kissthisguy

There's no point having two useless people adding to the uselessness that exists. Your argument would hold water if the LDs had a strong track record on this issue. They don't. Their manifesto *doesn't even mention* LTNs. https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/plan_for_southwark Goldilocks you say Raghav and Richard have been clear on LTNs. Look at this on the LD website: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/dulwich_village_candidates Anyone with memories of the LD tuition fee pledge will rightly be cautious about a party that says one thing in the ward and another on the website and elsewhere in the borough.

I need to convert some files from dwg to PDF but having looked online the process seems incredibly complicated. Does anyone know if a specialist design shop that could do this. Happy to pay.

You're not alone in this @firstmate first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not a natural tory or even LD voter but the > behaviour of the Labour council has been so > appalling that something must be done to break > their stranglehold.

Goldilocks you've been such a doughty supporter of LTNs I'm surprised you're not voting Labour and urging everyone else to do so too! Isn't this flurry of LD fandom because you think the Conservatives are going to win?! I think they will too, btw. PS LDs came 3rd in 2018 (cause: unambiguous policy on Brexit), 4th (!) in 2014. goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sad that the Labour councils have implemented > Tory policy but imagine that voting Tory would > 'shake the arrogance of the incumbents' is a > pretty odd take. > > Why not vote Lib Dem in the village - its a) not > the Tories, b) they also want the LTNs removing > and c) would be able to form part of the Lib Dem > contingent on the council rather than being the 2 > sole Tories in the whole borough. > > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I imagine locally voting Tory in the Village > and > > LibDem in ED/Goose Green is the best way to > shake > > the arrogance of the incumbent Council, but it > > still makes me sad that the Labour Party I > > supported for over 50 years has implemented > Tory > > Central policy.

The flaw in this argument is that the LDs have sat through the LTN mess in Dulwich and done precious little in the one area where they might have had an effect: scrutiny. So the idea they're going to suddenly spring into decisive action now is laughable. They also seem in disarray as to whether they support LTNs or not. So really it's a straight up fight, on the LTN issue, in DV, between Lab and Cons. Re GG James Barber, if he runs, will prove a strong challenger, if only from the POV of maturity, experience and being good at responding to residents. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?d imagine looking at the candidates overall, > that if you?re against the LTNs it?s down to a > straight choice between the Tories and the Lib > Dems. The Tories would be the only ones on the > council whereas the Lib Dems have more potential > to influence together with the likely other Lib > Dem cllrs from Borough and Bankside.

Tbh James Barber was quite useful. Not necessarily because he was a LD of course. The party nationally seems in a rut. Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there any point of the Lib Dems? A serious > question.

Re 'shipping container sized pollution monitors' things have thankfully moved on in terms of granularity of monitoring and monitor size. The newish monitor on Peckham Road is about the size of a FTTC Cabinet, ie the green Openreach boxes you see on the pavement. It has a periscope-style sensor poking out and monitors the following pollutants: Nitric Oxide (ug/m3) Nitrogen Dioxide (ug/m3) Oxides of Nitrogen (ug/m3 as NO2) PM1 Particulate (by FDAS) (ug/m3) PM10 Particulate (by FDAS) (ug/m3) PM2.5 (not reference equiv.) (by FDAS) (ug/m3) PM2.5 Particulate (by FDAS) (ug/m3) Total Suspended Particulate (by FDAS) (ug/m3) so significantly more sophisticated than diffusion tubes. Other posters like @penguin68 and @spartacus have given a good account of how pollution calculations can be made but perhaps this by Jeff Smith, a pollution expert sums it up best with ref to LTNs: "If drinking water was causing this many hospitalizations, there would be riots in the streets. Instead myopic community leaders forced slower & ⬆️polluting traffic onto #London roads as an emergency pandemic response. They didn't collect #AirPollution data before the new #LTNs. There are some LTNs that can be deployed if proper baseline data is collected in advance. Clearly, the LTNs foisted on communities as a pandemic response are far more likely to cause more #AirPollution than they prevent... & that too along the boundary & larger main roads. They only used car counts & annual averages of #AirPollution metrics. This is a flawed method. They need to place the roadside real-time monitors AND use Google maps traffic data to identify the before vs after traffic congestion. We can model exposures with these datapoints." Food for thought... redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And back to LTNs.. does anyone know when > Southwark > > will release any data on pollution levels (NOx > and > > PM) - although the Mayor has answered a > question > > about ED Grove pollution monitors, by > indicating > > there is no direct monitoring on ED Grove - can > > this be confirmed? > > Do you see a small shipping sized container > construction on EDG? Because this is what a > pollution monitor looks like, they cost hundreds > of thousands to buy and tens/hundreds of thousands > to run each year ... that's why there are only a > handful in southwark, because pollution figures > can be accurately extrapolated from traffic > volumes.

Thanks for the reply and info on the assessments etc; hope your hosting goes well.

Thanks @legalalien. @rockets agreed and if it were me I would tackle the Grove Tavern jct and the EDG/LL one before this. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think the Devolved Highways funding (which > I think this is) works in quite the same way as > the Neighbourhoods Fund funding. Whereas the > latter is essentially ?10 per councillor, there > seems to be more of a pooled approach o the > former. See > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1055 > 33/DHB%20South%20Decision%20Making%2022-23%20FINAL > .pdf.

*edited to reflect I've digested Cllr Brownings' post. Yes @rockets on Lordship Lane, very close to two traffic islands, on either side of the jct. Can someone help me understand the joint funding messages here: unless it's right on the border of two wards (Dulwich Village and Dulwich Hill) surely one ward would be applying for funding? How did Margy vote for it if (as it seems) the proposed crossing is in Dulwich Hill? Why is Cllr Leeming trying to brainstorm funding? https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1503086093612326919 If the crossing is in DHill then it will be closer than the pic suggest to the existing green man. It's making my head hurt. What am I missing? Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry, am I missing something or have other posts > been deleted - are the councillors going to put a > crossing in around the Court Lane junction?

What's slightly confusing about this is that very near to where they're standing, just out of shot, are two (helpful in my view) islands, either side of the Court Lane jct, presumably to assist pedestrian crossing. It's also near(less than 100m? to a traffic light/ Green man crossing by the Lordship Lane estate. If ?50K has been put 'towards' creating a crossing, how much is the total? Seems like overkill, unless it's another element of embedding the LTN. Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark Labour Cllrs really rubbing salt into > the wounds on Sunday.

Looking to hear about experiences from anyone who has hosted a refugee, eg through Refugees At Home https://www.refugeesathome.org/ Was the process straightforward, how long did you host for initially, did you extend the stay, and if it didn't work out what were the issues. Realise everyone's experience will be unique but thanks for any insights.

Yes and no, @legalalien Yes to your observation about council transparency and cosiness with certain residents / roads / groups. A local gov register is a good idea. There are I believe limits for gifts and hospitality but invitations to coffees or street parties probably don't trigger that disclosure. Transparency and accountability also applies to CAD, which presents itself as a community group, implicitly with a mandate, to speak for at least a section of the community - in this case local parents. But its actions are all about fixing air for side roads - where air pollution is least poor, and it lobbies for interventions that CAD must know increase congestion and traffic on main roads. It's clear that CAD don't act for or represent parents and families on main roads, which explains their silence about Croxted, East Dulwich Grove, etc. This is where your apposite point about cllrs giving certain voices too much weight. I agree wholeheartedly. If you look at CAD in comparison with Mums for Lungs, MFL do say who their main activists are, and they do advocate for main roads too, like Croxted. In fact friends there say they have been hardworking and helpful in writing to councillors to try to find a solution Another issue is the same clutch of people turning up within key stakeholder groups, which could have a distorting effect on the discourse. We can't know if CAD's leading lights are active in the Dulwich Society or Southwark Cyclists or the Herne Hill Forum (for example) because they don't disclose their main activists. They should. > awarded. > > The core problem here is not CAD - the problem is > the councillors have (in my opinion- not everyone > shares it) given their views too much weight, and > that there is insufficient transparency (and also > possibly too much apathy / not paying enough > attention by constituents until it is too late). > Is there a register of local councillors having > free lunches / coffees with lobby groups like > there is in central government? If not, why not? > > It?s the principle of councillors representing all > constituents, and a big improvement in engagement > that needs attention as I see it.

Wow. So really the group should be called Clean Air For Side Roads in Dulwich (Which Already Have Air Quality Within Legal Limits) Dirty Air For Main Roads? It's not catchy but it's a more accurate description, based on that screenshot. Doug85 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CPR Dave Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think "Clean Air Dulwich" also sometimes call > > themselves "Clean Air for Dulwich" which > probably > > doesn't help, but the council have a lot of egg > on > > their face here (once again) > > Yes, they do refer to themselves as Clean Air for > Dulwich, as seen here in very revealing minutes > from a Southwark Cyclists meeting in which Helen > Pickering, who claims she set up CAD, advised SCC > and gave pointers on how to go about getting an > LTN on your road... > > https://imgur.com/oYbtrq5 > >

@nigello I'll try, from the info we have and best guesses/questions where relevant. --Applications invited from community groups for funding, deadline Oct 11. --Due diligence period commences where officers & cllrs assess suitability of applications (as detailed in another post above). I assume this is a 'sifting' period, so inappropriate applications junked. [Observation/question: If the due diligence process as outlined in Cllr Leemings thread re the rationale for reasons not to approve the application actually happened, surely the application would have fallen at this stage, not at the mtg]. --All viable applications are then recommended for approval, though the actual funding amounts can vary from what was applied for and the decision is made in public --It appears that up until the 11th hour the Clean Air For Dulwich application was essentially about to be approved BUT at there was a un/welcome (delete as appropriate) intervention from @votethemoutmay on twitter who cried foul over what they perceive as Clean Air Dulwich getting ?6K to educate people about non-polluting cars. --Councillors at the meeting did not fund the Clean Air For Dulwich application. --Which brings us up to date to the claims about fake applications etc etc Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could someone please "boil" this? (ie. reduce it > to the facts in chrono order?)

Really weird story. Without knowing the full facts, one can only speculate as to the most likely explanation. But I agree with @slartib that the due diligence (either by officers or cllrs or both) can't have been done for all of this to blow up on the night of the funding announcement. Simplest explanation must be that cllrs / officers thought they knew who they were dealing with, surely? It might not be ideal, but you can see how known quantities might be under less scrutiny. I'd want to know if cllrs contacted *the actual applicant* at all. It sounds like they went straight to Clean Air Dulwich, CAD said it wasn't them, fair enough. Then we have this tweet from cllr Leeming which talks about a fake application being made and also discussed on the east dulwich forum https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1501148429782822914 and then this tweet from cllr newens about asking officers to investigate a fraudulent attempt to obtain council funds I am not a lawyer, and do not know the evidence that cllrs rely on to allege fraudulent activity but that strikes me as quite a leap, and that the truth is probably less convoluted. Do we know, for example if forum user @P3Girl was the applicant, and, importantly, how? It's incredibly unclear - and I doubt the EDF would reveal usernames IRL. To me it feels like cllrs, who are no doubt under pressure, might be adding 2+2 to make 5. Isn't it possible an application was made in a name similar to CAD, no malice or subterfuge intended, and the entire mess rests on that confusion and my first point above: scant or no dd conducted, and the original applicant not contacted? Who knows... It's never dull in ED!

My partner dropped off some stuff at the White Eagle Club this morning. Glad to say lots of other people had the same idea, if the traffic was anything to go by. @balhamnewsie on twitter seems to be doing a good job of covering what's going on so they'll probably post any more requests for donations. jonl5 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a collection point in Balham > > https://twitter.com/kaysarah/status/14975022983769 > 16996?s=21 > > If you want to donate to war refugees arriving in > Poland, please donate clean clothes / bedding / > sleeping bags / sanitary items / clean new shoes > by taking them to: > White Eagle Club, 211 Balham High Rd, SW17 > 7BQ > Everything donated leaves London on Monday > (Further departures expected)

Hi @Lebanums, you might not have seen my previous post - which was specifically about single use cable ties. I assure you they're not bamboo! But point taken about the wider effort to eliminate plastic

If not you could screenshot certain roads from the app at intervals but that'd be a major ballache.

Tom Tom or Waze would have it. The question is whether you can go back and assess historical data or trends over time I guess.

.

Good idea @Nigello. Maybe the council, as part of whatever contract is has with the organisers, could insist on no single-use plastic policy?

Niche point but I wish the organisers of these things wouldn't use single-use cable ties. Hundreds of them are always clipped off and just left on the ground. They are all over Brockwell Park even now.

Worth a watch to the end - most notably for contribution from the London Ambulance Service. How the delays experienced (51 out of 170 IIRC in Southwark alone from the LTNs) weren't the end of it I'll never know. Seemingly sensible contributions too from Cllrs Flynn, Hamvas and Werner all of whom, along with Cllr Rose and Burgess at least appear to be trying to be guided by principles of fairness. @goldilocks' characterisation of the meeting is wide of the mark.

@metallic thanks for posting. I've got it on in the background but at first listen Cllr Rose sounds very reasonable and as though she's trying to balance different needs. (This was from March 2021 so approx 6 months since she started as a cabinet member).