Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[legalalien]

Dulwichrunners I think Southwark have a figure of around ?3million in this year's budget. I'll dig out the link and add it in.

ETA: link here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101231/Report%20Revenue%20monitor.pdf. Note the figure covers the Walworth LTN as well as the Dulwich one so the Dulwich figure is slightly lower, I think there's been an FOI request indicating that the Dulwich amount makes up most of that figure though.

Extract:

"Since the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in some

parts of the borough, and based on the financial information available to

date, the department is projecting a net additional income of ?3m at this

time and this is reflected in table 1. The final net additional income from

LTNs will be transferred to an earmarked reserve for reinvestment in

locally important schemes including highways, transport, school streets,

healthy streets and with the aim of tackling the climate emergency.

Recognising the new nature of this income stream, the position will be

need to be closely monitored throughout the remainder of the year. "

"New nature of this income stream" ... says it all, really, particularly in light of the LTN report's tacit acknowledgement of the poor signage.

[tiddles]

Excellent post Rockets - was having this exact conversation with a DV resident this morning - look forward to hearing if there is any response

[dulwichrunners]

Thanks Legalalien,

that's an astonishing sum, and most of it from people who had no idea they were breaking any law, and would have not have done so if they were aware of it. There can be little doubt that in light of the of the very minimal impact on behaviour and huge sums they raise that LTNS are in fact ATMS for Southwark rather than anything else.

[Lynne]

Completely agree, dulwichrunners

[oimissus]

Oh, absolutely. It is impossible to raise that amount of money, in such a short period of time, from so few cameras, by mistake. 'Income stream' indeed - regardless of the intent, the implementation is nothing to do with reducing emissions and everything to do with raising money.

[Rockets]

I think it is telling that the council are saying they will improve signage - is this an admission that the current signage is not sufficient - could someone challenge the ?3m worth of fines to date on that basis?

[Sue]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it is telling that the council are saying

> they will improve signage - is this an admission

> that the current signage is not sufficient - could

> someone challenge the ?3m worth of fines to date

> on that basis?

I was wondering the same thing.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it is telling that the council are saying

> they will improve signage - is this an admission

> that the current signage is not sufficient - could

> someone challenge the ?3m worth of fines to date

> on that basis?

There is no way that will work. The blue signage is perfectly legal and as specified in law at national level. If drivers are driving through oblivious to the meaning of the signs then fundamentally the issue is lack of driver awareness of the Highway Code. If they're not seeing the signs then it's a lack of attention while driving.

No-one likes being fined (including me, who got one in the last year) but using signage that doesn't comply with the Highway Code is going to make things worse, not better. There were already supplementary red signs on approach routes and new ones have gone up in the last month.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs

[Rockets]

DKHB - I am not sure it is as some charges have been over-turned on review due to the lack of proper or obscured signage - this sets a precedent. The council admitting that they will improve signage also sets a precedent.

Some of the signs are clear - others aren't. For example if you approach along Gallery Road you can't see the timing signs on the corner of Burbage - that has nothing to do with a lack of driver awareness of the Highway Code. The fact that a resident of Burbage used to stand on the corner to alert people they were about to get a sign speaks volumes for how poorly the signage has been implemented.

[legalalien]

I think much of the problem, particularly early on, was the positioning of the signs as much as the legality of the signage itself - thinking in particular of the one at the Burbage Road roundabout, when approaching from Gallery Road, the one on Burbage Road which you can't really see until you've already turned left off Turney, coming from Croxted (the approach sign has been fixed slightly now I think to try and clarify - the problem is for drivers who see the blue sign ahead and swing left to avoid it and are practically through the bus gate before they can do anything), and the one on Townley which is easily lost among other signs, trees, watching out for traffic etc coming off Croxted. I just hope we don't get more signs instead of clearer substitute signs - there are way too many signs about the place already. must be about time for another "superfluous sign" audit. I'm happy to make suggestions of signs that could be removed.

[smooch]

goose geen councillors - the silence is deafening....

[first mate]

Still no response from councillors?

[Abe_froeman]

Too absorbed with internal socialist versus hard left Marxist party politics ahead of the Labour party conference I guess.

[first mate]

Any feedback or comment, yet?

[Spartacus]

Are you really expecting one ?

There's a better chance of winning the lottery tonight and that's even if you don't but a ticket 😄

[Lynne]

Hi

We live by a very vulnerable man whose house (privately owned, I believe) is now in a bad state of repair. Unfortunately for both him and the people round him, his garden now seems to be rat infested.

I asked a team from Southwark to look into it a couple of years ago, but, if anything was done, it didn't involve clearing his completely overgrown garden

I don't want to complain about him, but neighbours with small children have expressed worries about the rats coming their garden.

I've had them in the house too

Who should I contact?

[Guest]

I've got a similar'ish issue with an extreme hoarder (internal and external). His front and back garden are filled with rubbish and junk, which is overflowing and damaging my fence. It's also causing a health concern for neighbouring properties. I've had no luck with any departments at Southwark. Every department I call, they will just tell me to call another department.

He's not a person you can reason with either, so I'm stuck living next to a rubbish tip. Would also be interested to hear any suggestions.

Lynne Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi

> We live by a very vulnerable man whose house

> (privately owned, I believe) is now in a bad state

> of repair. Unfortunately for both him and the

> people round him, his garden now seems to be rat

> infested.

> I asked a team from Southwark to look into it a

> couple of years ago, but, if anything was done, it

> didn't involve clearing his completely overgrown

> garden

> I don't want to complain about him, but neighbours

> with small children have expressed worries about

> the rats coming their garden.

> I've had them in the house too

> Who should I contact?

[first mate]

You'll probably have to wait for any reply until our councillor is back from the Labour Party conference, where he is a delegate and reporting for the Labour list blog.

[Rockets]

Ah ha...that's where he is and no doubt why he isn't responding ;-)

Isn't he a primary school teacher though - do union reps/activists get time off from schools during term-time?

[heartblock]

Well... as you know I doooooo have opinions :), but at least he has a thread unlike Leeming and Marge and as a mild syndicalist and less mild socialist I think having time off for this activity is good......but I still disagree with James about LTNs - he will see the light one day!

[Rockets]

I thought teachers could only take time off during school holidays - or am I wrong on that?

Anyway, you mention Leeming and Margy....this tweet from Margy is hilarious.....

I would suggest Margy didn't witness the removal of the ATM on Friday as I am sure, if she had, she wouldn't have allowed Southwark Labour to send the grandstanding tweet on the following Tuesday embarrassing her boss....#awks......

[heartblock]

Trade Union activity is an allowable time off as is Councillor activity, I'm sure it is all covered. Margy...well, a photo op with a rather 'confused' to be polite message.

[IainJ]

Can the Councillors throw any light on the Council's real intentions with regard to the reopening of Rye Lane to buses?

It's a real issue for Goose Green residents as all our buses (12, 197, 63, 363, 37, 78, 343, P12) currently stop 500m short of the station and although it's due to reopen on 18 October, two further rounds of consultation are promised which as I understand it will include the closure option. Goose Green residents weren't included the last time round. This station has 7m passengers a year rising to 9.3m, one of the busiest outside central London.

Can Southwark make a clear statement that it's committed to keeping it open to buses?

[Rockets]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cllr McAsh,

> I hope you had a good summer.

>

> I am just wondering if you had any thoughts on the

> LTN review data that was published by the council

> last week?

>

> The constituents within the review area have,

> overwhelmingly (64%), voted for the measures to be

> removed yet the council is suggesting amendments

> to the current closures that will do nothing to

> alleviate the problems the measures have created.

>

> It is clear, from the council's data published in

> the review, that there has not been the

> "significant reduction in traffic across the

> Dulwich area" as you claimed in your recent

> newsletter. The council is claiming a 10%

> reduction in traffic across the area but the

> monitoring data from roads like Underhill (which

> is a key displacement route) has not been

> published or included which means that the 10%

> figure is likely to reduce to closer to 0% once

> that data is included.

>

> Could you summarise what you believe the benefits

> of the scheme to date have been as it is unclear

> to me, from reading the report, what they are? The

> measures have had more than enough time to bed in,

> yet:

>

> - Pollution has not decreased (in fact it is

> likely to have increased)

> - Modal shift has not happened (the report admits

> that cycling numbers are now decreasing to

> pre-Covid levels)

> - Displacement roads are more congested

> - Bus journey times have increased in many parts

> of the area

> - Local businesses are being impacted negatively

> as is the attractiveness of the area as a shopping

> destination

> - Emergency service response times have been

> impacted by the closures and lives have been put

> at risk

>

> It is clear the council has failed to deliver

> against the stated objectives for these measures

> so why are you continuing to pursue them and for

> whose benefit exactly? It seems the majority of

> your constituents are being impacted negatively by

> them and don't want them.

Cllr McAsh - just popping this to the top of your inbox - you seem to have missed this when you were posting yesterday.

[CPR Dave]

Hello James

Little pictures of bicycles have recently been painted on the road up and down my street. Does this mean we are next in line for a closed road?

Many thanks.