly off topic - I > think > > 2(a) should refer to ED Grove not ED Road. > They > > might need a new sign... > > > > Question: is there a reason why they couldn't > > move the barrier at the GV end a bit further > > towards EDG, so that there is parking outside > the > > shops that can be accessed from GV but no > through > > route? Because that would seem like an obvious > > compromise. (Doesn't fix the problem of > traffic > > on EDG but not sure how much of that is caused > by > > these closures as opposed to the Dulwich > Village > > ones? > It shows they don't know what they are talking > about. At least proof read for goodness sake!

(at the risk of being slightly off topic - I think 2(a) should refer to ED Grove not ED Road. They might need a new sign... Question: is there a reason why they couldn't move the barrier at the GV end a bit further towards EDG, so that there is parking outside the shops that can be accessed from GV but no through route? Because that would seem like an obvious compromise. (Doesn't fix the problem of traffic on EDG but not sure how much of that is caused by these closures as opposed to the Dulwich Village ones?

Greater London Authority / Transport for London - Strategic Road Network A bit more background. Not 100% on this, but my best effort to figure out how TfL fits into this as regards main roads. TfL has responsibility for some main roads ?red routes? in London, and also has to be consulted on various matters affecting roads which are designated as Strategic Roads (scroll down to the bottom for info about what these are ? basically Lordship Lane locally). In response to a few FOI requests in relation to other London boroughs, the GLA has advised that ?The Mayor of London, through Transport for London, is working closely with London boroughs to create more space for people to walk and cycle safely as part of the Streetspace programme. The programme includes the creation of temporary cycle lanes on main roads, wider pavements on high-streets, and the creation of low-traffic neighbourhoods on residential streets. As part of this programme, boroughs submit bids to Transport for London for schemes that they wish to implement, which are then assessed against a range of criteria. There is more detail about how these assessments are carried out on the TfL website: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs-and-communities/streetspace-funding TfL has provided funding to [borough] for a number of low-traffic neighbourhoods. Pages 7 and 8 of this guidance document set out the legal and regulatory processes of the Traffic Management Act that TfL and the boroughs use to assess and approve schemes such as low-traffic neighbourhoods when they are predicted to have an impact on either the Strategic Road Network, or the Transport for London Road Network: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lsp-interim-borough-guidance-main-doc.pdf Where schemes are deemed to have impacts, TfL exercise these powers by reviewing proposals and providing recommendations on changes to ease traffic flow. The London Assembly has no powers to intervene in these schemes but can make representations to decision makers at councils and Transport for London, and to the Mayor.? 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. In other words if any experimental order made by Southwark was likely to affect Lordship Lane / Grove Vale it would have to be notified through this process- how this works for experimental orders is set out on page 8 of the guidance. I suspect both the experimental orders Dulwich Village and East Dulwich LTNs would meet that test so you would expect that TfL was notified ? not sure how you can find this out! TfL go on to say in the guidance that ?TfL expects that a borough would run the TMAN and traffic order processes in parallel for expediency and we will prioritise discussions and assessments for those schemes which deliver transport network improvements to support recovery from the COVID-19 emergency. TfL will not require any more information than that required by your own Borough Traffic Manager and commits to a pragmatic approach in our assessment of your plans. TfL will discuss options for assessing the impact of more complex proposals which ban movements and close roads when there is insufficient time to undertake a full traffic model assessment. TfL commit a timely turnaround of submissions to support expeditious on-street delivery.? So there?s a fast tracking process in place, but if a TMAN was submitted I think Southwark would have to provide some modelling of the potential effect on Lordship Lane and TfL would have to turn its mind to it. If anyone knows how to find this out other than through an FoI request, do tell! ____________________________________________________________________ The initial list of strategic roads was set out in the Schedule to The Traffic Management (Strategic Roads in Greater London) Designation Order 2005, see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/476/schedule/made ?73. A2216 from its junction with Dulwich Common (A205) to its junction with Denmark Hill (A215) including Lordship Lane (part), Grove Vale, Dog Kennel Hill, Dulwich Road, Grove Lane and Champion Park, but excluding Lordship Lane between its junction with Dulwich Common (A205) and a point 15m north west of the party wall of 481 and 483 Lordship Lane.? It also includes the A2214 but only ?from its junction with Norwood Road (A215) to its junctions with Effra Road (A204) including Dulwich Road, Dalberg Road, Morval Road and Brixton Water Lane? ie not East Dulwich Grove/ East Dulwich Road as far as I can tell, although these were listed as Strategic Roads in the traffic management report linked further up this thread. The Mayor has power to make an order directing that a road become a strategic road, no idea how you find this out! But GLA comments on the hospital site in EDG from 2016 state that the nearest part of the SRN is 200m away, in Lordship Lane.

Just a reminder that this meeting is tomorrow evening, a supplemental document has been added to the website including a report from council officers on LTNs. I haven't read it yet, it looks to include a lot of summary/ background info and some info on three specific school based plans being funded by the Guys and St Thomas' charitable trust - focussed on schools in areas with high deprivation/ poor air quality. Includes Harris Peckham if anyone interested. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6833

As I understand it the statutory consultation still has to take place for experimentals - this includes emergency services (see this link for the list) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/6/made

That?s because they have. The council?s policy is to consult disability and cycling groups on traffic management orders that affect them. Choosing one at random (I just put CPZ into the search engine and this came up), the description of the consultation process for the Croxted CPZ is: ?12. Notice was also given to non-statutory consultees including: Transport for London, Southwark Disablement Association, Southwark Disability Forum, Southwark Cyclists, Living Streets and London Travel Watch.? Policy at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/traffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/traffic-management-orders?chapter=2. Note that SC also seem to be consulted on relevant experimental orders where no advance public consultation is required eg http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s91051/APPENDIX%201%20PECKHAM%20RYE.pdf first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do find it slightly disconcerting that reps of > Southwark Cycling have such intimate knowledge of > the ins and outs of recently introduced CPZs in > the area. It does give the impression that they > have somehow been party to stuff that mere > residents have not been.

Refresh of the Southwark Council Plan Quick heads up. The council has a four year plan covering 2018-2022 setting out its priorities. They are currently undertaking a ?refresh? exercise. Cabinet has agreed on this document, it goes before the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at a public meeting on 9 November, there was (apparently) a six week period for public consultation which ended on 20 October ? it?s due to go to the Council Assembly for approval on 25 November. Worth a read to get a feel for various Council priorities ? also includes a report on 2019/20 performance. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6738/Public%20reports%20pack%20Monday%2009-Nov-2020%2018.30%20Overview%20Scrutiny%20Committee.pdf?T=10 You can email for details of the online meeting. It will include an interview with the new leader of the council, Cllr Kieron Williams. Edited to add - was intrigued to see a "Local Funds" item on the Oversight and Scrutiny Commission's work plan, referring back to a meeting in October 2019. If you look at the minutes of that meeting it's this: "LOCAL FUNDS The committee discussed this piece of work, which is focussed on assembling a clear picture of the funding programmes available to local people to bid for. Finance officers had drawn up a spreadsheet as a starting point. Committee members agreed that this was a very useful document and could be developed further. One specific suggestion was to add cabinet members areas of responsibility. Cllrs Humaira Ali and Alice Macdonald agreed to take it away for more work and bring back a proposal" At least it's not just us members of the public that find it hard to keep track!

Yes that?s right. The crowdfunding is a red herring. None of us knows how much the decorations cost. My point re Cllr McAsh is that if you think the RA has acted inappropriately, maybe funding them again is a bad idea. Whether or not the RA claimed this year?s funding is irrelevant to that.

I think I?ve been pretty transparent about what I have and haven?t been able to find out and what documents I?m basing it on. I could waste the council?s time by putting in an FOI request (never done that before, always up for a new experience), but life is too short. For anyone who thinks the decorations are offensive, maybe just email the ward councillor, Cllr McAsh, and say you?re concerned, can he think about this when considering the current funding round*. Given how tight things are for the council financially it would be strange to fund a particular residents? assn street party three years running in any case. * I have zero idea whether any application is being made this year.

It implies that they had a pot of money they could spend on the four parties mentioned. We?re clearly not going to agree on this!

I don't agree. And in fact "this", which is singular, sounds more like it applies to the Halloween thing. The previous year's application uses identical wording so sheds little light... Anyway, I'm sure they could confirm that absent any summer parties they'll either be forfeiting the funding or giving it back. nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?The application is clearly for both summer and > Halloween parties as I read it.? > > I read it that the ?Halloween play street booked > for next weekend? is background to their > application for summer street parties in ways they > are keeping their residents ?connected and > engaged?

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?And click on "Funding Awards Decision 2020/21" > you'll see a list which shows that there was an > award of ?500 for application 1316109, which is > the one quoted above (so ?500 of the ?750 applied > for). ? > > This though was for street parties in the summer > which I guess didn?t go ahead, so probably money > not awarded, due to lockdown The application is clearly for both summer and Halloween parties as I read it. In past years I believe that the process has been for the successful applicant to invoice the council shortly after approval and prior to the event (and then provide info about the event once it has happened). Obvs have no idea what the RA did or didn't invoice for.... Anyhow, a useful heads up to people about the existence of the funding and the sorts of things that are awarded funds. On the consultation point, the statutory consultees are who they are, but if Southwark chooses to consult other groups (for example it appears to have built Southwark Cyclists into its consultation process), I agree it would make sense to have a broader range of these.

its' quite hard to know what has happened. The application refers to the summer parties and says "We are a Resident's Association of 3 streets (plus a couple of connected streets) with the aim of connecting our residents and creating a better local environment in which we all can share. This year with the help of funding we held 3 separate street parties over Summer (Melbourne Grove, Derwent Grove & Tintagel Crescent), and have a 3-road Halloween play street booked for next weekend on Derwent Grove for all residents within the VRA to come together and join in. We would like to repeat this in 2020 to help keep our residents connected and engaged, especially as this raises the VRA profile and encourages engagement with the Association which helps us better understand and tackle local issues when they arise." The application process is annual, so the "next week" referred to is Oct 2019 and the aim is to repeat, presumably a similar range of parties (both summer and Halloween) in 2020. The South Wards multiforum page only has the agenda which recommends funding. Then - if you do a "decision" search on South Wards decisions in the general decision finder, you see that the decision from this meeting is "Closed - Reason 3". I have no idea at all what that means. Maybe they couldn't allocate this year's funds due to a global pandemic? (I think I've now used up today's patience in trying to navigate the council website). It seems maybe noone got funds this year....Don't know! PS there was an allocation for street parties for the previous year though:) http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=52262 PPS I think I have got there. If you go to this page https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/empowering-communities/empowering-communities-south And click on "Funding Awards Decision 2020/21" you'll see a list which shows that there was an award of ?500 for application 1316109, which is the one quoted above (so ?500 of the ?750 applied for). Why is this so difficult!! As before, happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong. I am probably a bit of a grinch but I can think of better things for the council to be spending its money on in all honesty!

If I?ve got that wrong I apologise (it would help if they posted minutes)- although generally I think the approve the recommendations? The application refers to Halloween as well as the street party as I read it.

I think they have - see agenda item 8 (?750 vale residents assn) http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6618/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2025-Feb-2020%2019.00%20South%20multi-ward%20forum.pdf?T=10

They certainly applied for it. Will double check.

I?d consider opposing any application to the council for neighbourhood funding for this next year. Have just shown it to someone who hasn?t been following the ltn issue and they thought the Yule one should be reported to the police.

It?s terrible out there. As noted above it?s partly due to a temporary traffic light where repairs are happening - but it does illustrate the point made earlier about the need for some redundancy in the road network - something going wrong on one of the key routes is a frequent occurrence. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well..... EDG this morning...an utter disaster. > Idling traffic from LL all the way up. If you are > waiting for the 42 or 37 bus...live in hope. All > pumping out fumes as they sit in traffic and > children walk past to school.