Jump to content

LTN Discussion

Administrator

By Administrator
in Roads & Transport

 Share

Recommended Posts

CPR Dave

CPR Dave

Posted
Posted

If someone in my organisation went around making it known they "wanted blood" they would be pulled aside and put on a training programme to learn to respect others.


If it came about as a second offence shortly after they'd been called out for intimidating others to the point they were reduced to tears, then the bully would be ejected without notice. It's toxic behavior that just would not be tolerated in our (high pressure, high performing) environment.


We deserve a lot better than this.


These people are supposed to be public servants. Addressing other public and civil servants in a way that evokes this kind of language in a format that ends up on public record is absolutely appalling and should not be tolerated.

Rockets

Rockets

Posted
Posted

This was in October 2022 too. Doesn't that post date the intervention by the TfL cycling Tszar who had to tell them to dial down the bullying?

 

Yes the fact that Will Norman stepped in to try and get the council/councillors to stop upsetting TFL staff and now Dale talks about the councillors still "wanting blood" is a very worrying sign. It suggests that the disfunction caused by the toxicity between council/councillors and TFL is still very much there and, ultimately, it is us who suffer when two public bodies fall out so spectacularly as it hinders their ability to deliver programmes.


I wonder if more will be uncovered in the coming weeks in relation to the 10-tonne block - could be a goldmine of info waiting for an FOI if parts of the council thought it was the wrong thing to do.


Does anyone ever hear from our local councillors any more - have they provided any commentary on any of this?

Rockets

Rockets

Posted
Posted
Can't help but ponder whether the Turney Road closures might be part of the war the councillors are waging with TFL - those closures came completely out of the blue, seemingly at the behest of no-one, so I wonder what the catalyst was and whether it is the councillors trying to assert their authority?
legalalien

legalalien

Posted
Posted

Quick reminder that the petition regarding emergency service and blue badge access at Court Lane/ Calton is on the agenda for today’s 11 am Cabinet meeting.


https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s110558/Report%20Petition%20Calton%20Avenue%20and%20Court%20Lane%20Access.pdf


I believe it will be live-streamed on you tube with a link to watch later.


As a sometime critic of some of the ways the council seems to go about things I was very pleased to see another agenda item regarding a senior council reorganisation which seems to focus on better governance and finding some efficiencies in corporate areas. Presumably this has been instigated by the recently appointed CEO. I like the sound of it.


https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s110727/Appendix%20A%20Senior%20Management%20Update.pdf

first mate

first mate

Posted
Posted

Have just watched section on Calton Ave and disgusted by the way the Chair and Cllr Rose simply steamrollered their way through.


Having seen Rose almost lose it with Clive Rates, red in the face and yelling at him for allegedly 'mansplaining" you do begin to wonder if she is a regular yeller at anyone who dares question or disagree with her?! She certainly knows how to play dirty in a public forum.


In this instance, Cabinet seemed totally biased, unwilling to listen and the Chair did everything he could to undermine the veracity of the petition and more or less stated that the sitting council are determined to continue course based on a perceived 'mandate' re the last council election (though we know, as Clive stated today, LTNs were not mentioned at the time in the manifesto). The Chair more or less dismissed the petition presented today as nothing more than the the work of local Tory opposition.


This is not democracy at work at all. It made me feel really uncomfortable.

legalalien

legalalien

Posted
Posted

For anyone who wants to watch the relevant bit:




From around 28 mins.


As someone who is relatively feminist it does irk me when people throw around the word "mansplaining" when people are just expressing an opposing view.


My take, as always, is that local government in this country is far too party political. I got the impression that the council leader really does believe that this is some sort of Tory party initiative, and I think perhaps he has that the wrong way around - my impression is that Clive and the other guy (whose name I have temporarily forgotten) stood for the Tories because they wanted to argue about the junction, rather than are arguing about the junction in order to make Labour look bad. Of course I can't be sure about that.


Tristan? Tristram?

Bic Basher

Bic Basher

Posted
Posted

Quite frankly Catherine Rose isn't fit for office. The Labour cabinet members were more interested in exposing the fact that the two petitioners are Conservative members who participated in the last election rather than listening to what residents had told them.


There was nothing remotely sexist in what they asked Cllr Rose to do regarding consulting residents about LTN and shows that certain Cllrs on the council are stuck with their ideological viewpoint rather than resolving issues for all residents.


The fact Rose used that slur against those two men when there is real sexism in politics affecting both sexes was a distraction technique to detract from the real issues that Southwark Labour continue to ignore when they have a majority to run the council as a fiefdom.

Penguin68

Penguin68

Posted
Posted

Rose and Williams, but especially the former, came over as defensive and prickly to the extent I felt what has Rose got to hide?

 

They both know, very clearly, that they have overridden the expressed wishes of those residents who have responded to their twisted surveys (I write this as a former member of the Market Research Society who does understand how to write both good and bad questionnaires) - even where they are at pains to say that a consultation is not a referendum (and I wonder whether they would have said that should be public have supported them in their actions - I rather think not!)


They must also know that their claimed 'statistics' in support of the benefit of their actions have been challenged - and in some instances by TFL - not a former Tory Candidate (and should former Labour candidates be excluded from attacking the actions of Conservative Councils?)


They must also be worried that some of their actions may still be open to legal challenge - it is clear that the Council has breached its own advisory codes on where LTNs would best be positioned (regarding the availability of public transport criteria which it set itself).

Bic Basher

Bic Basher

Posted
Posted

Southwark Labour's whole mantra appears to be "we know what's best for you when you don't" which in some cases can be helpful, but in this instance, they've got it completely wrong.


Making Tories look good in this climate is virtually impossible, but Kieron Williams and Catherine Rose achieved that today and I respect Clive and Tristan for keeping to their mandate of sticking to the question and not points scoring for political gain.

Rockets

Rockets

Posted
Posted

Cllr Williams was bang out of order for what he said at the beginning - wholly unprofessional but what do we expect from our councillors - everyone knows they were the Tory candidates but it's almost as if Cllr Williams wanted to pre-load the answers and discussion with "but you're Tories" when they made it clear they are residents? Anyone who needs to get a dig in early like that knows that they don't have a rational argument to counter and it is actually shocking that Cllr Williams felt it necessary to take it down that path (although I actually think the two Tory candidates should have had one less of them and one of the resident association leads instead so Cllr Williams couldn't play his card).


But both of them make very clear and rational arguments that deserved a response from the councillors.


Instead we got Cllr Rose not appearing completely convinced in the stats she regurgitated as she filibuster'd from her prepared comments...and her "mansplaining" moment is just embarrassing and very cringe-worthy - her body language is so aggressive - the banging the table beforehand (but given what happened with TFL this seems to be the go-to place for councillors when faced with people who don't agree with them or oppose their view of the world - shout, scream and make accusations to try to unsettle their opponent).


The council may not be on the ropes but they are heading towards them in regard to Dulwich Village closures and you can see why they continue to hide and not engage residents in regard to these matters - they are terrified of facing residents with a view that is opposite to theirs because they have no answers - it's why neither Newens nor Leeming bothered to attend the RA meeting - again they felt, as Cllr Williams did, the need to attack the motives instead of having the conviction and guts to attend and engage.


Shameful, cowardly and politically weak behaviour and it will catch-up with them all eventually because it is clear they can't make this issue go away.

Rockets

Rockets

Posted
Posted

What a shocker. That really gives me no confidence in Southwark at all. As for shouty woman, Catherine Rose, how rude!


It's also true that the Labour Party Councillors Newens and Leeming in their numerous leafleting did not mention the LTN's once!

 

Labour went out of their way to avoid mentioning LTNs in their campaigning during the local elections so utterly disingenuous for Cllr Williams to suggest the election was won on the subject.


Revisionism politics at it's finest, I will give him that!

heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted
Well... not impressed by the Labour Councillors and shocked by Cllr. Rose outburst. As a former LP member and voter - I am made happier every day since leaving the local LP. The utter arrogance of these people. I will never vote Tory, but I have to say the two representing local residents acted professionally and politely, despite the shouty person.
ab29

ab29

Posted
Posted

Local councillor says public meeting did not “enhance consultation”


A Southwark News report on the November meeting set up by five local residents’ associations to discuss the surprise closure of Turney Road quotes Cllr Margy Newens – who didn’t attend – as saying, “A meeting organised by a particular interest group at this stage is not a forum where everyone can contribute to the discussion equally and, as such, does not enhance the process of consultation.”


It’s a shame that local councillors themselves didn’t get round to organising a public meeting where residents and businesses could express their views.


Council leader dismisses Blue Badge petition


A petition signed by more than 600 people to allow Blue Badge holders through the re-designed Dulwich Village junction was heard at the Council’s cabinet meeting on 6 December. See the YouTube recording here (it begins at 28 minutes in, and lasts for 20 minutes). Cllr Rose’s table-thumping response begins at 36:00, and reaches its extraordinary climax at 44:45.


Separately, Blue Badge holders have written to Leader of the Council Cllr Kieron Williams, pleading to be allowed access through the Dulwich Village junction. This follows a failure by the Council to hold meetings with Blue Badge holders to carry out a survey of their needs. So far no response has been received.


The vital discussion about exemptions through LTNs for Blue Badge holders is going on in other areas of London too. See a Twitter thread from a Haringey Labour councillor, explaining why access for Blue Badge holders is so important, here.


No response from MP Helen Hayes


As we said in our last campaign update, we wrote to our local MP Helen Hayes on 22 November, following MP Andy Carter’s adjournment debate in the House of Commons, asking her to represent and champion her constituents’ needs, not just raise their concerns, at a national level. So far we have received no response.


At one point in our update, we referred to Richard Holden MP, parliamentary under-secretary of state for roads and transport, as Robert Holden. Thanks to those of you who alerted us to our mistake.

legalalien

legalalien

Posted
Posted

Here’s an update on the council’s

proposed changes to Bellenden Road as part of the Southwark Spine.


https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50030873


Looking at the objections, there seem to be problems from various perspectives


(I) shops concerned about reduced parking and the effect on business and current customers concerned about access - the council report seems slightly more accommodating to businesses than the Dulwich closure one did, at least referring to the Local Economy team for monitoring rather than the usual blanket assertion that active travel will potentially increase footfall)


(ii) those in favour of an LTN in the area saying that this doesn’t go far enough, and than increased traffic calming is solving the wrong problem - the issue is volume of traffic not speed of traffic and LTNs are the only way to achieve that


(iii) potential for increased problems for cyclists and pedestrians as a result of the specifics


(iv) council has decreased the time restrictions on loading in response to business concerns but others wanted them increased to address cyclist concerns, and also extended to weekends.


Not sure what to think as I only walk there occasionally during the daytime on weekdays when not much traffic. But thought others might be interested.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...