West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[Rockets]

Ha ha, of course.....representative democracy is all about forcing people how to answer....honestly, you could not make it up....

[exdulwicher]

37 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Who have repeatedly used consultation mechanisms where you cannot say "no" to their plans.....

There's a fundamental misunderstanding as to what a consultation is.

The question is not "should be do X, yes or no?"
The question is "we are doing X [because - state reasons], do you want version 1 or version 2?".

That's perfectly normal and legal and above board and if you think about it, I bet we all do the same in day-to-day life. 
You don't say to your young kids "what do you want for dinner?" because that's too open-ended and can result in impossible requests.

You present two options that you can actually deliver. Pizza or lasagne (for example). You might then get a bit more creative with pizza toppings but you're essentially offering two options that you have in the house (or can quickly order), it's not going to result in an impossible request that you can't deliver. Nor does it easily allow for the option of not having dinner. 

We are having a meal, here are your options.

The council have done the same. We are putting some minor restrictions on traffic because [road danger, pollution, congestion, parking etc], should we do it via this method or that? Now in theory, everyone wants less road danger, pollution and congestion (much the same as everyone wants dinner), the mystery is how it generates such howls of outrage given the wealth of evidence that says LTNs, School Streets, pedestrianisation, more walking and cycling, less vehicle use etc are all good things.

I mean you're basically complaining that the council are making the area a bit nicer.

[first mate]

I checked the last Southwark Labour manifesto. No mention of borough-wide CPZ or new LTNs, nothing at all. But they bang on and on about how they will work with communities, placing residents at 'the heart' of decisions that affect their lives, working with them to effect and design any changes to their local area. It sounds great and so credible, except they have not done any of it. Instead, they have repeatedly ignored resident opinion on major changes that will impact them. 

Had they run on headlines about imposing more LTNs and plans for a borough-wide CPZ, that would be different, but they did not flag these major changes and hugely expensive plans at all, instead they made consultative and participatory governance a central plank of their manifesto. They were not transparent and they have not been honest.

 

 

[Rockets]

@exdulwicher sorry I think you are manipulating what the point of a consultation is - which is (per the LGA):

 

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. 

 

What Southwark have been doing by not offering a mechanism to say no is to say: you're getting pizza, what flavour do you want. The council have made the decision BEFORE the consultation - that's not in the spirit of consultations at all and the LGA guidance is clear that councils have to listen to people BEFORE decisions are made.

7 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

The council have done the same. We are putting some minor restrictions on traffic because [road danger, pollution, congestion, parking etc], should we do it via this method or that?

But they did not did they? Think back to the CPZs. No options just what time do you want them to run and then they were forced to run it again with a yes/no response mechanism and lo and behold what happened....

The continued defence of the council by some is laughable and the way folks are trying to twist and distort what actually happened is quite shocking. 

 

 

 

[first mate]

I hate to think that some on here may view the electorate as toddlers but suspect it may be true.

[malumbu]

This thread now has little relevance.  It had moved from West to East Dulwich, over a decision made years ago.

I posted in the past about when I became very worked up by planning decisions.  Two things I learned (a) pick your battles.  The likelihood of the East Dulwich LTN being scrapped is highly unlikely.  Certainly without a Tory/Reform type national and/or local government.

And (b) don't fight other people's battles.  A copper told me that after things got quite toxic on social media.

That was over 15 years ago and I am better for it.  It had been all consuming.

I still campaign and do more practical things but that is a separate matter.

I'll try not to post again in the subject; yes I've said that before.  😮

Edited Tuesday at 22:32 by malumbu
Past not last!

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

And (b) don't fight other people's battles.

Ha ha....we're not...we are fighting our battles as these are areas in which we live.

No-one is suggesting the East or West Dulwich LTNs will be scrapped but councils have to be held accountable for their actions and more and more people are realising the underhand and manipulative tactics they have been using to force change onto their constituents. And if you are really worried about Reform I am sure you will be imploring councils not to behave in ways which alienate the electorate from main-stream political parties - for parties like Reform are getting momentum because people are tired of the way mainstream political parties are treating the public - it's the very definition of populism and we should all be terrified that the mainstream parties seem incapable of countering it and, in fact, the Tories seem to be keen to jump on the bandwagon.

In two weeks, Lambeth council has lost two High Court battles against members of their own constituencies - that speaks volumes and if that isn't ringing alarm bells for some then it might be time for a rethink.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha, of course.....representative democracy is all about forcing people how to answer....honestly, you could not make it up....

You fundamentally misunderstand how representative democracy works. A consultation is not a yes no vote, as ex-Dulwich points out.

What one can’t make up is your absolute refusal to accept a change that happened 5 years ago.

There is nothing undemocratic, illegal, or underhand about how the changes were implemented. If there was I’m sure they would have been stopped by those unhealthy obsessed with preventing the improvements.

The square is here to stay, so people might want to start coming to terms with it.

Edited Tuesday at 18:30 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

But the definition of a consultation is that they are to engage and garner input from constituents BEFORE a decision is made. You're trying to bend the definitions to suit your agenda and claim that a consultation is a means to validate a council's decision. That's not how it is supposed to work.

Look at it this way: Southwark went out of their way to ensure there was no mechanism to say no on consultations that were a series of multiple choice response questions. Why on earth would they do that because surely in a representative democracy they could add it, get a load of "no" responses and say...hey folks this is a representative democracy and we have decided for you? I tell you why they did not add it because they knew they were not going to get a majority in support - so they manipulated the response mechanism to avoid a no response because in any democracy if you get an overwhelming no it's hard to swim against the tide of public opinion.

Then they got told off for doing that and in the CPZ consultation got a overwhelming negative feedback - funny how in light of that your claims of a representative democracy did not hold any weight and they had to do a u-turn.

You can't pick and choose when a representative democracy is in play or not. Southwark manipulated the consultation/s process. Simple as.

I love how you have defaulted to the 5 year narrative again....time does not heal all wounds....it took up to 25 years for the Post Office scandal to come to light given the efforts of so many to suppress the story. One day someone will be held accountable for the wilful manipulation of the process; West Dulwich have exposed much of the Lambeth shenanigans and the next High Court cases will be fascinating... if not only to confirm that all of the usual suspect councils were up to the same tricks. You rail against the "One" groups but imagine if there was an almost identical pattern of behaviour amongst Labour run councils - we have already seen striking similarities between Lambeth and Southwark - one wonders if you will be so keen to call them out for their "shadowy cabal" behaviour.....perhaps only time will tell.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

🥱 

[pebs]

Totally agree Rockets. If I'd behaved like that in my job I would have got sacked!

[Earl Aelfheah]

…except Pebs, Rock’s account is not remotely accurate.

10 hours ago, Rockets said:

But the definition of a consultation is that they are to engage and garner input from constituents BEFORE a decision is made.

They did

10 hours ago, Rockets said:

Southwark went out of their way to ensure there was no mechanism to say no on consultations that were a series of multiple choice response questions

You absolutely could say whether or not you supported the changes. But again, a consultation is not a referendum with a yes/no vote.

When they (much later) consulted on options for landscaping the square, they did not hold a second consultation on the existence of the LTN itself; that they'd already consulted on, having implemented it years earlier. You moaned about this at the time, but of course it wasn’t an opportunity to revisit a decision already made, just because you didn’t like the outcome the first time.

10 hours ago, Rockets said:

I love how you have defaulted to the 5 year narrative again....time does not heal all wounds

It’s just a fact. 5 years on, you’re still obsessing over a change made perfectly legitimately. You may not like the changes, but suggestions that the decisions made were illegitimate, or unlawful, are simply untrue, and of course you’ve provided no evidence for them.

10 hours ago, Rockets said:

it took up to 25 years for the Post Office scandal to come to light given the efforts of so many to suppress the story.

Again, insinuating malpractice or illegality, with absolutely zero evidence of either. This is just tin foil hat stuff. To liken a decision you personally don’t like and are obsessed over to a serious scandal that destroyed many lives is just sad. You really need to get some perspective.

10 hours ago, Rockets said:

West Dulwich have exposed much of the Lambeth shenanigans and the next High Court cases will be fascinating... if not only to confirm that all of the usual suspect councils were up to the same tricks

Of course you try to suggest that a totally unrelated issue, with a different scheme, in a different borough is somehow related. But it’s not. Just read the judgement. Again, it’s just innuendo and nonsense. You cannot provide any evidence of malpractice in relation to the Dulwich LTN. You are just fixated on it, because you didn’t get your way.

10 hours ago, Rockets said:

one wonders if you will be so keen to call them out for their "shadowy cabal" behaviour

Again, tin foil hat stuff. Southwark council are many things, but not a shadowy cabal. You really need to move on.

Edited Wednesday at 05:36 by Earl Aelfheah
Typos

[pebs]

It's the basic obfuscation of data, biased questions and misleading interpretation that I am referring to. I read the report of the exercise at the time and they totally buried the true responses of the participants! I worked in independent market research for my career so I know what I am talking about. Basic misrepresentation of views.

 

To be clear my comments relate to Southwark council and their adoption of the Dulwich LTN. 

Edited Wednesday at 07:14 by pebs

[Earl Aelfheah]

As I’ve said, I don’t think these consultation processes are helpful as currently constituted. I would much rather they used proper market research techniques, and representative sampling, to get a better sense of the broad sweep of local sentiment. But the decision would still be for our representatives to make. It would never amount to a yes/no vote, nor should it imo.

Rocks account above is massively inaccurate.

Likening it to the post office scandal is just hysterical nonsense.

Btw, for those of you interested in a summary of the phase 3 consultation (rather than accepting some of the stuff presented on this forum as though fact), it is here https://services.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/42203/OHS-Phase-3-Consultation-Summary-Report.pdf

And for a general timeline of the various consultation activities leading up to the proposals: https://services.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-streets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich 

Edited Wednesday at 07:34 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@pebs you are absolutely right - this is what so many people are angry about. The problem is there are people locally who refuse to acknowledge the council did anything wrong - ideological apologists - those who will happily turn a blind eye and surround and defend the council because it suits their agenda to do so. Just look at a lot of the posts on this forum - people defending the indefensible.

The galling thing is we all know that if it was another political party doing this or an issue they did not wholeheartedly support they would be first out with the accountability pitchforks screaming about injustices.

There is irrefutable evidence that the consultations and consultation processes were massively flawed and skewed to give the council the result they do desired. Anyone who suggests otherwise clearly has a vested interest and for those interested in seeing the similarities between the consultation flaws between West Dulwich and Dulwich Village/East Dulwich just scroll to section 100 of the Judge's summary during the High Court case...https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/West-Dulwich-Action-Group-v-London-Borough-of-Lambeth.pdf

35 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Likening it to the post office scandal is just hysterical nonsense.

Council level manipulation of context there @Earl Aelfheah! Congrats 😉

[pebs]

Yes, paragraph F nails it. But broader than that. A clear summing up.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't think anyone really believes that there is any consultation process which Rocks would have been satisfied with, unless it had resulted in the outcome he wanted. 

Clearly there were failures in the way Lambeth consulted over the trial scheme in West Dulwich. 

There is no evidence at all that the Southwark scheme was unlawful. And it was challenged relentlessly (and still is, 5 years on).

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Clearly there were failures in the way Lambeth consulted over the trial scheme in West Dulwich. 

Which are oh so familiar to the tactics used by Southwark in their consultations. Remember, the judge, although critical of many of the  ways Lambeth consulted, said they did not reach the high-water mark required for that element to be considered unlawful. But many suspect that they were starting to get close - now there are other high-court challenges in play elsewhere around the country and this case is landmark not only that it found, on one count, the LTN to be unlawful but it also focuses other challengers' minds on where the Achilles heal of consultations are.

Unfortunately for councils, as much as their supporters would like, time does not rewrite history and it doesn't matter if it is 1 or 5 years later - what they did, how they did and who did it will always remain.

[Earl Aelfheah]

57 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Which are oh so familiar to the tactics used by Southwark

No 'tactics'. Again, this is the language of conspiracy.

Lambeth failed to consider a 53 page presentation before making a decision. This is the matter on which the whole case hinges. Were they able to show that they had considered it, they could still have reached the same decision quite lawfully.

There is no evidence of Southwark failing to consider feedback before making a decision in a completely different matter, in a different location, 5 years ago. You may not agree that they gave sufficient weight to certain views at the time, but that's kind of irrelevant to the legitimacy of the decision. They don't need to make the 'right decision' (as that is a matter of opinion), they just need to consider representations and then act within the range of reasonable responses. Ultimately the decision is theirs.

Again, this really just comes down to you not having got the outcome you wanted. There is no evidence of 'foul play' or 'shadowy cabals'. It's nonsense. And I think we all know that there is no process you would be happy with, except one that resulted in your preferred outcome, fairly or not.

There are legitimate criticisms that may be made of the process of consultations (some of which I have made myself), but I have seen no evidence that Southwark acted outside of their powers. 

57 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Unfortunately for councils, as much as their supporters would like, time does not rewrite history and it doesn't matter if it is 1 or 5 years later - what they did, how they did and who did it will always remain.

I'm not a supporter of the council as it happens. I just have no time for conspiracy theories and constant misinformation. What they did, was improve an area of the Village with some fairly timid changes to road layout and some nice landscaping. Suggesting that it's a massive scandal akin to what happened at the post office is just ridiculous. You may well ‘never forget’, but the conspiracy you rail against isn't actually real.

Edited Wednesday at 11:38 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Problem is, you and others keep arguing Labour was mandated to make these changes. Yet, in the manifesto, under one of the leading sections called "Our guarantee to you", they state:

" Labour will put residents at the heart of everything we do. We will empower communities to shape the places they live in and make decisions about issues which affect their lives. We will work with you to design the services we provide..."

Given this was a manifesto pledge, a guarantee, I think to argue that 'technically' they can do as they have, so that's okay then. They have not followed through on a manifesto pledge, but instead used process to achieve an agenda they kept under wraps, until they knew they could get away with it.

[Rockets]

8 minutes ago, first mate said:

" Labour will put residents at the heart of everything we do. We will empower communities to shape the places they live in and make decisions about issues which affect their lives. We will work with you to design the services we provide..."

...and we will make sure we do this by manipulating consultations so that we empower communities to make the decisions we want........:-)

[Cancerian]

And some may disagree with Earl’s comment that the council made some ‘fairly timid changes to road layout and some nice landscaping’ in the Village 😟

[ab29]

7 hours ago, Cancerian said:

And some may disagree with Earl’s comment that the council made some ‘fairly timid changes to road layout and some nice landscaping’ in the Village 😟

Milion of pounds wasted on the closed DV junction - but who cares

[Glemham]

Many of the tradespeople care because their footfall at the junction has fallen since January when even more traffic restrictions in the form of a CPZ were installed. This combined with the high rents levied by the Dulwich Estate and Southwark business rates, are forcing more businesses to close. 
Romeo Jones, one of the last independent businesses in the Village will close on Saturday and Harold George the hairdresser is moving to smaller premises a few shops away. A Tapas bar is rumoured to be taking that corner site.

I realise this posting is not strictly on the topic of the  West Dulwich Action Group, but no doubt they will recognise their own concerns in the Dulwich Village problems.

[first mate]

That's a shame. Will the tapas bar be part of a chain? It does seem to contradict the idea that the imposition of the Sq would increase visitors to shops and 'create' a much needed, new, social hub in the area (council's rationale, not mine).

As for West Dulwich LTN, it will be interesting to see next steps, all round.

Edited Friday at 08:58 by first mate