LTN Discussion

[UndergradStudentLTN]

Good Afternoon to all reading this.

I am a third year Undergraduate Student at Goldsmiths University of London and an East Dulwich resident since 2021.

I am writing my dissertation on the opposition which has been circling around these road closure policies, and would like to understand and analyse the types and reasonings of oppositions.

From what I understand, a large portion of opposition involves some form of 1) traffic siphoning into the main roads, 2) a lack of communication/transparency in both the initial implementations as well as in the current discourse (such as the meetings and this thread)

If you are interested in having anything from a casual conversation to a semi-structured interview, please do not hesitate to reply or message me.

Thank you very much for your time.

[KidKruger]

Just read the entirety of this thread.

It?d unlikely a conversation with anyone will highlight anything not yet discussed on here.

[UndergradStudentLTN]

Interviews provide insights which a forum thread does not.

[heartblock]

Another take - The actual application seems worth funding - it lists ideas to reduce pollution outside of the LTNs - so why is this being called 'fraudulent'. Surely both Village Councillors would be in favour of the application, did they only change their minds because they realised it wasn't their two mates.

This is the problem - waved through due diligence it seems.

Of course Southwark have rather a long history of jobs for the boys ..and girls, under all colours of the political rainbow. Private Eye has many a scoop.

[slarti b]

CPR Dave Wrote:

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

I think "Clean Air Dulwich" also sometimes call themselves "Clean Air for Dulwich"

Do they? As far as I can see they are a Twitter group with a web site (well, actually a web page) both of which call themselves "Clean Air Dulwich".

As far as I can see, CAD are not an incorporated organisation of any kind. They look to be a small anonymous group of local activists who overlap heavily with groups such as Mums for Lungs and Friends of Dulwich Village Junction (sorry square). But I guess the main point is they are chums with and support local councillors Newens and Leeming, which presumably is why Newens and Leeming were happy to pay them ?6k of taxpayers money without carrying out the due diligence they were meant to do.

[heartblock]

Does anyone disagree..?promote the awareness of the need to adapt zero or low pollution means of transport (electric / hybrid vehicles and cycles) and to use public transport more? how does this then become fraud and an anti-LTN group - that is a leap by the Village Cllrs?

[Rockets]

This is exactly my point - Cllr Leeming seems keen to point out the technical flaws in the submission whilst diverting attention from/ignoring whether the submission had any merits.

I am sure it isn't the first submission made by members of the public that fell short of what was required in terms of a technicality but I wonder if it is the first such submission where people weren't asked to correct those technicalities?

Is the unmentioned technicality that it wasn't submitted by a group that the council has a cozy relationship with and uses as part of the lobbying process for its policies?

Remember when people have challenged the council before on why certain groups/ideas get funding they have always responded that those were the only groups to submit for funding as part of the process. What is the council's track record when it comes to rejecting funding outright as they have seem to have done this time?

[slarti b]

UndergradStudentLTN

Would you widen your dissertation to include the use of incorrect and misleading statistics and fradulent abuse and misrepresentation of public consultations by the council? If so, I am happy to consider corresponding.

btw I do not wish to question your credentials or motives but I am involved with another forum when this type of request is made reasonably frequently (sport, nothing to do with ED or traffic!). In that case the standard is for the applicant to give their name and the name of their academic supervisor as well as a synopsis of their study. Will you do that please?

[legalalien]

If you look back at the 2020 funding application for "Real Clean Air Dulwich" it seems to have been in the name of "Clean Air for Dulwich"

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s87448/Appendix%201.pdf

So you can see why there might be confusion. From memory the council isn't keen on paying money into individuals' bank accounts for this sort of thing.

slarti b Wrote:

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

> CPR Dave Wrote:

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

> -----

> I think "Clean Air Dulwich" also sometimes call

> themselves "Clean Air for Dulwich"

> Do they? As far as I can see they are a Twitter

> group with a web site (well, actually a web page)

> both of which call themselves "Clean Air

> Dulwich".

>

> As far as I can see, CAD are not an incorporated

> organisation of any kind. They look to be a small

> anonymous group of local activists who overlap

> heavily with groups such as Mums for Lungs and

> Friends of Dulwich Village Junction (sorry

> square). But I guess the main point is they are

> chums with and support local councillors Newens

> and Leeming, which presumably is why Newens and

> Leeming were happy to pay them ?6k of taxpayers

> money without carrying out the due diligence they

> were meant to do.

[Rockets]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Does anyone disagree..?promote the awareness of

> the need to adapt zero or low pollution means of

> transport (electric / hybrid vehicles and cycles)

> and to use public transport more? how does this

> then become fraud and an anti-LTN group - that is

> a leap by the Village Cllrs?

You forgot to add anti-democracy - which is an accusation Cllr Leeming threw at them too!

[ab29]

So basically this is pure nepotism - trying to get money for your friends and family.

[Rockets]

I think the council would suggest this is budget to further the interests of locals and local interest groups but there is certainly a fine line they are walking when it comes to pro-LTN lobby groups and their funding. Didn't the money for the Party in the Square come from this fund and they have certainly funded activities for Clean Air For Dulwich who are one of the main pro-LTN lobby groups in the area - that's when it starts to get a bit messy, when council money is being used for groups to run events and activities that support divisive council initiatives like LTNs? Especially if you refuse to fund initiatives put forward by the other side of the argument which appears to have happened in this case - (even if you are eliminating their proposal on the basis of a technicality).

[UndergradStudentLTN]

@slarti b

PM me

[Doug85]

Would also question the likelihood of Leemings' assertions that he didn't know the Clean Air Dulwich group very well, when in his own re-election statement he claims to have 'carefully and quietly built a network of campaigners and local resident groups to advocate for change in the community'.

So given he claims to have been building his own lobby groups, it's hard to believe he had so very little contact with the main LTN lobbyists in the area, who are also on Dulwich Society Transport Sub Committees, and run several Twitter lobby groups, one was once in Mums for Lungs and is best pals with Goose Green Councillors James McAsh and Charlie Smith too.

The conclusions that they green lit the ?6000 funding without any checks until Votethemout highlighted it on Twitter, forcing them to look at it again (and probably contacted by CAD themselves saying WTF!) then, in a flap refused it, has a lot of credence.

[goldilocks]

I'm not sure how much info is passed to the council in advance, but know that the meeting that was on the you tube channel is where the decision is made re funding. Often for some wards there are many more times the applications than funding so there are often things that aren't funded, or that only get partially funded. There are also things that don't get funding because they don't align with the purpose of the scheme, for example requests for things that will have an ongoing funding requirement rather than being a one off cost.

I believe that once grants are made you have to provide details of the spend in line with the objectives and the receipts if not supplied via council suppliers (eg where things like bike racks are requested i don't think people go out and source their own).

Aside from anything else, calling yourselves 'Real Clean Air for Dulwich' is a) Trumpian and b) looks hugely disingenuous, like it isn't a situation where the coincidence is just one of those things.

Also @ Rockets - looking at Clean Air Dulwich on Twitter - their bio says 'not funded by Southwark Council' so 'they have certainly funded Clean Air Dulwich' doesn't look like a 'certainty' from that.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> If you look back at the 2020 funding application

> for "Real Clean Air Dulwich" it seems to have been

> in the name of "Clean Air for Dulwich"

> https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s8744

> 8/Appendix%201.pdf

>

> So you can see why there might be confusion. From

> memory the council isn't keen on paying money into

> individuals' bank accounts for this sort of

> thing.

>

>

>

> slarti b Wrote:

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

> -----

> > CPR Dave Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > I think "Clean Air Dulwich" also sometimes

> call

> > themselves "Clean Air for Dulwich"

> > Do they? As far as I can see they are a

> Twitter

> > group with a web site (well, actually a web

> page)

> > both of which call themselves "Clean Air

> > Dulwich".

> >

> > As far as I can see, CAD are not an

> incorporated

> > organisation of any kind. They look to be a

> small

> > anonymous group of local activists who overlap

> > heavily with groups such as Mums for Lungs and

> > Friends of Dulwich Village Junction (sorry

> > square). But I guess the main point is they

> are

> > chums with and support local councillors Newens

> > and Leeming, which presumably is why Newens and

> > Leeming were happy to pay them ?6k of

> taxpayers

> > money without carrying out the due diligence

> they

> > were meant to do.

[Rockets]

Goldilocks - they have certainly applied for funding from Southwark in the past - it was referenced in the link Legal posted. I am pretty sure they got that funding from that 2020 application - does someone know whether they did or not?

If so, their claim of not being funded by Southwark council may need to change to not "currently" being funded by Southwark council.

Also, to be fair, being funded by the council is a very specific use of wording as being funded implies something very different to receiving funding from the council....;-)

I wonder if they have added that disclaimer to their twitter bio because people are questioning whether they are just a shill for the council?

[legalalien]

Sorry, by using the ?Real..? I was trying to distinguish between the original ?Clean Air for Dulwich? group which applied for funding in 2020 and which I think are the ones associated with the Clean Air Dulwich Twitter account, and the bogus?or- otherwise ?Clean Air for Dulwich? making the 2022 application. I don?t think anyone is out there calling themselves RCAFD!

From past experience groups do seem to get funding without having been at the presentation evening, I guess that may be in cases where they?re applying for funding from multiple wards, whose break out sessions are held simultaneously. Not sure what happens if the group is unable to attend altogether.

[legalalien]

Ps - gotta love google - looks as though ?500 was awarded in 2020/21 round.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/12226/South-NsF-Decision-Award-Tables-2020-21.pdf

[goldilocks]

haha - ok!

Its just that 'One Dulwich' is inexplicably 'Real One Dulwich' on twitter which always makes me think of Donald Trump so didn't seem implausible that this group would go for a similar title!

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Sorry, by using the ?Real..? I was trying to

> distinguish between the original ?Clean Air for

> Dulwich? group which applied for funding in 2020

> and which I think are the ones associated with the

> Clean Air Dulwich Twitter account, and the

> bogus?or- otherwise ?Clean Air for Dulwich? making

> the 2022 application. I don?t think anyone is out

> there calling themselves RCAFD!

>

> From past experience groups do seem to get funding

> without having been at the presentation evening, I

> guess that may be in cases where they?re applying

> for funding from multiple wards, whose break out

> sessions are held simultaneously. Not sure what

> happens if the group is unable to attend

> altogether.

[Metallic]

Anyway, back to LTN business.

[heartblock]

I know...back to LTNs - so bored of the 'just like Trump' gaslighting. Have we up to date peak traffic NOx and particulate pollution data for EDG/ Croxted? Grove Vale and LL?

Is noise pollution in dB being measured?

What are the NOx and PM peak readings at the Charter School ED and Rosendale?

[heartblock]

Mr Khan added: ?Not every LTN is perfect. But good councils engage, consult, listen to residents, businesses and schools and tweak where they need to, change where they need to.

?Some boroughs, and I can understand this, may decide that LTN scheme wasn?t fit for purpose and decide to remove it, and that is fine.?

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Ps - gotta love google - looks as though ?500 was

> awarded in 2020/21 round.

>

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/12226/S

> outh-NsF-Decision-Award-Tables-2020-21.pdf

I knew their Twitter bio claim was somewhat misleading.... interesting that they feel the need to make that claim (even though it is not entirely truthful!) - it makes you wonder how close they are to the council and whether they are a shill for the LTNs.

[ab29]

Remove LTN in Dulwich - serving a handful of people and harming local community.

[march46]

Traffic is down 12% and cycling up 61% - the schemes aren?t perfect but those are positive results.