West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[Earl Aelfheah]

Like I say, there is no process of consultation that you would have considered adequate, except one that resulted in keeping a queue of cars where the square now is. But luckily the improvements did go ahead and the village is a lot better for it. This many years on, your continued obsession with it really does feel quite unhealthy. 

[Penguin68]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Again, if I've got that wrong, please do point me in the right direction.

Ths from Lewisham's (https://lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/parking/permits/planning-and-design-of-cpzs) own documents:-

'If a decision is taken to proceed with the introduction of a new controlled parking zone, a statutory consultation will be carried out for the making of Traffic Management Orders – this is the formal process used to make changes to parking arrangements. The statutory consultation period will provide residents and businesses with a further opportunity to provide comments or register objections to the proposals. These will be considered and responded to in a delegated authority report by officers and a decision will be issued about whether to proceed with the making of Traffic Management Orders for the controlled parking zone.'

And from Waltham Forest  https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/parking-permits-and-suspensions/controlled-parking-zones-cpzs

'New controlled parking zones schemes are created as funding allows and only in areas where a public consultation has been carried out and a majority of responses are in support of the proposals.'

And other councils also have similar processes, but note the word Statutory here. Certainly, they also use the word 'consultation', but I suggest that a consultation which failed to show any statistical evidence of support, and where objectors could demonstrate the opposite  would be readily challengeable. Again, CPZs are aimed to relieve parking pressure problems for residents, not to raise revenue for councils - (which is why residents can petition for their introduction). They are (pace a remark which I think has now been amended) the very definition of NIMBY-ism - as residents don't want 'foreign' cars in their 'back-yards'. 

[exdulwicher]

34 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I kindly suggest you refresh your memory and take a stroll down the old LTN discussion to remind yourself just how many of us had issues with the way the Southwark consultations were being run - many of which were, not surprisingly, flagged as issues the West Dulwich group had in relation to how Lambeth were running their consultations - many of which the judge had issues with too!

Over the course of about 10 years there were at least 4 consultations on Dulwich Square which finally ended with the only design that could actually meet the original brief. One of the early reports (2016? 2017?) gave 3 options:
what the council went with
something about multiple roundabouts which I think actually referenced a scheme in Poynton (a village near Manchester which, again after extensive back and forth, finally installed (sorry, "imposed"...) a weird double roundabout system which, depending on your point of view is either a brilliantly innovative success or a total disaster - absolute proof that you will NEVER achieve any sort of consensus).
a couple of other vague half-way-house type options

In 2018, after all of that consultation, a bunch of re-prioritisation, new road markings, some buildouts etc went in - a scheme which failed all of TfL's route guidance but which apparently satisfied some of the NIMBY issues.

Back to the drawing board for yet more consultations, in 2019 there were 3 phases of consultations over about 18 months which then ran up against Covid and the change of plans anyway but did allow Southwark (and numerous other councils around the country) to rapidly deliver on Streetspace plans which all had live feedback consultation.

Out of Covid and in 2021 there was yet more consultation, the scheme finally made permanent but with watered-down aspects to appease the Onesies. Then it was council elections - remember that, where the Tory boy standing on a specific "rip out the LTNs on Day 1" was going to annihilate the "Socialist Labour Clowncil", send them running for the hills?

Just remind me how that went will you? Cos it was hilarious. And then miraculously, he turned up an a council meeting, this time as the "spokesperson for One Dulwich" - well I never. Claiming to "represent the community" And he got his arse handed to him on a plate when it was pointed out that the actual community representative was - gosh - the elected councillor, not him. More hilarity.

That should have been the end of it but Southwark then embarked on another 18 months of consultation around final design which One Dulwich did everything possible to disrupt and water down before finally, there's a completed scheme.

So yes - you have been endlessly consulted. Repeated extra consultations. You cannot argue that you have not been consulted. You can get upset that the majority did not agree with you but not about the consultation.

Edited Friday at 11:17 by exdulwicher
grammar

[Rockets]

But @exdulwicher our concerns about how the consultations were being run are very similar to many of the things raised in this case and many of which the judge had issue with..are they not?

Clearly, by all of the reactions on this thread, this High Court decision has upset a few folks.....imagine what might happen if the learnings from this case are applied to others and more are deemed unlawful.

Bottom line is some councils have clearly manipulate these consultation processes to ensure they can roll out their plans and keep the lobbyists happy. Many many people do not agree with the way councils have conducted themselves and they have shone a light on the underhand tactics used by councils. Hopefully councils will never be able to get away with it again and more people will now try to hold them accountable for their actions. Some never will because they have a vested interest in turning a blind eye and trying to demonise anyone who dares call them out.

Already we have seen Southwark re-run consultations and change the way they do things - this has to be welcomed. Anyone who argues this is a bad thing is clearly putting their own motivations and agenda ahead of what is good, right and moral - but as we know sometimes people can't take a step back when they become obsessed with an ideological fanatacism....(cue the usual suspects saying "that's rich coming from you" because they somehow believe they have the moral high-ground)!

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

And other councils also have similar processes, but note the word Statutory here. Certainly, they also use the word 'consultation', but I suggest that a consultation which failed to show any statistical evidence of support, and where objectors could demonstrate the opposite  would be readily challengeable

I can't find anywhere where it says there must be majority support as a matter of statutory guidance or law. Some councils clearly do have a policy of only installing CPZs where there is clear majority support (probably because they know how politically contentious parking can be), but I'm not sure this is a legal requirement of consultation. Again, i could be wrong, but I haven't been able to find any evidence that it is a legal requirement.

Edited Friday at 12:49 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

33 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But @exdulwicher our concerns about how the consultations were being run are very similar to many of the things raised in this case and many of which the judge had issue with..are they not?

Clearly, by all of the reactions on this thread, this High Court decision has upset a few folks.....imagine what might happen if the learnings from this case are applied to others and more are deemed unlawful.

There have been Judicial Reviews done on many (if not most) of these schemes including one brought against Southwark by One Dulwich. Up until now, they've all been thrown out in their entirety and even this one only scraped by on one of the three counts.

Besides, as explained, it does not automatically render the scheme unlawful. It examines the process, not the outcome.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, exdulwicher said:

Over the course of about 10 years there were at least 4 consultations on Dulwich Square which finally ended with the only design that could actually meet the original brief. One of the early reports (2016? 2017?) gave 3 options:
what the council went with
something about multiple roundabouts which I think actually referenced a scheme in Poynton (a village near Manchester which, again after extensive back and forth, finally installed (sorry, "imposed"...) a weird double roundabout system which, depending on your point of view is either a brilliantly innovative success or a total disaster - absolute proof that you will NEVER achieve any sort of consensus).
a couple of other vague half-way-house type options

In 2018, after all of that consultation, a bunch of re-prioritisation, new road markings, some buildouts etc went in - a scheme which failed all of TfL's route guidance but which apparently satisfied some of the NIMBY issues.

Back to the drawing board for yet more consultations, in 2019 there were 3 phases of consultations over about 18 months which then ran up against Covid and the change of plans anyway but did allow Southwark (and numerous other councils around the country) to rapidly deliver on Streetspace plans which all had live feedback consultation.

Out of Covid and in 2021 there was yet more consultation, the scheme finally made permanent but with watered-down aspects to appease the Onesies. Then it was council elections - remember that, where the Tory boy standing on a specific "rip out the LTNs on Day 1" was going to annihilate the "Socialist Labour Clowncil", send them running for the hills?

Just remind me how that went will you? Cos it was hilarious. And then miraculously, he turned up an a council meeting, this time as the "spokesperson for One Dulwich" - well I never. Claiming to "represent the community" And he got his arse handed to him on a plate when it was pointed out that the actual community representative was - gosh - the elected councillor, not him. More hilarity.

That should have been the end of it but Southwark then embarked on another 18 months of consultation around final design which One Dulwich did everything possible to disrupt and water down before finally, there's a completed scheme.

So yes - you have been endlessly consulted. Repeated extra consultations. You cannot argue that you have not been consulted. You can get upset that the majority did not agree with you but not about the consultation.

At least years later Rockets has taken it on the chin and is not still absolutely obsessed with it

[malumbu]

Too many posts to read so will just say my main points.

@Earl Aelfheah no the law doesn't say you have to have majority support 

@Penguin68 odd comment on NIMBYism . If I had people coming out of borough and using my street for parking, particularly common close to Honor Oak Station. Or using the road to park for school drop off often double yellows, zig zag, across drives*, I'd expect many would support a CPZ.

I'd actually apply NIMBYism to those saying that they agree with measures that could discourage driving, unless it affects them....

*Credit to Lambeth and Southwark for having traffic wardens at school start and end.  There is a primary school in Lewisham, who generally don't use wardens, that is one way, some parents get there to park really early before it becomes a school street, or reverse out the wrong way to avoid the camera.  It's on the border of SE26/SE23 if you want to work it out.

@Rockets congestion is dependent on many factors.  We've discussed this on previous thread/s where some simple beliefs were debunked. 

Edited Friday at 13:44 by malumbu

[first mate]

46 minutes ago, malumbu said:

no the law doesn't say you have to have majority support 

But, local councillors promised there would be no CPZ locally without local majority support. I am still curious what the evidence for that support is?

[Penguin68]

1 minute ago, first mate said:

I am still curious what the evidence for that support is?

Well, it's clearly not anything of statistical significance if it is not supported with unequivocal and testable numerical information. We know that Southwark has tried to 'create' information in the past where it has not been possible to say 'no' within their 'consultation', and where it has been unclear whether those not directly impacted by any decision can help sway that decision through participation, even those who have not, in fact, been able to participate in any Southwark election by not being Southwark electors, and therefore have never supported through the ballot box the controlling party in Southwark. Sadly, I believe the local councillor you have effectively quoted limited his promises just to the Ward he represents - even though he is the Cabinet Officer who covers the whole borough for this subject!

[Earl Aelfheah]

39 minutes ago, first mate said:

But, local councillors promised there would be no CPZ locally without local majority support. I am still curious what the evidence for that support is?

Did they say this? If so, it's a silly thing for them to say, and no, clearly they don't have evidence for 'majority support' whatever that means (a majority of who?). You keep asking the same question about it, but surely you should be directing it to the councillor in question?

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

no the law doesn't say you have to have majority support 

No, I'm fairly sure it doesn't, but Penguin does seem to believe otherwise. 

Edited Friday at 14:25 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Yes, councillors have said this. Whatever you think, it is clear councillors have been blatantly dishonest about imposition of CPZ, especially when the only available mechanism to guage local support evidences a majority against CPZ, not once, not twice but over and over.

P68, not just McAsh but DV councillors also.

Edited Friday at 14:44 by first mate

[Rockets]

Councillors also said that if LTNs did not reduce traffic for all across the while area then they would be considered a failure........

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

33 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Councillors also said that if LTNs did not reduce traffic for all across the while area then they would be considered a failure........

The data shows that traffic did fall across the wider area.

55 minutes ago, first mate said:

Yes, councillors have said this. Whatever you think, it is clear councillors have been blatantly dishonest about imposition of CPZ

Don't think I've said anything much about the CPZ - except to point out some facts about what a consultation is and isn't and how our system of democracy works. I don't really have any strong views on the CPZ.

55 minutes ago, first mate said:

Yes, councillors have said this.

I'm not disputing this - but are you able to provide a link to where they have said this and exactly what they've said? It seems like a silly 'promise', as outside of the usual consultation procedures there is no duty on them to prove a majority (of who exactly) are in favour of such a scheme.

Edited Friday at 15:37 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 minute ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The data shows that traffic did fall across the wider area.

Did you deliberately miss of the FOR ALL part of your sentence, that's kind of important.....I think you probably did.... you can play the semantic game all you like but what was promised did not materialise.....but you know that....;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just now, Rockets said:

Did you deliberately miss of the FOR ALL part of your sentence

Pretty sure they didn't say FOR ALL (and certainly not at the volume your capitalisation suggests).

At some point Rocks, you are going to have to accept that Dulwich now has a nice pedestrian area where the used to be a line of traffic. It's literally been years since the layout was changed. It's actually a nice space, you should go and have a sit there and enjoy the sun.

[Rockets]

Cllr McAsh did......

[Earl Aelfheah]

20 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Cllr McAsh did......

To you personally? What did he promise?

Did he whisper 'it's all a secret conspiracy' as you slept?

Edited Friday at 16:00 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Nah...not just to me....his blog and the SE22 magazine.....

17 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

At some point Rocks, you are going to have to accept that Dulwich now has a nice pedestrian area where the used to be a line of traffic. It's literally been years since the layout was changed. It's actually a nice space, you should go and have a sit there and enjoy the sun.

Oh I was only there today....most days I walk or cycle through it (I obey the red lights though) - probably spend a lot more time there than a lot of other posters who wax lyrical about it! And yes it is far more pleasant now than the line of traffic that used to be there...but then again an area's pleasantness isn't dictated by one small area within it and, since the imposition of the Square, other areas have had to soak up the displaced traffic and aren't as pleasant as they used to be.  That's not what was promised or was planned but was utterly inevitable as all LTNs do is displace traffic.

And at some point you're going to have to accept that the council/s cheated the system to get these measures in, have wasted huge amounts of tax payers money on these vanity projects and since they want in have been chasing the displaced traffic trying to move it on. All, seemingly, to try to an appease an aggressive and well orchestrated cycle-lobby.

P.S. time does not heal all wounds and some of us have long memories and won't let you forget what the council has done....

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

And at some point you're going to have to accept that the council/s cheated the system to get these measures in

Which measures? Are we talking about the Dulwich LTN, what happened in Lambeth, or the CPZ. You see I don’t think it matters for some on here. They’re against any change. And that's the problem. 

If you're still talking about the square, (and whether you approve of Southwark council or not), it’s just not true that they’ve cheated anything. They held multiple consultations and won challenges mounted by One Dulwich. @exdulwicher lays out the history very well above.

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

P.S. time does not heal all wounds and some of us have long memories and won't let you forget what the council has done....

I don't need to forget 'what they've done'. I think it's great - the square is a great improvement. I think you on the other hand would be well to try and heal some of your 'wounds' over it. I really don't think that so many years on your continued obsession is likely to be doing you much good.

Edited Friday at 16:20 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Ha ha, a bit like the Guardian articles...there are differing opinions of what actually happened in Dulwich Square. Someone is Izzy, someone else is Joseph....there are very different versions of what actually happened that differ greatly from Ex's version of events.....

I did chuckle at Ex's glossing over of what actually happened in in Covid.....their spin of reality is quite impressive: but did allow Southwark (and numerous other councils around the country) to rapidly deliver on Streetspace plans which all had live feedback consultation.

Ah, I remember those days when Southwark closed off roads with the emergency Covid powers granted to them (no need for any consultations or resident engagement) to aid, ahem, "social distancing"....and it was purely co-incidental that they happened to close off the roads they had struggled to get closed during OHS consultations....

[Earl Aelfheah]

You do realise that the square is here to stay right?

[first mate]

Earl said re Dulwich Sq "At some point Rocks, you are going to have to accept that Dulwich now has a nice pedestrian area where the used to be a line of traffic. It's literally been years since the layout was changed. It's actually a nice space, you should go and have a sit there and enjoy the sun."

Actually, having walked through Duwlich Sq just now, people are sitting at tables provided by the cafes, eating and drinking wine. However, the 'pedestrian' area from the route past Gilkes Crescent is all but blocked by those sitting out eating and drinking- the cycleway is of course free. 

I wonder if Southwark have given over pedestrian space to be used in this way to bring the local business' onside?

[Earl Aelfheah]

6 minutes ago, first mate said:

Actually, having walked through Duwlich Sq just now, people are sitting at tables provided by the cafes, eating and drinking wine.

This sounds like it's straight out of a dystopian novel. For the love of all that’s holy, someone replace it with idling cars.

Edited Friday at 16:32 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 minute ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You do realise that the square is here to stay right?

Of course it is (well unless Cllr Leeming and his cronies lose their seats at any point...;-)) but that doesn't make it right how the council got to this point. Trust me, if it wasn't something you, clearly, believe passionately in then you would probably have the same issue many of us have about the way the council manipulated the process. I am reminded of the Spanish Civil War Poster and Manic's song: If you tolerate this then your children will be next.....

Be careful what you turn a blind eye to and be pleased that some of us are actually trying to hold those in power accountable for their actions.