LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Jellybeanz]

If anyone wants to get involved in the LTN consultation, Southwark should have written to you or posted a flyer.

Register here: www.southwark.gov.uk/dulwichreviewreg

[Raeburn]

Rockets, good news, the consultation does include Underhill - you can check online in the dropdown list of roads.

[Siduhe]

Underhill and Melford (and possibly other streets) have been added over the weekend. I know a few people emailed the Dulwich Hill/Dulwich Wood councillors about it, so that?s good news!

[alice]

Great to hear thanks

[Metallic]

Why do they always make mistakes? Maybe they will accept a very big one when it comes down to it.

[Rockets]

Yes good to see that more roads have now been added to the "Register your Interest" site but why so few were added initially is a bit odd - another council oversight per chance.....;-)

I have to admit that I am not totally convinced those roads being added mean that they are part of the review area.

See the attached from legal from the flyer being distributed to some residents in Dulwich. Looks at the shading of, what we presume is, the review area. Another page of the flyer says that all households within the LTN area, and those households either side of the boundary roads...will receive a letter - that looks like the shading area. Does this mean that roads like Underhill will not receive the letter? Surely everyone in SE22 should be both covered on the pull-down menus and receive the letter.

Does anyone have any clarity on this?

[Nigello]

So, filling in this form just gives you the right to receive info and/or participate in consultations?

[Rockets]

I am not sure, that's what I am trying to ascertain.

Has anyone outside of the indicated area on the map legal shared received the council flyer on the review? I only know of people receiving it who live within the blue shaded area - it seems that everyone in the blue shaded area has received one. The flyer is definitely suggesting that only those within the LTN area and households on either side of the boundary roads (which one presumes is the shading to the east of Lordship Lane) will receive the flyer/letter.

[alice]

Then what would be the point of adding roads to drop down? Wonder when / why that decision was made? Too late to update flyers? The Southwark magazine only mentions LTN review discretely in smallish print ?look out for your local review?.

[Rockets]

I am not sure - I am hoping all will become clear because at the moment it looks like the council isn't doing their best job and getting this review right.

It doesn't look good:

1) Didn't add the main displacement route (Underhill) to the pull-down menu and had to be chased to do so

2) Has now added a number of roads (Underhill, Melford, Upland etc) when residents complained that they were missing yet there are still roads not included in the pulldown menus that could be impacted by displacement traffic

3) Seems to have mailed the flyer to those only living within the review area (please correct me if I am wrong if anyone has had these delivered beyond the blue shaded area)

4) Has sent the flyer that includes a map that suggests the review area is limited to the blue shaded area on the map - this was the same map Cllr Rose shared on the Dulwich Hill LTN review call and she referred to it, quite clearly, as the LTN review area

I do wonder if this might go some way to explain the delay to the review - remember this review was slated to start (by Cllr Williams) in February. I suspect the council started socialising their (limited) review area and people pushed back (either within the council or outside it) that it was basically gerrymandering to get the result they wanted and they had to expand it but by that point they had already printed the flyers and they are now playing catch-up.

Has anyone heard directly from the council why roads like Underhill were missing on the initial pull-down menus? It looks like, from posts earlier in the thread, that the council were alerted to these omissions by residents.

A lot of this is all so familiar to those of us who lived through the CPZ "consultation". Remember how badly the results (68% of residents against the CPZ) went against the council agenda and how they had to squirm and manipulate the presentation of the results to get the CPZ in.

One wonders how wedded the council are to an area-wide LTN review...

The problem for the council is many constituents are putting them under the microscope and challenging their every move to make sure the review is fair and equitable to everyone impacted by the results. And the council seem to be making a pig's ear of doing that from the outset.

[alice]

Very interesting bit of data on twitter. OK it?s by dulwich alliance but nevertheless worth reading.

[Rockets]

Alice, is it their tweet that takes you to this: https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-village-junction?s=09

I had not seen this but it is fascinating and I think goes some way to demonstrate why the council might be less than keen to engage with the wider community on the LTN review.

The fact OneDulwich had to use an FOI to get this data speaks volumes - what are the council trying to hide one wonders?

[alice]

I feel things are turning.

[legalalien]

Plus I think I saw (not sure where - possibly twitter), that the hard copy leaflets went to residents on Melbourne Grove but not the businesses (who were missed out last time) - similar for closures on Rye Lane.

The One Dulwich FoI info is also on their website. Not sure what the base data looked like / how they extracted the positive info, but looks interesting...

https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-village-junction

[FairTgirl]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Plus I think I saw (not sure where - possibly

> twitter), that the hard copy leaflets went to

> residents on Melbourne Grove but not the

> businesses (who were missed out last time) -

> similar for closures on Rye Lane.

>

> The One Dulwich FoI info is also on their website.

> Not sure what the base data looked like / how

> they extracted the positive info, but looks

> interesting...

>

> https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-

> village-junction

This is correct, not a single business in the review area was sent the newsletter about the review, but flats above businesses and direct neighbours were.

[Galileo]

I?m resident on MG and haven?t received a newsletter.

[Metallic]

alice Wrote:

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

> Very interesting bit of data on twitter. OK it?s

> by dulwich alliance but nevertheless worth

> reading.

What is it?

[alice]

Metallic, Rockets has kindly provided a link above.

[Rockets]

It does seem that leaflets are being distributed to areas beyond the blue shading as someone PM'd me to say they had received one and they live outside the central LTN area - so hopefully this means everyone is getting one (which is important to ensure everyone is aware of the opportunity to have their say).

[Jakido]

does anyone know if OneDulwich is campaigning to have the Dulwich toll booth removed?

[rjsmall]

Jakido Wrote:

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

> does anyone know if OneDulwich is campaigning to

> have the Dulwich toll booth removed?

Slight difference in that College Road is a private road and therefore not maintained by council funds. https://www.thedulwichestate.org.uk/property-on-the-estate/tollgate-and-roads/private-roads

[Sue]

I've had a hard copy leaflet (Ulverscroft Road).

[Rockets]

Sue - that's good news.

I think it is vitally important for everyone to have their say (for or against) and I would encourage everyone to get their neighbours to have their say.

The OneDulwich FOI demonstrates that previous closures (Calton Ave/DV) have been implemented on the basis of supportive responses from a tiny proportion of the local population (if the OneDulwich map is correct the council used feedback from less than 100 people to validate their decision - many of whom lived way beyond the impacted area).

[northernmonkey]

Until they release the underlying data you'll have to excuse me if i don't take their 'analysis' at face value.

The 'report' they produced on the commonplace certainly stretched the limits of some of the words used, so would like to see the data they're basing this analysis on.

Can't see that they've shared the underlying data though?

[Concerned2021]

I found the minutes for the Lewisham Healthy Streets schemes. Unbelievable that a scheme that has such a massive impact on our lives and infrastructure was decided by a few cyclists and council officials. The Feb minutes indicate that the consultation in Lewisham will only include those inside the LTN. Basically it?s a stitch up.

https://lewishamcyclists.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Meeting-Record-20210217.pdf