Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[slarti b]

northernmonkey Wrote:

>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!

Maybe not an active conspiracy but what I see is a small number of local(?) activists create overlapping groups, Clean Air Dulwich, Southwark Cyclists, Mums for Lungs, Safe Routes to Schools. Dul Soc Traffic & Environment C'ttee etc. These activists claim to represent "local community" and are engaged by local councillors and treated as key stakeholders by the council who are happy to accept these groups at face value and dismiss or ignore the concerns of their own constituents and Resident's Associations without questioning whose these activists represent.

At the meeting Katy Savage of Clean air for Dulwich (Facebook group liked by 79 people, no info where they are from) was happy to condescendingly dismiss the 2,700 person petition to reverse closures without mentioning that the petition to keep the closures had received a massive... 51 supporters. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListDisplay.aspx?bcr=1 . The narrative she is trying to put over is that objectors to these road closures, which are causing such disruption and pollution to roads such as Lordship Lane and EDG, are a vocal minority; in reality it is the supporter and proponents of these these poorly thought through schemes that are the minority.

One of Ms Savage's arguments was that there was no verification where the respondents on the petition lived - if true, that is clearly a failure by Southwark council. However, the DV junction closure has always been justified by the councillors as the outcome of the OHS phase 2 consultation. That exercise had about 200 respondents, mainly on line, and the council has refused to say where they lived. According to her views that consultation was therefore meaningless.

Note that OneDulwich who , with over 1,700 supporters is very open about where those supporters live see https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters. It is unfortunate that the local councillors are doing all they can to misrepresent the views and proposals of those groups who represent a significant number of local residents and have put in huge amounts of effort to analyse the situation and suggest reasonable compromises.

edited to make clear that the OneDulwich web site shows supporters by postcode district rather than actual address.

[wallsend]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> northernmonkey Wrote:

> >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!

>

> Maybe not an active conspiracy but what I see is a

> small number of local(?) activists create

> overlapping groups, Clean Air Dulwich, Southwark

> Cyclists, Mums for Lungs, Safe Routes to Schools

> Dul Soc Environment C'ttee etc. These activists

> claim to represent "local community" and are

> engaged by local councillors and treated as key

> stakeholders by the council who are happy to

> accept these groups at face value and dismiss or

> ignore the concerns of their own constituents and

> Resident's Associations without questioning whose

> these activists represent.

>

> At the meeting Katy Savage of Clean air for

> Dulwich (Facebook group liked by 79 people, no

> info where they are from) was happy to

> condescendingly dismiss the 2,700 person petition

> to reverse closures without mentioning that the

> petition to keep the closures had received a

> massive... 51 supporters.

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListD

> isplay.aspx?bcr=1 . The narrative she is trying

> to put over is that objectors to these road

> closures, which are causing such disruption and

> pollution to roads such as Lordship Lane and EDG,

> are a vocal minority; in reality it is the

> supporter and proponents of these these poorly

> thought through schemes that are the minority.

>

> One of Ms Savage's arguments was that there was no

> verification where the respondents on the petition

> lived - if true, that is clearly a failure by

> Southwark council. However, the DV junction

> closure has always been justified by the

> councillors as the outcome of the OHS phase 2

> consultation. That exercise had about 200

> respondents, mainly on line, and the council has

> refused to say where they lived. According to

> her views that consultation was therefore

> meaningless.

>

> Note that OneDulwich who , with over 1,700

> supporters is very open about where those

> supporters live see

> https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters. It is

> unfortunate that the local councillors are doing

> all they can to misrepresent the views and

> proposals of those groups who represent a

> significant number of local residents and have put

> in huge amounts of effort to analyse the situation

> and suggest reasonable compromises.

What a great post, with the ones from Rockets. I sincerely hope the councillors read these threads, even if they don't admit it.

[betternowthanthen]

It's good to see the problems with the road closures are being laid down here, also don't forget the closure of Champion Hill into a one way system is another road close by that needs opening again into a 2 way instead of one way, will help and ease the forcefully made congestion...anyone says this is not true/not the reality is purely head in the sand,head above board, and some people are totally misleading them self's thinking closure are a good idea, and this is not fooling people who are, not stupid. Using this pandemic to rush and push things through (closures) when it's hard to get any noted opposition is pure criminal activity.

[Bicknell]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> northernmonkey Wrote:

> >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!

>

> Maybe not an active conspiracy but what I see is a

> small number of local(?) activists create

> overlapping groups, Clean Air Dulwich, Southwark

> Cyclists, Mums for Lungs, Safe Routes to Schools

> Dul Soc Environment C'ttee etc. These activists

> claim to represent "local community" and are

> engaged by local councillors and treated as key

> stakeholders by the council who are happy to

> accept these groups at face value and dismiss or

> ignore the concerns of their own constituents and

> Resident's Associations without questioning whose

> these activists represent.

>

> At the meeting Katy Savage of Clean air for

> Dulwich (Facebook group liked by 79 people, no

> info where they are from) was happy to

> condescendingly dismiss the 2,700 person petition

> to reverse closures without mentioning that the

> petition to keep the closures had received a

> massive... 51 supporters.

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListD

> isplay.aspx?bcr=1 . The narrative she is trying

> to put over is that objectors to these road

> closures, which are causing such disruption and

> pollution to roads such as Lordship Lane and EDG,

> are a vocal minority; in reality it is the

> supporter and proponents of these these poorly

> thought through schemes that are the minority.

>

> One of Ms Savage's arguments was that there was no

> verification where the respondents on the petition

> lived - if true, that is clearly a failure by

> Southwark council. However, the DV junction

> closure has always been justified by the

> councillors as the outcome of the OHS phase 2

> consultation. That exercise had about 200

> respondents, mainly on line, and the council has

> refused to say where they lived. According to

> her views that consultation was therefore

> meaningless.

>

> Note that OneDulwich who , with over 1,700

> supporters is very open about where those

> supporters live see

> https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters. It is

> unfortunate that the local councillors are doing

> all they can to misrepresent the views and

> proposals of those groups who represent a

> significant number of local residents and have put

> in huge amounts of effort to analyse the situation

> and suggest reasonable compromises.

Good points here @slarti b. local councillors arent listening. I wonder what could make this change?

[dulwicheye1]

car owners are sitting Ducks....money making machines for the councils...and the driver has been abused for far too long. Enough is Enough ...drivers please stand up and say NO MORE.

[Rockets]

Whilst car owners are sitting ducks our councillors are of the lame variety of ducks...

It seems some of our councillors are quite fond on the opinions espoused by the esteemed Peter Walker...the comments are hilarious as the councillors try to dissect what is going on in their wards.....

https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1319178810529632256?s=09

Just look at the language being used by the councillors (and I hasten to add these are snippets from conversations not a single thread and in no way are presented as such - I am just interested in the way they are all saying "too early to tell" "so many things changing" - this is the political language of people who know there is a problem but are not prepared to admit it) and notice how they refuse to engage with anyone who challenges them (there is a real pattern emerging here):

Newens: One of the problems I find is that whilst supporters of these schemes are very conscious of the voices against, the reverse seems rarely to be true. It is unhelpful to deny that there is a considerable diversity of opinion locally.

Leeming: I think this is a good point. But very often it is equally hard to establish if a scheme is successful or not. That can take several months & as traffic changes all the time & it takes time to design and build neighbouring schemes making that judgement is nigh on impossible

McAsh: True, it's hard to assess the impact of the LTNs as they've come in at a time when so much else has been changing.

[spider69]

All been to the Sir Humphrey Appleby school of replying.

[holymoly]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> northernmonkey Wrote:

> >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!

>

> Maybe not an active conspiracy but what I see is a

> small number of local(?) activists create

> overlapping groups, Clean Air Dulwich, Southwark

> Cyclists, Mums for Lungs, Safe Routes to Schools.

> Dul Soc Traffic & Environment C'ttee etc. These

> activists claim to represent "local community"

> and are engaged by local councillors and treated

> as key stakeholders by the council who are happy

> to accept these groups at face value and dismiss

> or ignore the concerns of their own constituents

> and Resident's Associations without questioning

> whose these activists represent.

>

> At the meeting Katy Savage of Clean air for

> Dulwich (Facebook group liked by 79 people, no

> info where they are from) was happy to

> condescendingly dismiss the 2,700 person petition

> to reverse closures without mentioning that the

> petition to keep the closures had received a

> massive... 51 supporters.

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListD

> isplay.aspx?bcr=1 . The narrative she is trying

> to put over is that objectors to these road

> closures, which are causing such disruption and

> pollution to roads such as Lordship Lane and EDG,

> are a vocal minority; in reality it is the

> supporter and proponents of these these poorly

> thought through schemes that are the minority.

>

> One of Ms Savage's arguments was that there was no

> verification where the respondents on the petition

> lived - if true, that is clearly a failure by

> Southwark council. However, the DV junction

> closure has always been justified by the

> councillors as the outcome of the OHS phase 2

> consultation. That exercise had about 200

> respondents, mainly on line, and the council has

> refused to say where they lived. According to

> her views that consultation was therefore

> meaningless.

>

> Note that OneDulwich who , with over 1,700

> supporters is very open about where those

> supporters live see

> https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters. It is

> unfortunate that the local councillors are doing

> all they can to misrepresent the views and

> proposals of those groups who represent a

> significant number of local residents and have put

> in huge amounts of effort to analyse the situation

> and suggest reasonable compromises.

>

> edited to make clear that the OneDulwich web site

> shows supporters by postcode district rather than

> actual address.

SlartiB - a great post and reminder to see how our Councillors take seriously their responsibilities for evidence based proposals and inclusive representation from the community they were elected to represent. Our Ward Cllrs seem to be failing the community that elected them. Their Twitter accounts highlight the bias of their representation. Conundrum for them but equally for those of us electing them. I have lost confidence in Dulwich Ward Cllrs to represent our views and show how these can be progressed alongside environmental goals. I have no single conversation that I can highlight that shows me they have a broad interest and social understanding. How did we elect them I ask myself?

[Nigello]

Who are ?we?? Most folk don?t care about local politics and rarely vote in local elections. If they do they sometimes use their vote to send a message to the national government. 🤷‍♂️

[Spartacus]

You are correct Nigello and because of local voting empathy that's how we end up with a council who walk over their electorate.

Maybe / hopefully it will change come the next local election and councillors will be in place who actually care what the majority want rather than the vocal minority.

[ab29]

A letter from a frustrated resident:

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/these-ltns-are-creating-an-unwanted-two-tier-borough

The question at the end: "So who is gaining from this in Croydon council?" has also crossed my mind - who is gaining from this in Southwark council.

[FairTgirl]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> A letter from a frustrated resident:

>

> https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/these-ltns-are-crea

> ting-an-unwanted-two-tier-borough

>

> The question at the end: "So who is gaining from

> this in Croydon council?" has also crossed my mind

> - who is gaining from this in Southwark council.

I would hope that any Cllrs who genuinely actually beleive in social justice and call themselves socialists would be appalled at the idea of a Labour council creating a Two Tier Southwark but this resident make a real point.

Road closures funding (if Southwark will be given anymore) should be focused in the more northern parts of Southwark where poverty is highest, BAME population highest, they have the best public transport links and lowest car ownership but the worst pollution. These are the exact categories outlined for successful LTNs.

It is obvious that the reason they have not been instigated there is because the people in those areas do not have a voice, or are not as proficient in the process of lobbying as the groups in areas of ED and DV.

[Rockets]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> All been to the Sir Humphrey Appleby school of

> replying.

I think the fact my dad was a big fan of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister helped mould my general distrust of any politician.

Their views of local councillors are oh so familiar!

[FairTgirl]

These are so brilliantly written, also watched them growing up and parents loved them. Can find on Brit Box apparently.

[malumbu]

Sorry rather ignorant comments, irrespective of the comedic value (you can catch Yes Minister/PM on Four Extra).

And ..... Road closures funding (if Southwark will be given anymore) should be focused in the more northern parts of Southwark where poverty is highest, BAME population highest, they have the best public transport links and lowest car ownership but the worst pollution. These are the exact categories outlined for successful LTNs.....

Let them eat cake/brioche. Rather pompous comments. That good education seems to have gone to waste.

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Sorry rather ignorant comments, irrespective of

> the comedic value (you can catch Yes Minister/PM

> on Four Extra).

>

> And ..... Road closures funding (if Southwark will

> be given anymore) should be focused in the more

> northern parts of Southwark where poverty is

> highest, BAME population highest, they have the

> best public transport links and lowest car

> ownership but the worst pollution. These are the

> exact categories outlined for successful

> LTNs.....

>

> Let them eat cake/brioche. Rather pompous

> comments. That good education seems to have gone

> to waste.

I very much think that sketch captures precisely what a lot of people think about local councillors and the ones we have are demonstrating very aptly why people don?t trust them. They are refusing to engage with any debate around the issue (unless you support their ideas). They are hiding from the majority of their constituents, hoping desperately that this will blow over.....I am not sure it will. The tide of local public opinion is turning against them and as much as they try to pigeon-hole those with an opinion other than their own as a vocal minority they know what the reality is.

Meanwhile the council cosies up to middle-class lobby groups whose only intention is to reduce traffic outside their own homes and don?t care what happens to anyone else. Groups who no doubt live in big houses, with space to store bikes, who like to cycle to the cheese shop to get some cheese for their dinner-parties, get home deliveries from Ocado and keep a big car for those long journeys to the country house (this is not the Tesla they have on the drive that?s just for show and can?t get back and forth to the Cotswolds on one charge) ;-)

I jest of course but you get the drift!

[FairTgirl]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Sorry rather ignorant comments, irrespective of

> the comedic value (you can catch Yes Minister/PM

> on Four Extra).

>

> And ..... Road closures funding (if Southwark will

> be given anymore) should be focused in the more

> northern parts of Southwark where poverty is

> highest, BAME population highest, they have the

> best public transport links and lowest car

> ownership but the worst pollution. These are the

> exact categories outlined for successful

> LTNs.....

>

> Let them eat cake/brioche. Rather pompous

> comments. That good education seems to have gone

> to waste.

Politely beg to differ. It's not pompous it's just common sense. Southwark Council acknowledges as much in their Environment Scrutiny Commissions Air Quality Report July 2020, which a variety of different pro and anti LTN groups contributed to - with their own comments about where they should be implemented and that attention is often drawn to those with loudest voices, not greatest need.

[legalalien]

Have pondered but can?t at all see how the Marie Antoinette analogy works.

Unless it?s that those in the areas FTG refers to are asking to have the air quality that Dulwich Village has always enjoyed, Dulwich Village proposes to do nothing, and suggests they sort their own thing out by having excellent air quality schemes at their own expense? Not really the same thing though, is it? Because Marie Antoinette wasn?t turning down a bread to brioche upgrade in favour of purchasing brioche (or bread even) for others?

 

[Spartacus]

They've had enough in Crystal Palace

Maybe we should do the same if it gets results

[smooch]

now there's an idea.

walking thru the village this morning around 11.30 and the main road was completely chock full towards east dulwich grove - across the junction with turney. i just don't get it? would love to hear what all the residents of Dulwich village actually feel about it.

Should also add that the road was completely blocked at around 2.30 on sunday afternoon so clearly nothing to do with the school run - again tailing back to the mini roundabout.

some residents and businesses on east dulwich grove have already expressed their serious concern, but I suspect the council is unwilling to actually 'hear' them. Councillor James has bravely made some conciliatory noises but is not in a position to do anything.

[Metallic]

smooch Wrote:

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

> now there's an idea.

> walking thru the village this morning around 11.30

> and the main road was completely chock full

> towards east dulwich grove - across the junction

> with turney. i just don't get it? would love to

> hear what all the residents of Dulwich village

> actually feel about it.

>

> Should also add that the road was completely

> blocked at around 2.30 on sunday afternoon so

> clearly nothing to do with the school run - again

> tailing back to the mini roundabout.

>

> some residents and businesses on east dulwich

> grove have already expressed their serious

> concern, but I suspect the council is unwilling to

> actually 'hear' them. Councillor James has bravely

> made some conciliatory noises but is not in a

> position to do anything.

Everyone I know hates the plans in the Village. And the few cyclists who actually LIVE in Dulwich Village are probably countable on your fingers and toes.

I wish people would stop meddling in the life of our community. The ruination of Lordship lane and Grove Vale businesses, the closure of Melbourne Grove, I bet there are very few people who want our district to go down the drain.

[Rockets]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> smooch Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > now there's an idea.

> > walking thru the village this morning around

> 11.30

> > and the main road was completely chock full

> > towards east dulwich grove - across the

> junction

> > with turney. i just don't get it? would love to

> > hear what all the residents of Dulwich village

> > actually feel about it.

> >

> > Should also add that the road was completely

> > blocked at around 2.30 on sunday afternoon so

> > clearly nothing to do with the school run -

> again

> > tailing back to the mini roundabout.

> >

> > some residents and businesses on east dulwich

> > grove have already expressed their serious

> > concern, but I suspect the council is unwilling

> to

> > actually 'hear' them. Councillor James has

> bravely

> > made some conciliatory noises but is not in a

> > position to do anything.

>

> Everyone I know hates the plans in the Village.

> And the few cyclists who actually LIVE in Dulwich

> Village are probably countable on your fingers and

> toes.

>

> I wish people would stop meddling in the life of

> our community. The ruination of Lordship lane and

> Grove Vale businesses, the closure of Melbourne

> Grove, I bet there are very few people who want

> our district to go down the drain.

I think many of the pro-closure supporters in the Village are desperate to get the next phase of closures in place so traffic has to find a route elsewhere around the village. No doubt Cllr Newens and Leeming will celebrate how quiet the village is as the rest of us have to live with their displaced hell!!!! ;-)

[tiddles]

Tbh I am really concerned about the survival of local businesses- those in Melbourne grove have basically been shat on (sorry) but I understand the village has also been hit. I am not some business or nothing nutter but I really feel there could be a useful and purposeful dialogue about the general aims and the realistic implementations. This needs a joint effort and right now their is absolutely no partnership

[Rockets]

I did chuckle to myself as I walked down Melbourne Grove today - the residents have done a great job decorating the street for Halloween and putting up the gravestones but I love how one of them is trying to make a point by creating a couple of headstones with "Rat Run" on them.....and Cllr Newens suggests there is a problem with trolls from the anti-closure lobby!!!! ;-)

I wonder if the Rest in Pieces headstone is in fact a reference to the businesses on Melbourne Grove being impacted by the closures....

[northernmonkey]

The Melbourne grove businesses are affected by the cpz more than anything else, but obviously all coming together it?s hard for them.

Would be better if the business owners stopped parking in the only pay by phone bays though...