legalalien

I do think they need to a bit. A lot of the short journeys that have been identified as a problem could be replaced by walking rather than cycling - if we could change people?s views on what is socially acceptable. An attempt at changing that through some comms (rather than building stuff) would be relatively inexpensive you?d think...) Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Such a view further supports my view that because > cycling is deemed to require very visible > infrastructure it registers much more in people?s > minds than walking/wheelchairing. How do the > authorities promote walking and pedestrian rights > as successfully as they do cycling? Do they need > to?

Let?s hope those particular pieces weren?t funded from the ?750 awarded to the residents association for their street parties including the Halloween Party.. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s87448/Appendix%201.pdf Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I did chuckle to myself as I walked down Melbourne > Grove today - the residents have done a great job > decorating the street for Halloween and putting up > the gravestones but I love how one of them is > trying to make a point by creating a couple of > headstones with "Rat Run" on them.....and Cllr > Newens suggests there is a problem with trolls > from the anti-closure lobby!!!! ;-) > > I wonder if the Rest in Pieces headstone is in > fact a reference to the businesses on Melbourne > Grove being impacted by the closures.... > > > > 568787456?s=09

At that point I will be petitioning to rename LL and EDG ?the Dulwich Village Bypass?... Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > smooch Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > now there's an idea. > > > walking thru the village this morning around > > 11.30 > > > and the main road was completely chock full > > > towards east dulwich grove - across the > > junction > > > with turney. i just don't get it? would love > to > > > hear what all the residents of Dulwich > village > > > actually feel about it. > > > > > > Should also add that the road was completely > > > blocked at around 2.30 on sunday afternoon so > > > clearly nothing to do with the school run - > > again > > > tailing back to the mini roundabout. > > > > > > some residents and businesses on east dulwich > > > grove have already expressed their serious > > > concern, but I suspect the council is > unwilling > > to > > > actually 'hear' them. Councillor James has > > bravely > > > made some conciliatory noises but is not in a > > > position to do anything. > > > > Everyone I know hates the plans in the Village. > > > And the few cyclists who actually LIVE in > Dulwich > > Village are probably countable on your fingers > and > > toes. > > > > I wish people would stop meddling in the life > of > > our community. The ruination of Lordship lane > and > > Grove Vale businesses, the closure of Melbourne > > Grove, I bet there are very few people who want > > our district to go down the drain. > > I think many of the pro-closure supporters in the > Village are desperate to get the next phase of > closures in place so traffic has to find a route > elsewhere around the village. No doubt Cllr Newens > and Leeming will celebrate how quiet the village > is as the rest of us have to live with their > displaced hell!!!! ;-)

there will be another decision, on Post Covid 19 Highway Schemes Batch 6, in December. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50024341&Opt=0. No idea what these might be, but as with others will keep an eye out.

Just one more thing that is nagging at me about the background to the (north) Melbourne Grove closure. The South multi-ward forum meeting on 25 February (the one with the Neighbourhood Fund allocation to Clean Air for Dulwich), also considered: (1) applications for funding from the Cleaner Greener Safer capital programme. Ideas for the CGS fund come from applications from the local community, and "All Cleaner Greener Safer projects require consultation with stakeholders, including the project applicant, local residents, Tenants and Residents Associations and local community groups where appropriate." (2)allocation of the Devolved Highways Fund. There's a description of this in the report, "an explicit objective within multi-ward areas is that they be used to actively engage as widely as possible with, and bring together, Southwark?s diverse local communities on issues of shared or mutual interest. The Devolved Highway programme is an important tool in achieving community participation." Again, ideas are to come from the local community and the consultation requirement is the same." The appendix of approved projects includes these things, approved for the Goose Green ward: 1316156Vale Residents' Association - cycle parking on streets close to East Dulwich Station (CGS or Highways) 1316166Implement measures to reduce rat-running between East Dulwich Grove & Grove Vale (CGS or Highways) 1317441Greater Dulwich healthy route (CGS or Highway). Is the middle one the current blockage of Melbourne Grove North, or was there some plan for speed humps or similar? What is the third item - "Greater Dulwich healthy route"? Bear in mind that these applications must have been made by around October/ December 2019 to be approved in Feb 2020, so all pre-COVID. It's not entirely clear to me who applied for the second and third item. Also Vale Road Residents? Then we get the comment from Cllr Livingston at the June ESC meeting that the early projects were made in response to high levels of support as shown in the (then just launched and not highly publicised commonplace site); and the StreetSpace site itself says this (dated 15 Sept): We have just installed a new set of trial Streetspace measures in East Dulwich, following numerous suggestions on this site. People told us: ?These streets (Derwent Grove) are rat runs with dangerous speeds being reached by drivers cutting through these relatively short, straight roads. Social distancing on pavements is impossible forcing pedestrians onto the roads.? ?This road (Melbourne Grove) is a rat run and has problems with speeding traffic. If there was a permeable filter pedestrians, cyclists and children could use the street and not be at risk from speeding drivers cutting from East Dulwich Grove to Grove Vale.? I would be interested to know whether the funding from CGS and the Devolved Highways fund was used for these closures, as the consultation requirements for those funds clearly weren't met. It all just seems a bit odd. Edited to add: there are similar applications for allocations from CGS and Highways for the first two items in the previous year as well (with different application numbers) although I don't think they were approved.

There are workmen working on the traffic lights at DV /EDG this morning.

Not LTN related, but for anyone interested in some more info about how Councils work. I was pondering what rules applied with regard to Councils funding lobbying campaigns by third party groups (or promoting policies generally). It's covered by the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity - where "Publicity" means any communication in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or a section of the public. The code is "recommended" practice but it does have teeth through the relevant sections of the Local Government Act 1986. There are the kind of principles you'd expect around cost effectiveness, objectivity, even handedness etc. "Publicity by local authorities may seek to influence (in accordance with the relevant law and in a way which they consider positive) the attitudes of local people or public behaviour in relation to matters of health, safety, crime prevention, race relations, equality, diversity and community issues." BUT: "Any publicity describing the council?s policies and aims should be as objective as possible, concentrating on the facts or explanation or both. Local authorities should not use public funds to mount publicity campaigns whose primary purpose is to persuade the public to hold a particular view on a question of policy." If they "provide assistance to third parties to issue publicity they should ensure that the principles in this code are adhered to by the recipients of that assistance." I also found it interesting that "Local authorities should ensure that publicity relating to policies and proposals from central government is balanced and factually accurate. Such publicity may set out the local authority?s views and reasons for holding those views, but should avoid anything likely to be perceived by readers as constituting a political statement, or being a commentary on contentious areas of public policy." I guess that makes sense / applies to communicatons from the Council rather than individual councillors. Code at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5670/1878324.pdf for anyone interested in taking a look.

Pity about the time machine - missing the chance to check out the Velocipede. https://www.dovermuseum.co.uk/Information-Resources/Articles--Factsheets/Sawyers-Velocipede.aspx

Great Exhibition?

Making online comments on Southwark Streetspace and experimental measures Hi all - you'll see from the above that AywardS has posted a link to the general Streetspace Southwark commonplace site for commenting on measures / desirable measures on Southwark streets. Just clicked onto it and was surprised to see so many green comments/ the fact it didn't resemble the commonplace site I had previously commented on... there are in fact four separate sites to comment on the experimental measures in Dulwich Village, East Dulwich, Peckham and Walworth. So: General site for suggestions is https://southwarkstreetspace.commonplace.is/comments Comments on Dulwich Village measures is: https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/ Comments on East Dulwich measures is: https://eastdulwichstreetspace.commonplace.is/ Comments on Peckham measures is: https://peckhamstreetspace.commonplace.is/ Doing it this way does mean that looking at the general site/ map is a bit misleading for those unaware of the additional sites. I can see that some people are putting their comments on the experimental measures on the main site, still. I have no idea whether the council overlays the various maps in order to get a complete picture.

I think you can meet up outside at pubs subject to rule of 6. Outdoors, you can meet in groups of up to 6 people. This includes in: pubs and restaurants leisure and entertainment venues places of worship https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-covid-alert-level-high#visiting-other-venues-including-restaurants-pubs-and-places-of-worship

Half Moon in Herne Hill at lunchtime is a well controlled environment. Have not been in the evening.

Details from Southwark (impressed by the prompt response): you can join the meeting, here is the link Join Zoom Meeting https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fzoom.us%2Fj%2F99763915591&data=04%7C01%7C%7C70452ee2c264461d4b3708d87b2c10bf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637394776470957909%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=VtPQVKguH6XIih5q2Y21Etyb%2BMbMe0lijg5SVMC71cE%3D&reserved=0 Meeting ID: 997 6391 5591 Passcode: 788208 (I checked and they said fine to distribute it) "As it?s a meeting in public rather than a public meeting , questions are at the discretion of the chair . If you have a particular point you may wish to raise, or have addressed, it you may wish to contact the chair, Cllr Jason Ochere, in advance. Email is probably best : [email protected]. The meeting is recorded and placed on YouTube pretty promptly, usually next morning. "

I don?t drive at all so have walked and cycled in various combinations since forever. When I lived in places where there was less public transport I cycled more. In cities walking and decent public transport is much more convenient for me: partly because of weather (you get a lot less wet walking with an umbrella than you do cycling), partly because of flexibility (cycling requires you to take your bike in both directions on a trip), partly because I just can?t be bothered getting a bike out and putting it away. I?d like to see particular types of journey tackled specifically. So start, say, with short car journeys to schools. Make it impossible to park/ drop off near schools and those will stop pretty quickly. For those needing to make longer journeys, have a dropping point say 500m plus from the school. That will work for the longer journeys but dissuade the short ones. For work journeys, maybe hire bikes from stations to key nodes (the school drop off points even, then parents could take children to those and then bike to the station. Lots of small things rather than starting with lots of infrastructure focussed on long cycle journeys.

The agenda for this is now up. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=517&MId=6833&Ver=4 It includes an officer and partner update on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, input from the Southwark Fire Service on the LTNs, cabinet feedback on the Commission's Air Quality report, and a scoping exercise for Part 2 of the Commission's work, the proposals for which include Reviewing effective implementation of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN), by the council and partners, to ensure that they deliver better air quality for all Southwark citizens, particularly those residents most at risk from the adverse impacts of poor air quality (children, BAME people, older people, disabled people, people living in deprivation etc. With key issues including A Implementation of LTNs, including investigating how emissions on side roads and main roads are measured, as well as other areas with more vulnerable populations including schools, health and care settings. B Ensuring that LTNs are safe and that emergency services have been engaged to allow adequate access It's a zoom call. I don't think it will be broadcast live, usually there's a statement saying members of the public are welcome to attend, it doesn't say on this one. Will email the contact person and find out.

I agree heartblock. I think she was involved in the push to amend the LTNs in Lewisham? Anyway, I managed to watch the youtube of the 17 June Environment Scrutiny Commission meeting (Game of Thrones it wasn't). Interesting bit to watch (really!): from 15:19 where Cllr Livingston explains that a decision on the first 19 schemes has gone up on the website, not just in response to the streetscape/ commonplace input but also to cover some preplanned work. Cllr Werner (who is chairing) asks how the decision to prioritise those schemes was made and whether the council is looking at eg levels of pollution or deprivation - in response he refers to the fact that they have been working on the Dulwich and Walworth projects for some time but doesn't answer the actual question... Cllr Burgess comes back at about 29 mins to clarify with Cllr Livingston that when decisions are being made the council is prioritising areas of deprivation, poor air quality etc and BAME population given COVID. Gets fobbed off a bit and then says that they are looking at prioritising issues where the commonplace site (then) indicated a high degree of consensus. Cllrs Werner and Burgess take issue with this given lots of people don't have internet access etc . Some of the facial expressions are priceless. You also get to see Cllr Leeming's dinner. And then Cllr Werner expressly asks that going forward, Cllrs be provided with info about the criteria being taken into account in making these decisions. Takeaway points (my interpretation): Having Cllr Burgess more involved going forward is a good thing; some of the other Cllrs share the views of a number on this thread that some of the priorities given to date seem a bit suspect; those commonplace sites seem to be the main mechanism by which the council plans to assess how things are going. Cllr Werner has just published a piece on the Labour Environmental Group (SERA) website https://www.sera.org.uk/scrutiny_has_a_critical_role, describing the findings of the Commission as follows: "The commission?s findings show that it can no longer be acceptable for any transport schemes to be developed which cause increases in traffic volumes on other roads, particularly where there are vulnerable populations like schools and hospitals, and when we know those living in poverty, BAME populations and residents in areas of existing poor air quality are least able to cope with the effects of diseases like COVID-19. We must be driven with a proper scheme design: modelling the likely impacts of traffic interventions, understanding the communities who benefit and those who benefit least. This would mean an expansion of air quality monitoring throughout the borough with clear-eyed analysis of the outcomes. We need a proper understanding of where traffic is generated, who generates it and how it can be reduced; an understanding of car ownership volumes and consumption of street space. In all cases we need to gather sex-disaggregated data. This commission recommended that, in conjunction with TfL and the GLA, the council prioritises the dramatic reduction of traffic volumes in the borough, through a combination of incentives for those who do not own cars, disincentives for those with a car and improvements to neighbourhoods. This commission recognised the significant harm done by traffic emissions, and that this is a social justice issue. Those on low incomes are the least able to cope with poor air quality. Our strategic priority is the significant reduction in traffic volumes across the borough. Our principles of social justice and a strong dataset will guide our interventions in a systematic way. We should: prioritise those most in need and monitor all schemes for consequent harms, and where necessary, revise them. reclaim the use of the kerbside from parking for the few and instead transform it into a public amenity for the many. spend the next five years taking steps to making Southwark the cleanest and greenest borough in London."

This describes TfL funding sources / notes which programmes are and are not continuing. Haven?t got my head around it yet. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs-and-communities/borough-funding

I think the current round of applications has now closed 12 https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/grants-and-funding/neighbourhoods-fund-2021. Watching the last Environmental Scrutiny meeting. Instructive. Not much dissent, a little bit from the chap who I?ve just realised is the Lib Dem in the room (highlight - telling people that they shouldn?t try and eat the whole elephant at once). Led me to read this prophetic article https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/end-road-looms-formal-traffic-decision-making-community-councils-according-southwark-council-plans/ There?s an interesting issue about getting hold of and comparing data about parking on estates and off street parking and a ward by ward comparison. Will see if I can figure it out.

Environmental Scrutiny Commission The next meeting of Southwark's Environmental Scrutiny Commission is on Wednesday 4 November at 6:30pm. The agenda is now up http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=517&MId=6833&Ver=4. The last meeting, back in July, was online so I expect people will be able to contact Southwark in advance and ask to join. At the last meeting they discussed and finalised the Air Quality Report (which I've linked to previously and deals with matters including LTN issues) and the Climate Emergency Report, so I imagine similar issues will be raised at this meeting. All the info from the last meeting (including the final reports) is at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=517&MId=6764&Ver=4. The Air Quality report has an appendix showing relative pollution levels across Southwark (in 2016) which I know various people have been asking about. Appendix 2 includes information about car /vehicle ownership and access. On the climate emergency front there is an input report from Extinction Rebellion Southwark. The video of the last meeting can be watched at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rV9VJJtNnM. Only watched the first 10 mins so far but looks quite useful to get a feel of current strategy on traffic/ parking etc. Edited to add: don?t want to sidetrack this but if anyone else is interested in following up and not already aware of the arguments: there?s apparently a conflict going on between local authorities who have set zero carbon targets more ambitious than central government, and central government refusing to fund their plans (Extinction Rebellion supporting the former). See https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2020/02/06/local-rebellion-why-xr-local-groups-building-experts-and-councillors-are-joining-voices-to-defend-local-powers/. Maybe deserves its own thread if anyone wants to discuss! Edited to add link to summary of Commission's findings by Cllr Werner: https://www.sera.org.uk/scrutiny_has_a_critical_role

For those who aren't aware (I wasn't), the various "multi-ward" areas have facebook pages where they post info they think relevant to their areas, which people might want to consider following. Having trouble linking them but if you go to facebook and search for "empowering dulwich hill" and "empowering rye lane" ,they should come up.

Assuming the recommendations to the South multiward meeting on 25 Feb were approved (I can't find the decision / minutes anywhere), Southwark are actually funding Clean Air for Dulwich to campaign in favour of LTNs, out of the Neighbourhoods Fund. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6618/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2025-Feb-2020%2019.00%20South%20multi-ward%20forum.pdf?T=10 You could squeeze clean air campaigning into the criteria at a push (maybe, it's not really the same as getting volunteers for a local clean up) but generally campaigning groups haven't been included before as far as I know, and certainly not funded to advocate specific council policies!

Something interesting I just came across - there's a government consultation out on the Highways Code (comments close tomorrow). The aim is to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Headline point: the plan is to introduce a hierarchy of road users, essentially everyone has to be careful of those more vulnerable than them on the road. This includes guidance (rather than a hard rule) for motorists and cyclists to give way to pedestrians waiting to cross roads that they are turning out of or in to (whether or not they have started crossing). There are various changes to rules around cycle safety, these include some changes for cyclists as well as drivers (for example the current "no more than two abreast" rule is proposed to go but be replaced with a rule that cyclists must ride single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to do so. There is a proposal to introduce the "dutch reach" when opening car doors. Also a new proposed provision that pedestrians may use any part of the road and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians. (At the moment the way the Code reads people shouldn't be using roads a play streets, I don't think, including that bit at the Calton junction, as it's still a road open to cyclists, although I don't think there's a penalty for this (I guess would give a cyclist a good defence if he or she hit one of the pedestrians). Interestingly the document includes a link to the rule about not riding on footpaths which seems to date back to 1835! https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 (There's also a bit in the Highway Code specific to cyclists which links to the ?500 fine). ("Carriages in the Act was extended to bicycles, tricycles and "velocipedes" in 1888. Anyway, if anyone is interested have a read and get comments in (online) today/tomorrow. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904038/consultation-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code.pdf

Have pondered but can?t at all see how the Marie Antoinette analogy works. Unless it?s that those in the areas FTG refers to are asking to have the air quality that Dulwich Village has always enjoyed, Dulwich Village proposes to do nothing, and suggests they sort their own thing out by having excellent air quality schemes at their own expense? Not really the same thing though, is it? Because Marie Antoinette wasn?t turning down a bread to brioche upgrade in favour of purchasing brioche (or bread even) for others?

YY to turning heating down and also if you have central heating don?t turn it all at all until you really need it. Turn lights, screens, anything else off in rooms that you aren?t in. Not really an eco tip but if you put vinegar in a plastic bag, put it over your shower head, secure with a rubber band and leave it for a bit, it gets all the lime scale off. Avoid beauty products, stay away from synthetic fabrics.

I definitely saw a group in Brockwell Park yesterday. Going for a run shortly so will see whether I can see a sign up anywhere. Looks like these guys are there https://www.fisonfitness.co.uk/contact from a quick google. Edited to add: had a look at the two nearest noticeboard to the tarmac area at brockwell but nothing there.