legalalien

Interest Groups Some links to interest groups and local residents? associations: Clean Air for Dulwich: https://www.facebook.com/cleanairdulwich/ (@cleanairdulwich) Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School http://dulwichsaferoutes.blogspot.com/p/clean-air.html (@DulwichWheels) London Cycling Campaign (Southwark Cyclists is the local branch of this): https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/ (@southwarkcycle), https://www.lcc.org.uk/ (@london_cycling) Living Streets https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/, also https://londonlivingstreets.com/ From their website it looks as though they support Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School locally. (@living streets, @LDN-LS) East Dulwich Healthy Streets: (@EdstnStreets) Mums for Lungs: https://www.mumsforlungs.org/ (@MumsForLungs) Dulwich Society: https://www.dulwichsociety.com/travel-and-environment Dulwich Village, College Road and Woodyard Lane Residents? Association: http://dulwichra.org.uk/ Turney Road Residents? Association and Burbage Road Residents? Association: https://turneyandburbage.org.uk/turney-road-residents-association-key-documentation/ (@turneyburbage) Court Lane Residents? Association: https://courtlane.info/ Emails for some others here: https://dulwichvillageforum.org.uk/about/ One Dulwich: https://www.onedulwich.uk/

Traffic Management Orders Southwark?s traffic management order page is here https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/traffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/traffic-management-orders and includes a link to ?traffic order consultations?. The list of things on that page includes all of the Experimental Traffic Orders put in place recently, even though these are not strictly speaking consultations. It also includes a link to some of the more frequently requested (non experimental) traffic orders in force. The procedures are described at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/traffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/traffic-management-orders?chapter=2, and reflect the publication requirements of the relevant legislation ? essentially publication in a newspaper and notices in the street. In the case of permanent and experimental orders, the council must consult statutory bodies where required (eg emergency services, bus operators, key transport associations). Southwark says that other stakeholders such as cycling and disability groups will be contacted if any TMOs affect them (not a legal requirement). The underpinning law: TMOs are made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which you can see at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/contents. The procedural requirements are set out in the catchily titled Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents/made. These set out the various statutory consultees and notice requirements. Permanent TMOs (eg the recently proposed double yellow lines in various places) are made under section 6 of the Act. Apart from the statutory consultation, there?s a general ability to object to a draft order within 21 days after it?s made, and the council must properly consider objections in light of administrative law principles, human rights law and relevant statutory powers i.e. it?s a fairly limited right to object, rather than a right to object just on the merits of the decision. Experimental TMOs are made under section 9 of the Road Traffic Act. The 21 day objection period doesn?t apply. Notice must be given at least 7 days before the order comes into effect, and any objections or representations to the order being made permanent, must be made within six months of the order coming into force. Again, the objections have to be properly considered by the council. Southwark do include all the info about these processes at the end of the reports that accompany each decision on TMOs. Part VI of Schedule 9 to the Act provides that any person may question the validity of a TRO on the grounds that (a) it is not within the relevant powers, or (b) any of the relevant requirements has not been complied with in relation to the order. Application is to the High Court within six weeks of the date of the making of the TRO. However, the court can only quash a TRO "if satisfied that the order, or any provision of the order, is not within the relevant powers, or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by failure to comply with any of the relevant requirements." Lastly: Coronavirus. There are some regulations that allowed councils to put in emergency measures, and to use alternative publicity methods (where eg newspapers might not be operating), but these don?t underpin the current LTN experiments. More info about this is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making-traffic-regulation-orders-during-coronavirus-covid-19/traffic-regulation-orders-guidance-on-the-traffic-orders-procedure-coronavirus. The real impact of coronavirus on the LTN process results from the government?s making available of funding and the need to take advantage of that funding. See below (when I have a chance to write it...)

Southwark Council and councillors The council?s constitution is available online at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/how-we-work/council-s-constitution. To see the most recent version, you need to click on the ?View Southwark Council?s constitution? button, and then click on whatever document is linked to the most recent date listed under ?Meetings?. The most recent version is currently 17 September 2020, which is at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=425&MId=6806&Ver=4. Section 3 tells you which bodies make which decisions (Council Assembly, Cabinet (or Full Cabinet), individual Cabinet Members, some specialised committees (for e.g. planning, licensing). Decisions affecting more than one portfolio have to go to Cabinet. The current list of cabinet portfolios is at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90803/Cabinet%20Portfolios%202020-2021.pdf. The leader of the council is Councillor Kieron Williams. Councillor Catherine Rose is responsible for leisure, environment and roads, which includes air quality, street scene and road safety, school streets, parking (including for cycles) and roll out of EV infrastructure. Her mandate includes working with the Cabinet Member for Climate Emergency, Planning and Transport to promote sustainability and improve air quality, particularly around schools. The Cabinet Member for CEPT is Councillor Johnson Situ, whose remit includes green energy and reducing carbon emissions, and also transport and travel strategy (working with Councillor Rose), public transport and the Council?s relationship with TfL. Councillor Radha Burgess has been appointed a Deputy Cabinet Member, tasked with increasing the proportion of Southwark?s streets and estates dedicated to zero carbon, zero pollution uses, increasing cycling and walking and reducing traffic. Councillor Alice MacDonald covers Communities and Equalities, including issues around equality and community engagement. Councillor Stephanie Cryan is responsible for business. There are other cabinet members but these ones are most relevant to the LTN roll out and related issues. A list of Southwark councillors as at May 2019 is at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90834/List%20of%20councillors%20June%202018.pdf. You can also click through to the list of councillors, including contact details, at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/councillors-and-mps/your-councillors. Since May 2019, Community Councils have been superseded by a new Empowering Communities programme. Details at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/test/empowering-communities-programme. Southwark is divided into 5 areas, and there are to be two ?area? meetings per year (multi-ward meetings) for each area, for the purpose of funding presentations and announcing decisions; as well as three meetings per year for each individual ward, ?where the residents and ward councillors will determine the agenda, providing a more relaxed and intimate environment in which to discuss what is going on in the immediate neighbourhood, where everyone feels they can contribute?. Multi-ward meetings are chaired by the area?s Community Champion. Champions Hill, Goose Green, Dulwich Hill, Dulwich Village and Dulwich Wood are in the South area (Cllr Andy Simmons, with Cllr Margy Newens as his deputy); Peckham, Nunhead & Queens Road, Rye Land and Peckham Rye are in East Central (Cllr Sunil Chopra). It looks like all Empowering Communities meetings are on hold because of COVID. The meetings dates are found here, when they are happening: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/empowering-communities/ward-and-multi-ward-meeting-dates. The Decision Making Process ? Cabinet and Individual You can find decisions made at meetings or by individual cabinet members (under their delegated authority) at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDelegatedDecisions.aspx?DS=0&bcr=1. There are detailed procedural rules that apply to these, which you can see at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90819/Access%20to%20Information%20Procedure%20Rules%20May%202019.pdf. Advance notice of important decisions expected to be taken is set out in a Forward Plan which is prepared by the council leader. The Forward Plan from time to time is at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgListPlans.aspx?RPId=153&RD=0. At least 28 clear days? notice must be given via the plan for any ?key decision?. Key decision has a particular meaning. It is a decision which results in expenditure or savings about a ?500,000 threshold OR which is likely to be significant in terms of its impact on communities and specifically in one ward or more ?an example being where there is evidence of significant local opposition to any proposals. Note that where a decision is only likely to have a significant impact on a very small number of people in one ward, the decision maker should ensure those people are informed of the forthcoming decision in sufficient time to make an input into the decision making process, and ward councillors should also be informed of the decision to be made. In most cases (there are some exceptions around urgency), there is a minimum five working day period before the decision can be implemented, during which time it can be ?called in? by the Oversight and Scrutiny Committee ? a minimum of three committee members must make the request, and call in will usually only occur where the OSC believes that the general principles that apply to Council decision making have not been complied with ? namely that the link between strategy and implementation must be maintained; decision making generally, whether by individual officers, individual cabinet members or the cabinet collectively, should have reference to the policy framework; respect for human rights, law and probity; due consultation and the taking of professional advice from officers; proportionality (i.e. the action must be proportionate to the desired outcome); a presumption in favour of openness; and clarity of aims and desired outcome. Southwark Cyclists have a helpful tracker of decisions at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1eBxvYUYgFti9qYPZtl8FX0jTs74CnFHqaOKLk4UAwgw/htmlview

Right - further to my earlier thread, here's some info/ links which I hope will be useful to anyone coming to the whole subject of the council and recent road/ LTN proposals cold. I hope it's accurate but if anyone finds any inaccuracies tell me. The idea of this thread is just to provide info for people who are interested in finding out more and not to start a new debate about the substance of the issues - that can stay on other threads. What I plan to do is try and keep an eye on the Southwark website and flag up any new decisions etc that I spot. Will do my best but obviously this is a bit of an amateur effort. If people want to add things/ think things need to be amended then post below and I'll edit the original posts when I get a chance. The initial wodge of info is a bit longer than I expected so will put it in four separate posts....

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gosh - its like the 'gotcha' posted about James > barber and his historic role on Southwark > Cyclists. Newsflash moment - some people give > focus to community roles and i'd imagine > statistically they're more likely to participate > in a number of things throughout the community. > Its not a massive conspiracy! Is that not exactly what I said? No, it?s not any kind of conspiracy, I agree. I don?t think any of this stuff is. I do think that the way things have gone lately, it?s difficult for those who aren?t willing or able to put a lot of time and resource into tracking things to work out what is going on / get their voice heard. > > > > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rockets Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > FairTgirl Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Rockets Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > So they're closing a road at school times > > > that > > > > has > > > > > already been closed - a double whammy!? > Why > > > do > > > > > they need this - according to the > > pro-closure > > > > > propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has > now > > > been > > > > > fixed - reference the photos of children > > > > milling > > > > > around the school. Or is it that the > > closure > > > of > > > > > the road has created a school drop-off > > > > cul-de-sac > > > > > - as is happening at the end of Court > Lane > > at > > > > the > > > > > moment which looks like a car park? > > > > > > > > > > Have the traders been consulted as the > > > council > > > > > states that there is a "minor > > inconvenience" > > > > that > > > > > no-one will be able to get access to the > > > > parking > > > > > bays? This could be the final nail in the > > > > coffin > > > > > for some businesses around Melbourne > Grove. > > > > > > > > > > Are the residents in support as that > > prevents > > > > all > > > > > access to their properties during those > > > hours? > > > > > > > > We brought this up months ago with Cllrs > when > > > > first becaome aware of the proposal, and > > > actually > > > > referenced it again to Cllrs today. It is > > > pretty > > > > unnecessary given the road is already > closed, > > > Head > > > > of Charter admitted as much. > > > > > > > > There is no issue with these timed > > restrictions > > > > for School Streets on it's own but the fact > > > there > > > > is already a closure, removed parking bays, > > CPZ > > > > AND this will disrupt what little parking > > there > > > > is... yes probably final nail in coffin. > > > > > > > > Depending on the barriers residents cars > can > > > > usually get through - but not sure how that > > > > applies to business/delivieries etc - will > > they > > > > just be doing U-turns on EDG? Wondering how > > > that > > > > will help the EDG congestion situation and > > > safety > > > > of pupils. > > > > > > What I find amazing is the blinkered, > tone-deaf > > > approach of some of the pro-closure lobby > > groups. > > > Was the pro-closure lady on the council > meeting > > > from EDSTN Healthy Streets group? > > > > > > If so, they would have heard from Dougie and > > > FairTGirl about the drastic reduction in > > footfall > > > and sales being experienced by the shops on > > > Melbourne Grove and the other streets and yet > > we > > > see tweets like this the day after the > council > > > meeting....it's almost as if they are trying > to > > > convince themselves that everything is > > rosy..... > > > > > > > > > Does anyone know, is that cafe thriving, is > the > > > owner supportive of the closures? > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/EdstnStreets/status/1318829440 > > > > > > 567214082?s=09 > > > > > > > > > What is interesting is that people are > > commenting > > > and putting their views across. > > > > I think it was a lady called Katy from Clean > Air > > Dulwich. And from a quick google I do wonder if > > it?s Katy Savage, the same Katy Savage just > > appointed as the secretary of the Travel and > > Environment Committee of the Dulwich Society. If > I > > have this wrong - apologies - if not- just goes > to > > show it?s all very incestuous. BUT that?s maybe > a > > function of people?s willingness to engage and > put > > effort in?

Deleted

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FairTgirl Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rockets Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > So they're closing a road at school times > that > > has > > > already been closed - a double whammy!? Why > do > > > they need this - according to the pro-closure > > > propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has now > been > > > fixed - reference the photos of children > > milling > > > around the school. Or is it that the closure > of > > > the road has created a school drop-off > > cul-de-sac > > > - as is happening at the end of Court Lane at > > the > > > moment which looks like a car park? > > > > > > Have the traders been consulted as the > council > > > states that there is a "minor inconvenience" > > that > > > no-one will be able to get access to the > > parking > > > bays? This could be the final nail in the > > coffin > > > for some businesses around Melbourne Grove. > > > > > > Are the residents in support as that prevents > > all > > > access to their properties during those > hours? > > > > We brought this up months ago with Cllrs when > > first becaome aware of the proposal, and > actually > > referenced it again to Cllrs today. It is > pretty > > unnecessary given the road is already closed, > Head > > of Charter admitted as much. > > > > There is no issue with these timed restrictions > > for School Streets on it's own but the fact > there > > is already a closure, removed parking bays, CPZ > > AND this will disrupt what little parking there > > is... yes probably final nail in coffin. > > > > Depending on the barriers residents cars can > > usually get through - but not sure how that > > applies to business/delivieries etc - will they > > just be doing U-turns on EDG? Wondering how > that > > will help the EDG congestion situation and > safety > > of pupils. > > What I find amazing is the blinkered, tone-deaf > approach of some of the pro-closure lobby groups. > Was the pro-closure lady on the council meeting > from EDSTN Healthy Streets group? > > If so, they would have heard from Dougie and > FairTGirl about the drastic reduction in footfall > and sales being experienced by the shops on > Melbourne Grove and the other streets and yet we > see tweets like this the day after the council > meeting....it's almost as if they are trying to > convince themselves that everything is rosy..... > > > Does anyone know, is that cafe thriving, is the > owner supportive of the closures? > > https://twitter.com/EdstnStreets/status/1318829440 > 567214082?s=09 > > > What is interesting is that people are commenting > and putting their views across. I think it was a lady called Katy from Clean Air Dulwich. And from a quick google I do wonder if it?s Katy Savage, the same Katy Savage just appointed as the secretary of the Travel and Environment Committee of the Dulwich Society. If I have this wrong - apologies - if not- just goes to show it?s all very incestuous. BUT that?s maybe a function of people?s willingness to engage and put effort in?

So after lots of googling over the past week to try and get myself up to speed on the workings of local government: does anyone else think it would be useful to have a separate thread, without expressions of views/ debate, but just links to key documents / useful websites / notification of upcoming council decisions, meetings and TMOs, flagging up affected roads and times for comments etc? I am happy to start one off if anyone thinks it might be useful. I'm no expert (but that might be a good thing in this context.)

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dulwichfolk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I heard they also get a council tax amnesty and > > chocolates and flowers delivered once a > week...by > > bike obviously. > > > > Isn?t the main entrance to the school due to > move > > to east dulwich grove? Or is that just for some > > years. > > Next September it will be the main entrance. By > which time it may as well be on MG as all > businesses will be gone at this rate. I think the plan is to turn EDG into a school street by then ...

Does anyone else think it's odd for lobby groups to be providing guidance to council officers on how to manipulate / get buy in from councillors? See this from Living Streets, the London Cycling Campaign and a company called Rosehill Highways who make bollards, road barriers and cycling surfaces etc. https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/media/3844/lcc021-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-detail-v9.pdf " STAY STRONG AND GET POLITICAL BUY IN Even small schemes can rapidly generate controversy in this social media age. Political engagement and will is vital. If councillors aren?t committed to these schemes, they will back down when faced with any opposition, and schemes will fail. For that reason, everyone involved in the council hierarchy must buy into these schemes and early ? so it?s vital before schemes come under any re they not only understand why they?re proposed, and what they can deliver, but back them. Every scheme like this will generate some backlash ? but a few years down the line, the (hopefully few) residents who fought to keep the schemes out, will ght to keep them in if threatened. For this reason, plan schemes according to the political cycle, to avoid schemes derailing local elections, allowing them the time to bed in and become well-accepted and popular. This maximises political gain for the schemes and minimises risk that opposition politicians will try and get schemes removed ? costing the council extra money."

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Just wanted to make sure everyone on this > thread > > is aware of the decision for an experimental > > school street closure on Melbourne Grove > > > > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetail > > > s.aspx?ID=7190 > > There are some quite surprising changes going > through on there. > > E.g 25 feet of new double yellow lines on Crystal > Palace Road at the request of the homeowner > because they can't always get their own car over > the pavemement and onto their private car parking > easily enough... > > Seems at odds with the councillors' aims of > reducing private car ownership / use Well: the strategy for getting to zero carbon/ reduced cars does include reducing available parking - so this probably is consistent with that?

Not really surprising from Peter Walker given he?s a cycle campaigner in Southwark and one of the people who urged Southwark to take its current approach: ? He advocated reducing endless consultation and getting more changes done faster.? (is he part of the Tory conspiracy?). I love the fact that the other chap described the Waltham Forest programme as a ?scheme by scheme battle. Edited to try and fix link: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=55835 Genuine question that occurs to me though: do those campaigning for LTNs believe that they only work if we have them everywhere, blocking out pretty much all traffic ie that it?s not possible to compromise and have smaller scale ones that have some beneficial effect without a massive downside for those on neighbouring main roads. If that is the case then the argument is more binary than I had hoped. siousxiesue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/ > 2020/oct/22/despite-a-loud-opposing-minority-low-t > raffic-neighbourhoods-are-increasingly-popular > > Interesting read, comments also

Southwark Cyclists? tracker, which I came across earlier, says plans have changed. There was a decision made in favour of closure but no TMO seems to have been put in place. There is another batch of schools streets due to be announced so could be in that. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1eBxvYUYgFti9qYPZtl8FX0jTs74CnFHqaOKLk4UAwgw/htmlview

Snowy - I was more thinking that while the Lambeth LTNs seem to be working more or less OK at the moment, that may not be the case when the Southwark ones dump a load of traffic onto Norwood Road and the middle of Herne Hill. If major traffic drama ensues then the Lambeth councillors will be put under pressure. Sure they support active travel but they still need to keep some roads open and enable emergency services to get around the place. It?s the adverse effect on buses and emergency services that potentially force reversals... hence the potential for different councils to come into conflict despite a common commitment to traffic reduction...

But they are officially putting a School Street on Hillsboro road as an experimental measure. Maybe there?s a one School Street per school limit!

I know lots of you will be aware of this already - I wasn?t. The Council publishes a Forward Plan on its website at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/l635/Printed%20plan%20Forward%20Plan%20November%202020.pdf?T=4 Things to watch out for: Covid-19 ? Post lockdown highway schemes Batch 5 To approve a number of highway schemes across the borough will assist social distancing and promote cycle and pedestrian safety - decision due in either October or November - the docts seem slightly inconsistent on this. Implementation of Southwark School Streets Batch 3 To approve a number of highway schemes across the borough to assist with social distancing and promote cycle and pedestrian safety near schools - again decision due in November Equality Framework review of the approach to equality and adoption of equality framework - decision due October

Just wanted to make sure everyone on this thread is aware of the decision for an experimental school street closure on Melbourne Grove http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=7190

It?s going to become even more complicated soon as the traffic displaced from DV and Turney/Burbage goes over the border into Lambeth, I suspect. I gather there are some skirmishes between Bromley and Croydon going on.

Well I?m now going to have to read all the recent decisions as a matter of principle. This one http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=7190 is going to put double yellow lines in a number of Dulwich streets (subject to the formal TMO process) and also provides for experimental traffic orders for a number of School Streets, including Alleyns Junior School, the charter school in Melbourne Grove and Harris Girls, among others, as I read it... something else that had passed me by... due it?s incredibly informative title... Non-strategic Traffic and Highway improvement projects (20/21 Batch 1)

I?ve worked it out - it wasn?t included in the original decision on 1 Sept but has been hidden in the small print of another decision relating to other parts of Southwark Batch 4 on 30 Sept. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s91050/Report%20-%20C19%20Post%20lockdown%20highway%20schemes%20Batch%204.pdf. This also includes one of the Peckham b Rye bus gates. How on earth any ordinary person is supposed to keep track of what?s going on is beyond me...! It doesn?t inspire confidence.

Rockets, that?s what I thought - which means the traffic will now go past Rosendale School, into the massive traffic snarl that currently exists in Norwood Road , or put more down LL. That?s insane. Any idea about the additional bus gate referred to in my post above?

Yes, spotted it there this morning but it seems to have popped up after the batch of documents that accompanied the decision notice at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023654&Opt=0 which is where I had been looking... it?s not mentioned in the table to the report that is approved in the decision notice either as far as I can tell. Surely it can?t just be randomly added into the TMO having not been included in that decision process? Is there a supplementary decision?

The experimental orders include the relocation of a cycle hangar - hence ref to section 63 in the order. exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jazzhino Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Judicial Review > > > > > > There needs to be a legal challenge by means of > a Judicial Review. I have obtained legal advice > > which confirms that in order to legally > enforceable the roadblocks, there needs to be a > > second order under section 9 and 10 of the Road > Traffic Act 1984. > > > > Furthermore, the 15 October 2020 order > experimental orders under sections 9, 10 and 63 > of > > the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 can be > challengeable within six weeks. In the the first > > instance a pre-action protocol letter would need > to be served on the council. > > A few points: ETRO is already made under Sections > 9 and 10, there isn't a second order. > ETROs are made under sections 9 and 10 of the > RTRA84 and sections 22 and 23 of the LATOR(EW) The > provisions of regulations 7 (publication of > proposals) and 8 (objections) shall not apply to > an experimental order. > > (2) No provision of an experimental order shall > come into force before the expiration of the > period of seven days beginning with the day on > which a notice of making in relation to the order > is published. > > (3) The order making authority shall comply with > the requirements of Schedule 2 as to the making of > deposited documents relating to an experimental > order available for public inspection. > > (4) Deposited documents shall be so made > available, at the times and at the places > specified in the notice of making in relation to > the experimental order, for a period beginning > with the date on which that advertisement is first > published and ending when the order ceases to have > effect. > > -------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------- > > You've also noted Section 63 of the Road Traffic > Regulation Act 1984 - that refers to providing > cycle parking / cycle stands so not sure what that > has to do with things?

And shortsighted - I suspect the last person to take the "basket of deplorables" line regrets it somewhat.

So - where do we think the traffic displaced by the next round of Dulwich Village closures will end up? As an aside, I hadn?t appreciated that there was now a bus gate at the Burbage/ Gallery intersection - don?t think that appeared on the maps that accompanied the Southwark decision but is included in the traffic order?