West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[Earl Aelfheah]

Well if Southwark drop a proposal and alter others following consultation, then it self evidently does factor in to their decision making.

9 minutes ago, Rockets said:

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?

Again, you are implying that responses to a consultation exercise should be treated as a referendum.

[Spartacus]

Simple question Earl 

What's the point in a consultation if the results are dismissed ? 

Something that so obviously happened in Lambeth and appears to have occurred in Southwark 

Edited May 14 by Spartacus

[first mate]

But we must also consider that Dulwich Councillors, one being the Cabinet Member for Streets etc have stated that without local majority support- meaning residents- CPZ' would not be actioned. So, what is the evidence that local CPZ' have local majority support?

 

[Rockets]

35 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Again, you are implying that responses to a consultation exercise should be treated as a referendum.

No, it's clear what I am asking you and clear why you don't want to answer.....

[Penguin68]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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

That is absolutely not true - a number of CPZ's (not locally) were begged for by local residents because of real parking pressures, and when granted were applauded. I am sure there are LTNs (again not locally) which have genuinely reduced overall air pollution because traffic was not simply transferred and have led to benefits. Change can and does happen - but when the 'change' is about giving councils more revenue gouging opportunities, by further squeezing residents, for no perceived benefit - but are sold as something else entirely, then change is indeed resisted.  Democracy does not automatically resist all changes, just the ones that electors don't actually want. But, if you're frightened of democracy....

Edited May 14 by Penguin68

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

What's the point in a consultation if the results are dismissed ? 

Again, the question suggests that you've misunderstood the purpose of a consultation. Results are considered, in the context of expert advice, a wider policy agenda and the need to balance minority interests. It is intended to give an opportunity for people to influence decisions not make them. The 'majority view' expressed in responses from a self selecting sample of people, doesn't determine the decision, it just informs it. I don't know how else to explain that It is not intended to be a referendum.

55 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

But, if you're frightened of democracy....

I am not frightened of democracy at all. I have just taken the time to understand our system of democracy.

Complaining about a consultation exercise on the grounds that it hasn't been treated as a referendum is a poor argument. There are better ones.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

No, it's clear what I am asking you and clear why you don't want to answer.....

I have answered. The fact that Southwark have scrapped whole schemes and made changes to others, based on feedback, shows that they do consider responses. That they do not treat consultation as a referendum, enacting the 'result' as if it were a straight forward vote, is not surprising. They treat consultation feedback as one input into the decision making process that ultimately they are accountable for.

This thread perfectly illustrates why consultations aren't (imo) very constructive or helpful.

Edited May 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Lordie Earl, you do sound like a council officer when you respond 😅

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The fact that Southwark have scrapped whole schemes and made changes to others, based on feedback, shows that they do consider responses.

Which schemes did they scrap - are you referring to the area-wide CPZ? Can you give us examples where changes made truly reflected the feedback gathered from the residents because if you the classic "we listened to you, ahem, on the basis of a consultation that was designed not to allow you to say no but forced you to choose between a variety of A, B, C, D options - none of which you actually agreed with. "

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

That they do not treat consultation as a referendum, enacting the 'result' as if it were a straight forward vote, is not surprising.

No but they do treat it like they are the only ones with a vote so ultimately it is a referendum of sorts!

Look at the Townley CPZ - no-one wanted it, no-one needed it and I suspect the only impact assessment they did was assessing how much parking pressure it would create on surrounding roads and how quickly they could get another CPZ in on the basis of it.....as part of their revised area-wide (street-by-street) CPZ plan......that's not listening to the consultation....

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I am not frightened of democracy at all.

A lot of councils do seem to be....they're utterly terrified that constituents won't think their ideas are good ones so they run consultations where they have been able to run rough-shod over the view of constituents. And now one of them has been caught red-handed and a group of residents had to raise money to challenge the council in the High Court to force them to do what they are expected to do. That's no democracy - that's a shameful abuse of power.

[Earl Aelfheah]

39 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Which schemes did they scrap - are you referring to the area-wide CPZ?

The changes proposed to Turney Road.

39 minutes ago, Rockets said:

and I suspect the only impact assessment they did

Rather than 'suspecting', why don't you check before insinuating something you do not know to be true?

39 minutes ago, Rockets said:

they do treat it like they are the only ones with a vote so ultimately it is a referendum of sorts

This is not remotely a referendum. Is every decision you take the result of a referendum, because it's a one person 'vote'? This is the same point you made earlier and it doesn't become any more coherent with repetition.

39 minutes ago, Rockets said:

A lot of councils do seem to be....they're utterly terrified that constituents won't think their ideas are good ones so they run consultations

Again, you misunderstand what a consultation is and you misunderstand how a representative democracy works. Whether you agree with them or not, whether you like them or not, our councillors are elected. 

There is nothing undemocratic about elected representatives making decisions on behalf of their constituents; Even unpopular decisions.

Edited May 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

59 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Lordie Earl, you do sound like a council officer when you respond 😅

I expect that Earl, Ex and no doubt some others are pretty knowledgeable on the subject and take time to read up. I doubt if any of us work for Southwark, I don't and have no connections.  I expect we are also keen to learn; whilst disappointed with one element of the JR I'm interested to see how this pans out.  I don't think that this will affect other but we shall see.

What bothers me when I get up in the morning?  Exactly what I am seeing on the News at this moment (Palastine), other global conflict, the lurch to the right, climate change.  Not closed roads and road user behaviour.  That doesn't mean that I am not concerned about air quality, road safety and the like having worked in this field for more than a decade 

Of course the lurch to the right affects what happens at a local level.

[Rockets]

6 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I doubt if any of us work for Southwark, I don't and have no connections.

Southwark councillors do have a history of masquerading as members of the public so I wouldn't put it passed them! 😉

35 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Rather than 'suspecting', why don't you check before insinuating something you do not know to be true?

Because it was clearly said with my tongue clearly in my cheek......!!!! 

35 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The changes proposed to Turney Road.

Ha ha, they didn't propose the changes though did they - the original plans were so expensive they got laughed out of the room.....

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Lordie Earl, you do sound like a council officer when you respond 😅

Why? I’ve not said I think the consultation process is a good one. I’ve actually said the exact opposite. 

If you think I’m ‘sticking up’ for the council, because I’ve clarified how our process of local governance works and the difference between a consultation and a referendum, I can’t help you. These are just matters of fact, whether you ‘like’ them or not is irrelevant.

I said that I don’t see the point of these consultations and I’ve suggested some alternatives, but I’m not going to criticise them for not being something they don’t claim to be. That's just dumb.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Southwark councillors do have a history of masquerading as members of the public so I wouldn't put it passed them!

I have nothing to do with the council. I suspect you know this, but you just can’t resist a conspiracy theory eh?

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Because it was clearly said with my tongue clearly in my cheek......!!!! 

No it wasn’t. You do this a lot. It’s very, very easy to check if an impact assessment has been done (which of course it has been). Again, there are plenty of legitimate grounds on which to critique the council, without making stuff up.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha, they didn't propose the changes though did they - the original plans were so expensive they got laughed out of the room.....

I don’t know. I’m not obsessive about this stuff like you, but my recollection is that they scrapped the scheme because of local opposition following the consultation - that’s certainly how it was reported. Either way it doesn’t change the substantive point; Southwark have made changes to proposals on the basis of feedback received through consultation, so it is demonstrably untrue that they take no account of feedback. Obviously one can debate whether or not they take enough account of it.

Again, they are not obliged to implement changes based on the majority sentiment expressed in a consultation. It is not a referendum however much you want to pretend it is, or want it to be, this is not how it works.

There are still objective realities.

Edited May 14 by Earl Aelfheah
To add link to Telegraph article

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah the Turney Road closure was the one Southwark asked TFL £1.8m for and TFL said….go away. So that had nothing to do with the consultation or listening to their constituents. Do you have any others where you think the council made significant changes based on consultation feedback?

 

And I can assure you Southwark councillors masquerading as members of the public to pour scorn on those who dare oppose their plans is not a conspiracy theory…https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/exclusive-former-southwark-housing-chief-leo-pollak-broke-councils-code-of-conduct-but-no-action-to-be-taken/

[Earl Aelfheah]

8 hours ago, Rockets said:

the Turney Road closure was the one Southwark asked TFL £1.8m for and TFL said….go away. So that had nothing to do with the consultation or listening to their constituents.

Are you sure that's not one of your conspiracy theories. It's certainly not how it was reported: Southwark Council has scrapped plans to close Turney Road to traffic after local residents gave them the thumbs down

…and: Southwark council has been forced to scrap plans to introduce a new low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) following a backlash from residents

….. and: South London council scraps planned LTN after huge outcry from residents

There are plenty of examples of schemes being altered as the result of feedback / consultation exercises. So whether or not you think the council listen adequately, it is self evidently untrue to say they take no account of them at all.

I think these consultation exercises are unhelpful; and one way in which this is the case is being demonstrated on this thread. They are not intended to be a vote on whether or not a scheme should proceed, yet this is what many people believe. The responses are weighted towards the most vociferous views, which are disproportionately amplified and then inevitably disappointed when a decision is made which remotely attempts to balance the needs of a broader range of stakeholders.

Personally I would rather the council run some focus groups and do some market research / canvas a representative sample to understand local views; then make a decision. It would create less 'noise', enable better informed decision making, and ultimately be less divisive imo. 

Edited May 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Personally, I would rather councils did not go full steam ahead on effecting major changes to residential streets without any evidence of a majority or mandate to make those changes. Especially when they have promised residents that changes would not occur without majority support.

I also think P68 explained how local views could be sought and given, accurately and without major expense. 

Edited May 15 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 minutes ago, first mate said:

I also think P68 explained how local views could be sought and given, accurately and without major expense.

Could you summarise? I thought he explained how you would use representative sampling, which is exactly what I’ve suggested. Perhaps I missed something?

15 minutes ago, first mate said:

Personally, I would rather councils did not go full steam ahead on effecting major changes to residential streets without any evidence of a majority

Again they don’t need majority support for every scheme. A consultation is not a referendum and we live in a representative democracy. Seriously, Google how a representative democracy works, it might help.

[first mate]

Earl, explain why councillors promised CPZ' would not be put in without local majority support? Explain what system or mechanism they could possibly be referring to evidence that local majority support? Or, were they all just lying through their back teeth?
 

 

Penguin 68 said:

 

•  Tuesday at 17:12 (edited)
   

"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."

Edited May 15 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

Oh ok. So you’re not discussing how to improve the process of consultation, you’re calling for direct democracy and regular referenda.

Happy to discuss the pros and cons of direct democracy vs representative democracy, but it’s a completely different debate about whether we should change our system of government. Feel free to start a thread in the lounge.

There is very little point criticising a consultation based on the fact that it isn’t a referendum.

Edited May 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

You've avoided the question. When councillors promised there would be no CPZ without majority local support, what were they referring to? 
 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think it’s self evident what that means. What are you suggesting, that it amounts to a promise of a referendum? Seems like a stupid thing for them to say if they did. Not sure why you think I need to account for it. Again, I don’t work for the council, or consider them particularly competent frankly.

[Penguin68]

When it comes to proposals to alter the conditions of particular streets, and particularly introducing a CPZ then a 'referendum' or something similarly accurate is required. May I remind you that the only legal reason to introduce a CPZ is where local residents, suffering from parking pressure, request one. That may be where a majority in an affected street petition the council (in which case, if it is a majority of households no further measurement is required) or where, e.g. a council may have recognised parking pressure, or it has been notified to them, when they need to test (under law) whether this impacts a majority of those in the streets so identified. Revenues derived from CPZs must be set so that the costs of administration (only) are covered, and any unplanned surplus must be devoted to street style expenditure. The council cannot, in fact, under law institute a CPZ where it is not requested by householders - you might imagine a situation (which is Southwark's objective) when no one in a street owns a car and, however much it is parked up by 'foreigners' it isn't causing a problem. Parking places are not considered legally to be a milch cow for councils.

So yes, when at least it comes to CPZs actual numbers supporting the proposal, of impacted households, do matter. A lying council 'consultation' is not sufficient under law.

Edited May 15 by Penguin68

[exdulwicher]

4 hours ago, first mate said:

Personally, I would rather councils did not go full steam ahead on effecting major changes to residential streets without any evidence of a majority or mandate to make those changes. Especially when they have promised residents that changes would not occur without majority support.

The council were voted in on a manifesto. That means they've been given tacit support for at least the broad brush promises made in that manifesto, they should not then need to seek yes/no answers to everything they do. 

Consultations are a tricky one. Done well, they can engage and bring the community along on a journey. Done badly, they're a major source of distrust, anger and misunderstanding. 

Part of it is down to the questions you ask. Asking people who are not policy experts questions such as "what would you like to see?" is painful - people don't know that or they can't imagine that. Steve Jobs famously said that he never asked the customers what they wanted because most people don't know.
If he'd have asked people what they wanted before they invented the iPhone, the answer would have been "a phone with a longer cord". 
If he'd have asked people what they wanted before they invented the iPod, the answer would have been "a Walkman with longer battery life".
They're pointless questions that can only ever give worthless answers. 

And when you don't deliver a Walkman with longer battery life, people go "what is this, I didn't ask for this" and get angry and frustrated that they've wasted their time on engagement but not been given the solution they wanted - even though an iPod is a vast improvement on a Walkman with longer battery life.

And what the council should be doing is designing the borough equivalent of an iPod. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

When it comes to proposals to alter the conditions of particular streets, and particularly introducing a CPZ then a 'referendum' or something similarly accurate is required

Don't think this is correct, fairly sure the usual consultation requirements apply. Could be wrong of course, but I would be interested where you have got this information from.

Edited May 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[Glemham]

A very balanced article about LTNs from a Guardian journalist who lives in Lambeth. His point about public transport in South London is well made. Local councillors and MPs have failed to lobby for improvements. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/14/low-traffic-neighbourhood-ltn-lambeth-culture-war?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Earl Aelfheah]

29 minutes ago, Glemham said:

A very balanced article about LTNs from a Guardian journalist who lives in Lambeth. His point about public transport in South London is well made. Local councillors and MPs have failed to lobby for improvements. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/14/low-traffic-neighbourhood-ltn-lambeth-culture-war?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

It's not remotely balanced. It starts with the following opening sentence:

"Should cars be illegal? Are drivers evil? The way some councils have been imposing “low-traffic neighbourhoods” over the past five years, it seems their leaders definitely think so."

Really? Council leaders 'definitely' think cars should be illegal and drivers are evil? Hyperbole much?

Edited May 15 by Earl Aelfheah