West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, march46 said:

Good to see Lambeth continuing with their borough-wide roll-out of Healthy Neighbourhoods (aka LTNs), prioritising people over vehicles.

https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/lambeth-launches-public-engagement-on-two-new-healthy-neighbourhoodslambeth-launches-public-engagement-on-two-new-healthy-neighbourhoods/

Ha ha...are Healthy Neighbourhoods the new name for LTNs.....like renaming a night club that has an awful reputation? And is Lambeth now using an "engagement" as the new watered-down "consultation"? Correct me if I am wrong but Lambeth distinguishes between the two don't they and an engagement requires less detail - ahem, one wonders why they might be choosing that path.....

Let's see if Lambeth can make these ones lawful hey!!! 😉

5 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

even though everything in it was bollocks.

Really? The High Court  Judge doesn't seem to agree with you on that one....

 

He said that the dossier created by WDAG, which argued traffic would be pushed on to heavily congested boundary roads affecting thousands of school and nursery children, was "highly relevant to the decision confronting officers".

He said: "The 53-page presentation did not form part of the council's considerations in its decision to make the [LTN] orders. It should have done.

"The failure to have regard to it was a serious failing, rendering the decision to make the orders unlawful."

Edited Monday at 22:59 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

19 hours ago, Rockets said:

But the point I am making is they treat the decision they make as if it were a a referendum - except they are the only ones who have a vote!

That's not remotely like a referendum. 

19 hours ago, Rockets said:

Do you see the point I am making: we the council embark on a democratic consultation

Yes it's the same point you repeatedly make based on the false premise / incorrect assertion that a consultation is the same as a referendum. A consultation is about giving people an opportunity to voice their views. But it isn't a vote. Ultimately the council will still make the decision. We're a representative democracy. 

And my point is that as a tool for gathering views from a representative cross section of the community, getting feedback from a self selecting sample of (generally) the most angry people, is not very effective.

19 hours ago, Rockets said:

The judge is actually saying the consultation should have been run more like a referendum.

He absolutely did not say this, nor imply this in any way.

Edited Tuesday at 13:33 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

We're a representative democracy. 

Which is exactly why the High Court judge has ruled the West Dulwich LTN unlawful.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just to clarify, the judge upheld the claim on 1 of the 3 grounds: It found that Lambeth didn't demonstrate they'd adequately considered a 53 page presentation, before making their decision. The nonsense of this process of course, is had they shown that they'd considered it, they could still have reached the same decision quite lawfully. 

22 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Which is exactly why the High Court judge has ruled the West Dulwich LTN unlawful.

No it's not. Have you actually read the judgement?

Again, to clarify, in a representative democracy, citizens elect representatives who then make decisions on their behalf. In contrast, a direct democracy involves citizens directly participating in making decisions, often through referendums.

A consultation is NOT a referendum. 

Edited Tuesday at 13:46 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

On 12/05/2025 at 17:12, first mate said:

Penguin knows a lot about market research, so I would defer to him on how suitable a representative sample would be for the purpose of LTN and CPZ resident/ local business impacts feedback. Also whether this is even realistically achievable.

I note that I have been prayed-in-aid by first mate here – hey, thanks bro.

Professional Market and Social research firms are expert at deriving ‘representative’ samples. The bigger the population being researched, the simpler this is, of course, but for the sort of studies you are talking about – where the target population is small and probably belongs to a limited geography – there are still two key types of method.

The first is to pre-select a sample of respondents which match whatever you believe your key demographic delineators would be, and ask them the necessary questions (designed by the Research Agency, not the client, as this will certainly create bias) – the second is to randomly research respondents within your chosen geography and then back apply (re-weight) their answers to match known relevant demographics of the area – normally available from census data).

I would probably (off the top of my head) consider key demographics would include age, family status (i.e. numbers in household, number of young and teenage children) and life stage, working status (and how you travel to work), disability, car and bicycle ownership (in this instance) etc. – I would not consider relevant – again probably, sex (biological or chosen), sexual orientation, race etc. (There are good methodological reasons to include these details to show that the recruitment wasn’t biased – but I can’t see how opinions would actually differ (for this topic) as a function of these differentiators).

I’m not sure whether owning or renting your home would impact answers for this topic, but possibly the type of home owned (house, flat, maisonette) might.

As regards analysis – for market research any cell size under 60-100 would be statistically way too small. If you analysed your population into just 3 comprehensive groups (say ‘over or under 50’; ‘with small children or not’; disabled or not’) you would still only need a minimum sample of 120 to 200 – but if you wanted to analyse all together (so you could determine the number ‘over 50, not disabled and with small children’ you would need a sample size of 180-300. The problem with LTN research is that the researchable population is really quite small (comparatively).

But probably the most important thing is to ensure so far as you can that the questions are not written to lead to your chosen answer – and that means independent drafting. And not to have a self-selecting group of respondents to your questionnaire – particularly if there are no stringent tests to ensure that only eligible respondents apply. (Determining ‘eligibility’ is another issue!)

I would suggest that any research which is wholly in the hands of one ‘side’ to a question will be fatally biased. 

Finally, it wouldn't be easy, it would be expensive and still those who didn't get the answer they were hoping for wouldn't like it!
 

Edited Tuesday at 19:48 by Penguin68

[malumbu]

On 12/05/2025 at 13:14, Earl Aelfheah said:

The main opponents won't. But if you have representation from across the wider community, then their's is not the only voice to be heard. At the very least, they should swap online forms, for targeted market research, using a representative sample of the local community.

I'm still sceptical as the starting point is "something has to be done" whereas the most vocal opposition want schemes stopped, and feel that they can only go ahead if there is a referendum.  They seem to say that they are bothered by air quality, congestion, road safety and the like, but I've need seen viable alternative proposals.  OneDulwich would not engage with me when I asked.  Sunak's culture wars/'war on wokes' didn't help.  The motorists' charter did not get a lot of traction and quietly disappeared https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/29/rishi-sunak-plan-for-motorists-would-limit-travel-choices-campaigners-say   But draft guidance to local authorities along the lines of a referendum on every decision that affected motorists is one of the main arguments on the JR outcome.

Anyway, even with Labour moving to the right they have not got involved in all this, so hopefully that will remain the case.

I recall under Blair much changed for the better in taking controversial decisions forward, for example nuclear operators and government would meet with local groups, and with Greenpeace/FoE to discuss what to do with existing nuclear waste.  Something had to be done and to be it is exactly the same with reducing road traffic.  Starmer just wants to get on with stuff....  I don't see him sitting down with Reform to discuss wind farms....

Edited Tuesday at 14:34 by malumbu

[first mate]

19 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

I would suggest that any research which is wholly in the hands of one ‘side’ to a question will be fatally biased. 

Finally, it wouldn't be easy, it would be expensive and still those who didn't get the answer they were hoping for wouldn't like it!

Thanks Penguin. And I guess I have to agree with Earl that the current consultation system is not fit for purpose, in that the questions as designed by the council are clearly weighted and therefore the whole thing is flawed.

From what you say though, not sure what other options there are, except perhaps mandating council consultations are independently designed.

Quite apart from that, I go back to an original point that at least three of our councillors, one being the cabinet member for streets, are on the record stating CPZs would not be imposed without majority local support. To date, given the consultation majorities against CPZs, what is the council evidence to show they have that majority support? Also, since the process is weighted for results favourable to the council, doesn't that further highlight and underline the strength of opposition.

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Quite apart from that, I go back to an original point that at least three of our councillors, one being the cabinet member for streets, are on the record stating CPZs would not be imposed without majority local support. To date, given the consultation majorities against CPZs, what is the council evidence to show they have that majority support? Also, since the process is weighted for results favourable to the council, doesn't that further highlight and underline the strength of opposition.

If you are simply looking for whether the impacted population supports a particular proposal or not then the method is far simpler (and isn't in fact 'research' as such). Deliver a survey (with an SAE) to each household you believe is impacted with a description of what is proposed and a 'yes', 'no'' box to tick, together with a date for return. Keep a record of all those households addressed (in case there is an argument that the wrong people were asked, or the right not asked) and get an independent scrutineer to tally the answers. On the basis that those who feel strongly, at least, will send a response back you have your answer. It is, of course, a referendum (which the council hates) but it would be an absolute measure of whether, from those who care enough to participate, they have a majority or not. Any other method will not, in fact, demonstrate 'majority' support. You would need to ensure that the council does not supply multiple forms for its staff to complete, so ideally you should use an independent polling body to administer these throughout. But, since it will be every household in a limited area these could be readily hand delivered to minimise costs. I would suggest for both LTN and CPZ delivery to the streets directly impacted and to 'the next two' streets to those. A map could be provided for people to ascertain whether the net has been spread sufficiently widely, but not too wide. This would be very limited cost wise to administer, compared with the research issues I have previously adumbrated on. 

Don't hold your breath. 

Edited Tuesday at 16:13 by Penguin68

[Earl Aelfheah]

A consultation is not meant to be a yes / no vote. As you say Penguin68, that would be a referendum, not a consultation.

We live in a representative democracy. There are very good reasons for this.

[Spartacus]

So you're basically saying that a small group of people, who work for the council, and who may not live in the area should have more sway over what locals want ? 

Interesting, as only councillors are elected but council workers aren't so often it's not really representative democracy is it? 

Councillors have very little power when inserted into the council machine and they rely on council officers for most things.

Bit like the old Yes Minister relationship 

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you want a discussion about the pros and cons of representative democracy vs direct democracy that's fine, but a different conversation.

We do not live in a direct democracy. A consultation exercise is not a referendum and is not intended to be a vote. These are just facts.

If you did want to change our entire system of local government to one of direct democracy (where referenda are held on every local matter), you would not run them in the same way as these consultation exercises.

[Rockets]

But I think we can all agree the current consultation method is so flawed that it has basically become a pointless exercise. The problem for councils is that for decades they have been able to manipulate the process (if they needed to) because no-one really cared and there was no scrutiny. Then they continue that process for active travel which has massive impacts on people's lives and suddenly a lot of people go...huh, that's not a democratic process. And then councils like Lambeth do what they do and people, quite rightly say, see...we told you they were gaming the system - and that narrative sticks. And Lambeth were gaming the system - just as Southwark were (just that Southwark have yet to get caught). They know it and everyone else, no matter what side they are on, know that councils have been using and gaming the system to their advantage. Councils are finally reaping what they sowed.

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If you want a discussion about the pros and cons of representative democracy vs direct democracy that's fine, but a different conversation.

We do not live in a direct democracy. A consultation exercise is not a referendum and is not intended to be a vote. These are just facts.

If you did want to change our entire system of local government to one of direct democracy (where referenda are held on every local matter), you would not run them in the same way as these consultation exercises.

For most services: waste, housing, social care, and so on, the council isn't making sweeping changes so no need  for referendums in local matters but when major changes are introduced , for exanple use of green spaces for commercial ventures, changes to how public realm is used (parks, CPZs, LTNs, Library services...) then yes a public referendum might be needed rather then a few council officers deciding what they want and then ignoring public opinion. 

Yes, there are local elections but they just change the councillors not the officers and we all can see where the real power on councils sit, it's not with the councillors.

So therefore a referendum on how are roads are used is possibly needed as local people are the ones using them  not council officers in their ivory towers who possibly only visit the area when they want to do a survey or have a meeting.

Having data is not the same as physically observing the impact (lesson 101 in analytics) 

[Penguin68]

I think it would be possible to argue that a consultation should be used to get an overall sense of direction - should the council focus on addressing 'a' or 'b'  for instance, whereas when you are asking a direct question about a specific action impacting a limited number of people then a 'referendum' - 'should this road be a CPZ?' -  is actually more appropriate and honest.

Using a weasel 'consultation' when what you mean is -  'if you don't come up with our answer we'll ignore you' is simply a method of dictatorship - which is not normally a component of representative democracy - rather more a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' so favoured by our elected representatives who have chosen to remove the word 'Marxist' from their personal description because it might frighten the horses!

[vladi]

On 05/09/2024 at 10:58, Penguin68 said:

Pollution levels (as regards car emissions) have already been substantially reduced through the ULEZ imposition locally (or the Mayor's claims are lies) - cars now having to drive longer will only add to short journey emission problems. Actually, pollution caused by private vehicles is substantially reduced anyway across London, and is far less in an area which might be considered an 'outer' suburb - as the old borough of Camberwell was compared to the old 'inner' borough of Southwark. South Lambeth is in the same position. The arguments about comparatively poor provision of public transport hold for West Dulwich as for other parts of Dulwich. And we know that locally LTN introduction has just forced traffic into other areas, as this almost certainly also will, simply shifting, and not alleviating whatever pollution issues remain. Note that LTNs in London have never, yet, exempted electric vehicles from their grasp.

Can you quote any statistics in any detail - particularly for those roads which are no more congested because of the traffic diverted on to them by the LTN?

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

The problem for councils is that for decades they have been able to manipulate the process (if they needed to) because no-one really cared and there was no scrutiny

They don't need to 'manipulate the process'. Again, you're misunderstanding the point of the consultation. It's not for the public to vote on the outcome. It's for the council to solicit a broad range of views to consider before they make a decision. Again, it is not a referendum.

The problem with the current approach to consultation is that it does not solicit a broad range of views. It attracts the views of those who are most exercised by an issue - usually in opposition to a proposed change. That's why market research which canvases opinions from a representative sample of residents is probably more helpful in terms of consultation (getting input from people with different interests / views). 

Referenda are not good when it comes to local change, because they would invariably lead to no change at all. Ever. 

Edited Wednesday at 11:31 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

And referendums daft on a national level.  

[Penguin68]

39 minutes ago, vladi said:

Can you quote any statistics in any detail - particularly for those roads which are no more congested because of the traffic diverted on to them by the LTN?

I wrote this on 5th September 2024, eight months ago - I do not have access to any current figures - the past is hardly of relevance now.

[Rockets]

48 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They don't need to 'manipulate the process'. Again, you're misunderstanding the point of the consultation.

No I am not. It is clear from guidance given to local authorities on what a consultation should be and it is clear that councils have been able to manipulate the process.

 

https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/communications-and-community-engagement/resident-communications/understanding-views-2

What is consultation?

Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set.

 

Lambeth fell foul of this because they did not listen to or learn from local people. Southwark have been doing exactly the same. For too long councils have been treating it as nothing more than a box ticking exercise. Perhaps now they will be forced to engage more and do more listening and learning.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

I think it would be possible to argue that a consultation should be used to get an overall sense of direction - should the council focus on addressing 'a' or 'b'  for instance, whereas when you are asking a direct question about a specific action impacting a limited number of people then a 'referendum' - 'should this road be a CPZ?' -  is actually more appropriate and honest.

Using a weasel 'consultation' when what you mean is -  'if you don't come up with our answer we'll ignore you' is simply a method of dictatorship - which is not normally a component of representative democracy - rather more a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' so favoured by our elected representatives who have chosen to remove the word 'Marxist' from their personal description because it might frighten the horses!

Having elected representatives who then make decisions on behalf of the electorate is our entire system of government. We do not live in a dictatorship. 

2 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions.

Influencing decisions, not making them. A consultation is not a vote. It is not a referendum. The council may decide for example that it’s important to prioritise the needs of a minority, or to pursue an unpopular initiative in pursuit of a wider policy aim. There are many good reasons why we don’t live in a direct democracy, which I’ll happily debate if you want to start a thread on it.

[Spartacus]

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Having elected representatives who then make decisions on behalf of the electorate is our entire system of government. We do not live in a dictatorship

But, the real decision makers,  those who make the recommendations  aren't elected are they ? 

That's where it all falls down 

[Earl Aelfheah]

There are good reasons why we don’t just ask the people what they want on every topic. Again, this is a different discussion about the pros and cons of different democratic systems, suffice to say, a local consultation is not intended to be a referendum.

[Rockets]

But @Earl Aelfheah hand on heart, can you say that Southwark has been "listening to, and learning from" the results of their various LTN and CPZ consultations?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I have already said that I don’t think these consultation exercises are particularly helpful. But it’s pointless criticising them on the grounds that they make for a bad referendum.

2 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But @Earl Aelfheah hand on heart, can you say that Southwark has been "listening to, and learning from" the results of their various LTN and CPZ consultations?

Well they have dropped some plans and made changes to others on the basis of consultation responses. I agree that they haven’t treated their consultation exercises as referenda.

[Rockets]

3 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Well they have dropped some plans and made changes to others on the basis of consultation responses. I agree that they haven’t treated their consultation exercises as referenda.

But given the weight of over-whelming and compelling negative consultation feedback from local people have they really engaged in the spirit of the guidance on consultations? Have they really "listened to" and "learned from" the consultations?