legalalien

Don't think the green signs are official : https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2020/sep/03/road-closed-open-signs-low-traffic-neighbourhoods. The closures, as gazetted, apply to vehicles other than pedal cycles.

Dulwichgirl82 - I think it?s more an issue of the liberal elite in action at a local level. Those supporting the closures likely genuinely believe that at a macro level they are doing the best overall for society as a whole. They think that those complaining are unenlightened and probably a bit thick. That?s why their guidelines for local government (I?m still trying to get my head around the idea of lobby groups producing guidelines of this kind tbh) that say things like this: ?We keep asking residents to make decisions in the wrong place at the wrong time. Given that residents vote for politicians and policies across an area, we shouldn?t then repeatedly query those mandates on a street by street basis. It is for politicians and officers, as experts, to work out how to get more people cycling, whether more car parking is a public good or not etc. Residents should instead be empowered to make decisions that involve their specific expertise about where they live: which are the most important short trips, where should planters go, what happens at night on your street, etc. Our current approach means consultation all too often reinforces the status quo rather than promoting the change we (almost) all know we need.? The ?(almost)? really makes me bristle. Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve realised there?s a fundamental value > difference, I don?t feel that the more vulnerable > in > Society should be sacrificed to protect the more > affluent. The idea that ?something must be done? > and therefore even something harming people is > better than nothing is the issue. > There are other options some of which have Been > discussed In this thread. Something designed to > help everyone ESPECIALLY those most disadvantaged > is what is needed, not to protect the wealthy few > at the expense of others. > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Nigello Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Rah x 3 talks sense. > > > > > > .... if you happen to be so inclined to the > stuff > > they talk.... > > > > I think the majority actually want all road > users > > to be considered and not have a lot of roads > > closed to one section of road users....now > that's > > sense! > > > > It seems that anything other than an A road is > > considered by Rahrahrah as a side street and > > somehow should be for the exclusive use of > > cyclists only....

Dulwichgirl82, I suspect that the answer is that you?re basically collateral damage. The policy agenda seems to be driven by professional and well funded lobby groups who are focussed on the big picture: if a relatively small number of people on some roads have to suffer to enable the ?modal shift? then so be it. I suspect that given the degree of regulatory capture, the way forward is to appeal to the (local) democratically elected representatives. Southwark Cyclists have helpfully issued instructions to people wanting to lobby new cabinet members about how good the closures are - if anyone wants to pass on their views the info is here https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/southwark-councils-new-cabinet/

Thought for the day from the London Cycling Campaign (under a picture of Calton Avenue in their free guide for local authorities on how to win their constituents over (https://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/13729/original.pdf? ?Increasingly often, those against schemes use localised negative impacts, or even potential negative impacts, to try and derail or delay progress. They say that schemes will worsen pollution or congestion at one or two spots, on one road, or, most emotively, outside a particular school. It is entirely right that we do not tolerate worsening air quality in school classrooms, or for hospital patients, and it is right to aim to reduce congestion that is one of the causes of pollution. But if a scheme will, or is very likely to, significantly reduce overall motor traffic volumes, and therefore overall pollution levels, even if it also causes isolated negatives, should that derail the scheme? Those who say yes are doomed to oppose just about all progressive schemes. The ULEZ expansion, for instance, will likely worsen congestion and pollution outside the currently planned expansion zone. But does that make it a bad idea overall? Every scheme that takes bold steps to reduce motor traffic has some negative impacts. No scheme is perfect, but opposition to such schemes rarely, if ever, present any better ideas. The result of this opposition, indeed the aim, is to delay schemes by years, to dilute and weaken them, or to see them abandoned entirely. Instead, if a scheme is likely to, or does, worsen congestion or air pollution, it is crucial to commit in advance to mitigations, to developing and delivering further schemes as needed. The climate crisis alone demands that we move forward fast, fixing issues as we go. So, monitor the impacts of any scheme you build, mitigate any problems, and roll out the next scheme, learning as you go. The alternative is to continue to do nothing, or very little, in the face of growing, catastrophic crises.?

I think you can only challenge the legitimacy of experimental orders within 6 weeks though (as opposed to making substantive objections) - think I read that somewhere. Having fun googling. Interesting to see what the govt told local authorities about applications for funding - basically if you want funding then block roads off ASAP https://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/13657/original.pdf?1590750305.

Actually it looks as though the orders are experimental orders under section 9 https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3579196. Looks like a mid Dec deadline for objections? The government guidance is here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities/traffic-management-act-2004-network-management-in-response-to-covid-19. It does sound as though some of the consultation requirements may not have been met in all cases - but not sure what this means in practical terms. ?Authorities should seek input from stakeholders during the design phase. They should consult with the local chiefs of police and emergency services to ensure access is maintained where needed, for example to roads that are closed to motor traffic. Local businesses, including those temporarily closed, should be consulted to ensure proposals meet their needs when they re-open. Kerbside access should be enabled wherever possible for deliveries and servicing. The public sector equality duty still applies, and in making any changes to their road networks, authorities must consider the needs of disabled people and those with other protected characteristics. Accessibility requirements apply to temporary measures as they do to permanent ones.?

Well. It?s complex and expensive I suspect (challenging powers that be is ever thus). Is anyone in touch with those working on the case in Ealing? If not happy to track them down and give them a call. No need to reinvent the wheel...

Surely that can?t be right - the guidance linked specifically says that the Covid emergency regs can?t be used to bring forward previously planned works (which I thought many of these were)? Surely the argument in favour of them accepts that they were ?required in any event?? Apologies if I am missing something, only just started looking at all this stuff! ?There may be cases where planned works or schemes are being re-scheduled or brought forward as a result of the pandemic, for example, undertaking utility street works, repairing pot holes, implementing junction or road safety improvements during a time where traffic levels are lower. Bringing forward (or postponing) works that are required in any event is in itself unlikely to meet the test in regulation 18(1). An additional reason over and above timing is likely to be required for the order to fall within the meaning of ?purposes connected to coronavirus?. In these cases, it is likely to be more appropriate to use the existing temporary order procedure.?

The minutes about the reconstitution of the subcommittee are online https://dulwichsociety.com/pdf/executive-committee-minutes-20200511.pdf. Interestingly looks like they are keen to involve some East Dulwich reps, in case anyone is keen (also interesting re the decision not to sign the petition in favour of closing Melbourne Grove as some on the committee thought there had been a lack of consultation... )

I'm guessing train from Peckham Rye to North Dulwich and then walk (15-20 mins walk) is the best bet...

Ok - so thanks to Siouxsie - it's a girl. our sleepers look ancient and really decayed so I don't think I've poisoned her. Didn't realise the adult stage was so short. going to put out some over-ripe plums in case that helps. Fingers crossed she is on an egg laying mission.

Slightly random one. I suspect quite a few stag beetles live in our back garden. The garden part of it is a bit wild and there are some gradually rotting sleepers which I guess they like. We see them from time to time. This morning one of them was traversing the small astroturf bit in the middle of the garden. I relocated him or her to a woody bit. Four hours later he or she was back on the astro travelling in the other direction (same one, seems to have a small bit of paint on its back ). The neighbours are building a garden office at the moment and I wonder if he or she is a refugee? I've put him or her back in a woody bit again. Just went to check, has moved about a foot and is under a broken bit of sleeper snuffling at some wet leaves and waving legs and antennae around. Looks as though he or she is formulating a plan (probably to traverse the astro turf - back to the building site maybe?). Where should I be looking to relocate a confused stag beetle?

In Gilkes Crescent... Have had a PM describing a similar incident in SE23 a little earlier in the morning.

Rang 101 this morning and reported - much shorter wait time so I guess there are more operators on at 7am than at 3am!

Doorbell just rang at 3am - took me a little while to get downstairs, when I got there there were three sets of people on scooters / motorbikes parked across the road, they yelled something at me, appeared to be consulting a map or piece of paper, and then rode off. There had been a loud knock at the door at around 9:15 or 9:30 last night that I didn?t answer. It?s a potential burglary, no? Am now a bit anxious. Tried ringing 101 to report suspicious activity but gave up after being on hold for over 15 minutes with message that there was a lengthy wait time. Should I ring a police station or fill in the online form (bit pointless as nothing very concrete to tell them)? Feel like I should tell someone.

On the cricket question, girls are absolutely encouraged to join, we are hopefully that this will be a better pathway for younger girls into club cricket, as they can sometimes be reluctant to join formal cricket sessions where they are outnumbered by the boys (the girls who aren't bothered about that generally hold their own against the boys at that age). This is the first year All Stars is being run, some girls have signed up already. (As an aside we also have a girls- only session on a Weds for girls in Year 4 and above)

Hi there, You may be interested in a new English Cricket Board initiative to encourage children to give cricket a try for the first time - it is very skills focused and doesn't require equipment or previous cricket experience - the focus is on fun and parents and carers are encouraged to stay and join in. There are weekday and weekend sessions at Dulwich CC and Alleyns CC (run in addition to the club's existing junior membership and coaching programmes)- for more information see https://www.ecb.co.uk/play/all-stars. Sam (am a volunteer parent at Dulwich CC and happy to answer any questions).

Stir fry egg noodles that you find in the salad section at the supermarket - quick to cook and an alternative to potatoes or rice. Gammon steak. And crumbing veal schnitzel is really quick. Confession - DS had bacon sarnies and cucumber for dinner tonight, we have a quick turnaround for cricket nets... Oh, and spaghetti carbonara.

Pizza making party at pizza express? Solves venue, food and entertainment in one go....

There is usually one at the Dulwich Sports Club. ?5 entry for adults and children over 10. In Burbage Road. Bonfire Night Our bonfire party will take place on Saturday 7th November Doors Open 5pm Bonfire 6.30pm Fireworks 7pm Entry ?5, children under 10 free Food and drinks available with a safe indoor viewing area.

Just for pickles' benefit - I really miss Dunedin. Great spot to be a scarfie.

david- we are going to put down astro in our cricket mad household's back garden - the chap doing it is also cricket mad (he has several sons playing county cricket) and he thinks it's OK for backyard cricket. That said he has installed a proper cricket net in his own back yard....

Hands up, I trained as a lawyer, so moral arguments hold little sway (hard cases make bad law). It seems to me that the school was probably told that it could use the land as a playing field on a very temporary basis pending the estate sorting out the planning permission for development, but that's not the message that the school has passed on to prospective parents, who are now unsurprisingly severely unimpressed. If that is the case (and I don't know the ins and outs) then I would be pretty angry at the school if I were an existing parent. I know many people think the trustees of the Dulwich estate should act differently on "moral grounds", but tbh trust law is one of the least flexible areas of the law - it isn't warm and fuzzy, and any trustee acting outside the strict terms of the trust could find themselves personally liable for unauthorised expenditure. I know people think of charities as warm and fuzzy but trust law just ain't.

Exactly landsberger. It's noted above that the department of education negotiated the lease so "against govt policy" is a pretty difficult argument to run. Also, even if the lease was negotiated by the DoE surely JKPS must be a party to it, or how is it bound by the restrictions? I can't help feeling that people's time would be better spent looking for an alternative eg an arrangement like I understand Lyndhurst have with SCST. (For the record I completely agree with the importance of schools having outdoor play and volunteer with a children's sports club, just can't see how the legal argument stacks up in this case).

Tbh I struggle with this given that when the school chose the site it knew that the development was planned. It's not quite the same as selling off a long established playing field, is it? If the Estate had wanted to it could have excluded the field from the lease from the outset and perhaps have saved itself some grief. If JKPS intended to object from the outset, surely that's a bit disingenuous?