Rockets

Cllr McAsh - many thanks for your response. I trust you are asking why you haven't seen the map - it seems odd that the map as presented by Cllr Rose has not been sent to you as it directly impacts the majority of your constituents on the eastern side of Lordship Lane who will not be given a voice (or a weakened voice) in the review. Would you not agree that is imperative that those impacted negatively by the closures are given equal weighting as those who live in areas gaining from the closures in the review? Yes, Cllr Browning and Cllr Hartley are lobbying to get the review area extended to cover their ward too. P.S. did your comment to Heartblock come from a council playbook/Q&A on how to respond to such questions? ;-) I have always been impressed by how direct and matter of fact you are but that comment is straight from the politicians' playbook of how to avoid answering an awkward question and to bridge to something less negative! I think we can also read into that that many of your comments about wanting the LTNs assessed on their impact to all as maybe somewhat hollow, or perhaps have been over-ridden by directions from the council hierarchy on how to spin this?

Legal - I can take the Dulwich Hill proposals and I will ask the councillors. Could someone who is within the ward for the others initiate outreach to their local councillors to get an idea of what is planned in each? I would but we, ahem, know councillors refuse to engage with anyone from outside of their wards.....;-) Has anyone else noticed how many more projects seem to be on the table for consideration in Goose Green and Dulwich Village for the Devolved Highways Funding - is that because their councillors are far more active or is it something else i.e. they are getting more because of the LTNs?

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here's the agenda for next week's South Multiward > forum meeting. > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments. > aspx?MId=6871 > It will be > > - announcing funding decisions on the list of > applications for Cleaner, Greener, Safer funding > (list of applicants attached to agenda) - about > ?250k in total. A few cycle parking things that > people might be interested in > > - announcing funding decisions on the list of > applications for the Neighbourhoods Fund, I think > ?10k per councillor. List of applicants also > attached, including a ?3k application from Friends > of Dulwich Square for a minimusic festival on the > square, the aims of which are " To bring the local > community together, support local businesses and > showcase local musicians & artists. The closure of > the junction in Dulwich Village has been > controversial and has caused divisions with some > in our community. The concept of a mini music > festival on the newly formed public space is to > demonstrate the positive potential of this new > community space that was once a dangerous and > polluting road junction. We hope to encourage > footfall to help support the local businesses in > Dulwich Village." > > Lastly, approving the allocation of "Devolved > Highways Funding" for particular highways projects > suggested by the local community(As I understand > it, local councillors hold the purse strings on > this funding pot). Here's the link to the > list.http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s > 93813/Appendix%201.pdf. No entirely clear to me > whether they all get funded (about ?140k > available) > > Anyone know /want to guess what the following > are: > > East Dulwich Square > Dulwich Village Cycle Roundabout ( something to do > with the Burbage Roundabout, or will it go around > "Dulwich Square"?) > "Measures to complement the Streetspace > programme". > College Road and Huntsslip road safer routes > masterplan (its the word masterplan that makes > this sound sinister!) > > More seriously, worth taking a look, as seems to > give an indication of things that are being > proposed by the community / considered. Various > road calming and cycle parking measures, the > proposal for traffic lights/ ped crossing at > LL/EDG junction, a proposal for less pollution on > EDG. You can't see the details, but if anyone > feels strongly about any of them (for or against), > may be worth emailing the relevant councillors to > share views in advance of the meeting/decision. East Dulwich Square is intriguing indeed - I wonder where/what that will be? Is there anywhere that we can find more information on those programmes/suggestions - all of the other suggestions have a paragraph of explanation but none of those ones do?

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "Most Dulwich residents can afford a > > taxi".....honestly every time Julie Greer opens > > her mouth or tweets something it further > exposes > > how myopic and self-centred the pro-closure > lobby > > is. If I was a Labour councillor I would be > > distancing myself from them and their bizarre > > views of life through their bizarre > village-lens > > but, of course, many are neighbours of certain > > local councillors so probably they share the > same > > bizarre views of life beyond Dulwich Square. > > You continually complain that the only people > benefiting from the closures are the wealthy elite > of Dulwich Village. Then when someone suggests > that the wealthy elite of Dulwich Village can > afford a taxi to the Dr's - you're outraged. > > Can't have it both ways ;) Or alternatively maybe I am highlighting the myopic and blinkered view of some of the pro-closure lobbyists who live in the Village who are happy to make wide sweeping generalisations and assumptions about their fellow residents in Dulwich? i.e. if I can afford a taxi to the doctors then everyone else must be able to or if I can store my bikes in my garden thanks to my big garden and nice side-return then by goodness everyone else surely can....do I need to go on? ;-) Time after time the pro-closure lobby shows scant regard for anyone other than those in their immediate vicinity and echo chamber. They fail to acknowledge that displacement is happening or having a negative impact on residents streets at the end of their road and the recent deputations to the council highlighted this point very powerfully (and the fact the council left them unchallenged speaks volumes too).

I agree totally....what I am worried about is the council being less than transparent and less than accountable and I fear they are trying to buy time with the publication of the review to try and manipulate the review to their advantage. Siduhe - can we assume then that the council are reverting to the review area shared by Cllr Rose - did they give you a copy of the map? I am actually starting to wonder who is actually in control of this process at council level. If Cllr Rose said she believed the area should be increased (BTW is there a recording of the meeting available so we can see what was said?), the Dulwich Hill ward councillors saying that they are trying to get the area increased and Cllr McAsh saying it isn't true that the area is limited to west of Lordship Lane only - it makes you wonder what on earth is going on? And we must remember details of the review were promised this month and it now looks as it it is delayed until next month. My only hope is that the council is having to have a rethink/redesign of the review as they realise a lot of people will be scrutinising the minutia of detail within it. It was shocking (but maybe not a shock given the way the council operates) that the draft of the review map shared by Cllr Rose shared was as limited as it was. The review is flawed from the start if the roads and areas soaking up the displacement aren't covered.

Cllr McAsh - the map shown by Cllr Rose on the recent Dulwich Hill ward LTN call clearly showed the area for the LTN review stopping at Lordship Lane and going no further east than about 6 houses on each road coming off LL east. Your fellow councillors from the Dulwich Hill ward have said that they are going to be lobbying to get the review area extended to include the majority of their constituents. Has the review area map been shared with you? If so, perhaps you could share it? Any idea why there is another delay to the review? It was promised in February (even Cllr Williams was suggesting its publication was imminent on the council cabinet meeting on Feb 2nd) yet it seems to be slipping. P.S. If Cllr McAsh refuses to answer this as I am resident of the Dulwich Hill ward perhaps someone from within his ward can ask the question!! ;-)

Ex - the irrefutable facts are that the Dulwich LTNs are displacing traffic from some of the least populated streets onto some of the most densely populated and visited streets in the area - that cannot be considered equitable. The championing of the closures is coming from some voices from the heart of one of London's wealthiest areas - I do wonder if those given the opportunity by the council to give the deputation in response to the reopen the closures petition on the recent council meeting care for anyone beyond the Village borders - it certainly did not come across as so. I also refer you to the impassioned plea from a resident from the Lordship Lane estate to the councillors on the recent Dulwich Hill ward LTN call - she was not gas-lighting - she was reporting on the direct impact the closures were having on her family and neighbours due to the displacement and increases in pollution. The fact that these measures are being promoted, executed, supported and defended by councillors who pretend to represent fairness for all is what makes this even more galling. I would expect it from the Tories, not from Labour. As someone who works in planning and is seemingly on the pro-closure lobby it is easy for you to sit there and say "oh, well this and that is because of media manipulation" - it's a bit like the council's repeated claims that any opposition was a "small and vocal minority". Both are utter nonsense and a tactic to try and deposition any dissenting voices. As a resident of East Dulwich I have seen, with my own eyes, the impact these closures have had and I do not think they are fair. Did you happen to walk down (either end of) Lordship Lane before the most recent lockdown and see the traffic for yourself - I know you are ex of Dulwich but I am hoping you are basing your inputs on this on your first-hand experience of what is happening on the ground in the area?

Why is it that this article has a photo, headline and opening para referencing LTNs (which are built around road closures) yet all the quotes (and seemingly the rest of the article) talk exclusively about cycle lanes? Hmmmmmm...... https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/13/covid-bike-and-walking-schemes-do-not-delay-ambulances-trusts-say?__twitter_impression=true

"Most Dulwich residents can afford a taxi".....honestly every time Julie Greer opens her mouth or tweets something it further exposes how myopic and self-centred the pro-closure lobby is. If I was a Labour councillor I would be distancing myself from them and their bizarre views of life through their bizarre village-lens but, of course, many are neighbours of certain local councillors so probably they share the same bizarre views of life beyond Dulwich Square. I am actually starting to think that the Dulwich Village ward councillors are trying to create a modern day Trmupton.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just to add to Penguin68's comments - as I > understand it, the review area for the Dulwich > Village LTNs will not include Underhill, Melford, > Wood Vale or the Lordship Lane Estate - all of > which were experiencing material impacts from the > closure of Court Lane and the failure to adjust > right filter at the South Circular lights to allow > for the additional traffic - up until the point > that Thames Water started digging up the road and > put in place three way lights for twelve weeks > which has given us all a bit of relief. > > This is notwithstanding residents being told to > use Commonspace to register our concerns, which > many of us have done - and where the feedback is > clear, consistent and from multiple residents. > I'm still trying to get a formal confirmation why > but the informal feedback is that our roads are > not close enough to be considered directly > affected, and the review area will only focus on > the area of the LTNs and the immediately adjacent > roads. Which is next to useless when the roads > experiencing displacement are not immediately > adjacent. > > As I've said before, I don't think any of my > neighbours or me are particularly opposed to LTNs > or even necessarily to the Court Lane closure, but > we'd like a proper assessment of the impacts of > the displacement on our local roads - which are > less safe for cyclists and more polluted for > pedestrians - and the fact that many of us don't > live in ?2m+ houses or have access to large > gardens like Court Lane resident do (although to > be fair, some on Underhill and Wood Vale do!) ;-) You are correct - the review zone Cllr Rose shared on the Dulwich Hill ward meeting went no further east than Lordship Lane so none of those roads are included in the review so the views of residents in those areas will be discounted. Which is ludicrous.

Rahrahrah - we have made our points on many, many occasions on some far more equitable and measured actions that would help tackle the climate crisis but not cause the havoc the LTNs have brough to the majority of residents in Dulwich. So please, stop playing your usual weak diversionary tactics and trying to imply that people are not suggesting any alternatives - you know that isn't true and you only have to look back at the last time someone asked for the other proposals to find them a plenty and in great detail. If I remember correctly, the last time you (or one of your pro-closure lobbyist friends) asked and we delivered some thoughts you had nothing to say about them - which is a debating habit you all seem to share in common!

...and then you look at the council's plans for the LTN review area and you see that they are trying to prevent people who have to live with the displacement away from the closed roads from having a voice in the review - it's sickening the way they are trying to manipulate the review to their advantage. Meanwhile in Sutton (where they have just announced they are pulling the LTNs out) - the SOuthwark Way clearly differs massively from the Sutton Way!: Transport Chair, councillor Manuel Abellan, said: ?Since the recent High Court ruling on the Mayor of London?s Streetspace schemes, there has been no clear guidance on what councils should do next. "In light of this, I will be recommending to councillors that we remove all the existing trial schemes. ?In future, the council will do things very differently - the Sutton way - for any area traffic improvements. "There will be full consultation of the residents and businesses affected before schemes are launched with support for any ideas or schemes. ?The council has heard very clearly residents? concerns about the Mayor of London?s mandated process to bring in experimental schemes.?

This is disgusting. I would let the council know and give them the police incident number so they can investigate it as it sounds like this person was fulfilling a council recycling collection and they must speak to Veolia about it.

Malumbu - really? Is that the best you can do? Do you have anything to say that actually adds value to the debate or are you just here to vent your "everyone who opposes LTNs is a right-wing, Daily Mail reading facist" trope? You must be getting close to getting a warning from admin by now.

Cllr Rose was on the Dulwich Hill meeting and said she was going to leave early to attend another meeting (wonder if it was the other one you mention) but stayed for the duration. The Dulwich Hill meeting was interesting. As I suspected there were far more voices challenging the council on the impact of the displacement, especially on roads like Underhill. Most interestingly, Cllr Rose shared the area covered by the much heralded "review" and the area is focussed on the closed roads and those neighbouring them - I believe it also stretches up to Champion Hill (I suspect so they can take in the Dulwich Village, Melbourne Grove and Champion Hill closures). I tried to take a photo but didn't get my phone out quickly enough so we will have to wait until the replay is available but what concerned me was that the area for the review is not nearly wide enough to take input from, say the residents in the Dulwich Hill ward living with the displacement, as the area does not cover any area east of Lordship Lane. We saw a similar move made by the council during the CPZ consultation (input gathered from any resident in the area but only those in the review area taken into consideration and used to make decisions). I very much suspect they are trying to keep the review area as small as possible to ensure the supporting voices are not drowned out by the wider community who may be feeling the negative elements of the displacement. The council defended this by saying that they don't want people from outside the area commenting (which is fair) but I believe anyone with an SE22 postcode (or those in Dulwich Village if they are not SE22) should be given equal weighting in the review - the council cannot be allowed to shrink the review area in the hope that they can rely on those on the closed roads outweighing the broader community. It is clear to me what they are trying to do to manipulate the figures and when you see the review map you will see it too. The meeting had a couple of "I love the measures, I love to be able to cycle down the closed roads etc" but quickly moved to the majority of those who spoke who were clearly against them. Everyone was asked to say where they live and it was clear that those who spoke and lived in the ward were against it (I might be wrong but it seems the only supportive voices came from someone who lives near Melbourne Grove and another from in the village). There was some incredibly moving testimony from one lady in particular who lives on the Lordship Lane estate who has a son suffering from severe asthma and how his condition has worsened since the traffic queues at the Grove Tavern junction and how they feel trapped. Her testimony was incredibly moving and it really demonstrated that whilst a few who live in the wealthiest part of our area have been prioritised everyone else is living with the fallout. The meeting was less combative than the Melbourne Grove meetings but there still isn't anything to suggest to me that the council is doing anything other than paying lip service to listening to the broader community but with each meeting they are seeing that there are plenty of dissenting voices and that it is very much more than "a small, vocal minority".

Scary update from One Dulwich. Looks like the council are continuing risking lives for their failed project. + Ambulances routinely delayed by 24/7 road closures (8 February 2021) Some of you may have seen the article in the Daily Telegraph on Friday about how the road closures in Dulwich Village and East Dulwich are causing long delays to ambulances on 999 calls, with life-threatening consequences. The article was based on a series of emails between the London Ambulance Service (LAS) and Southwark Highways Department (Southwark), obtained through a Freedom of Information request submitted last October. These reveal that ambulances in Dulwich are routinely delayed by the current road closures. In September last year alone, the last month for which figures are available, ambulance crews reported 10 delays because of 24/7 closures in the Dulwich area, including responses to at least two Category 2 (life-threatening) 999 calls and three Category 1 (immediately life-threatening) 999 calls. Paramedics repeatedly highlight the hard closure at Calton Avenue as the cause of the problem in Dulwich Village, with delays ranging from between 5 and 10 minutes. What is really concerning is that the documents also appear to show that repeated requests by the LAS to Southwark to replace the planters with cameras are being ignored. At a meeting on 16 July last year with Southwark transport project managers, all three Emergency Services asked for hard closures to be removed and ANPR cameras installed instead. ?We know ANPR cameras are expensive,? said the Metropolitan Police representative, ?but it?s about saving a life.? One Dulwich has repeatedly asked our Councillors, and the decision-maker Cllr Rose, to introduce ANPR cameras at Dulwich Village junction instead of 24/7 closures. We know from your emails that many of you have done the same. We have raised the issue of access for the emergency services in our objections to the closures in both Dulwich Village and East Dulwich. But the Council is refusing to listen. The problem has not gone away, as Cllr Rose implies in the Daily Telegraph article. In fact, the LAS continues to ask for ANPR cameras instead of hard closures that prevent access. Ambulances doing three-point turns at planters is still a regular occurrence, as are reports of ambulances getting stuck in traffic. As well as putting residents? lives at risk, it?s not fair on ambulance crews, whose lives are difficult and stressful enough as it is without having to do long detours and weave through congested traffic. What will it take for Southwark to comply with the Emergency Services? requests? The death of a resident because an ambulance can?t reach them in time? Or a house or flat burning down because a fire engine gets stuck in displaced traffic? Refusing to make changes when lives are at stake is irresponsible and immoral. We have now written yet again to MP Helen Hayes asking her to intervene. When former MP Kate Hoey intervened in the disastrous Loughborough Road traffic experiments in 2015, after the London Ambulance Service complained, Lambeth Council ended the experiment. We hope our MP and Southwark Council will now do the same

Abe - the big issue for the council is that they cannot rely on those benefitting from living on a closed road to join and herald how "wonderful" the closures are. Also on the Melbourne Grove meeting they insisted everyone identified which road they lived on in the ward so they ensured the meeting was focussed on the comments of the most local residents (which is perfectly ok it just meant that it was dominated by those not living with the displacement and allowed the council to control the narrative). I know of a lot of people who live in the Dulwich Hill ward who are being impacted by the displacement and are taking this as their opportunity to be heard as they feel they have been overlooked as the council tries to manipulate things.

Malumbu - glad you agree with us that we need some representative democracy - I am sure you will agree that there is so little of it in evidence in the way the council is managing LTNs, no more aptly demonstrated by the cabinet meeting last week....... You're lucky that you live far enough away from the LTNs to not be impacted by the displacement. Tuesday's council meeting for the Dulwich Hill ward is going to be very interesting as this is the first one where the council are going to be unable to rely on the local pro-closure lobby monotonising proceedings. It will be interesting to see how they run it and if they apply the same rules of engagement they applied during the Melbourne Grove LTN meetings.

Sensible suggestion from Dulwich Alliance. I believe independent arbitration is the only way forward, we cannot trust the council to deal with this in a fair and balanced way. Open letters An open letter to the Leader of Southwark Council (7 February 2021) Dear Councillor Williams At the end of the session of the Cabinet Meeting on 2 February that was devoted to the 700+ signature petition (to end the 24/7 closures around Dulwich and implement an area-wide, camera-controlled permit scheme), you highlighted that views are strongly held in Dulwich on both sides, and that there was a ?need to find a way of coming to a consensus view? through a review process that ?brings people together?. We agree. We suggest that there is, in fact, a lot more common ground than people realise, but it is not being allowed to surface at the moment because of the rancour this issue is causing. The need to reach a consensus has always been the position of the Dulwich Alliance and One Dulwich. However, with opposing views so strongly held, the only way this can realistically be achieved is through an impartial and transparent resolution process. Unfortunately, the proposed ?Dulwich Area Community Forum? chaired by a Council-appointed ?Area Champion?, mentioned by Cllr Rose at the Cabinet meeting as being under consideration, would obviously not be impartial and so simply cannot achieve that. It would be extremely unhelpful both for the community and for the Council if another consultation simply repeated and further entrenched existing polarised positions. Instead we propose that either the Council establishes a public inquiry, or that an independent, professionally qualified arbitration specialist, such as a chartered arbitrator or an accredited resolution specialist, be appointed to carry this out. For this to work, the arbitrator would obviously have to be subject neutral as well as impartial, and have the broad support of the community. This would ensure that those affected (be that negatively or positively) by the Orders are allowed to make their representations and have their views heard. It would also provide the Council with impartial direction on how to proceed in a way that meets the Council?s objectives of reducing through traffic and pollution and encouraging walking and cycling (which everyone supports), but which also balances the different needs of the wider community. In fact, we believe that it is only by following an independent and transparent process that the Council can ensure acceptance of the outcome by all interested parties. There appears to have been little by way of timely studies into traffic levels or air quality within the locality before the Orders were introduced. Added to this, the experiment is being undertaken during a time in which traffic conditions and pollution levels are not representative of what they were before the COVID-19 pandemic, or indeed are likely to be after the pandemic. This further underlines the need for an independent investigation, as clearly any evidence gleaned from this experiment will not be sufficient to underpin any future permanent measures. We know that, as Leader of the Council, you put equality and fairness at the heart of all you do, and that you want to build a better future for everyone in the borough. We urge you to consider seriously this route of independent investigation. It provides a way forward that builds on common ground among people in Dulwich with different views, and a way out of the current community relations quagmire that we all find ourselves in. Yours sincerely The Dulwich Alliance

As Julie demonstrated as part of her council-sponsored/encouraged deputation the goal appears to be to turn Dulwich Village into some sort of inner city rural idyll for the benefit of a few of Southwark's wealthiest residents but at the expense of everyone else. How dare we stand in the way of this noble quest!!!!

The deputation part was an absolute joke and the questions from the councillors as predictable as they were weak and insipid. What struck me was the complete disregard for anyone outside of the Village and the impact to them and the pro-closure lobby diatribe regurgitated by Julie. She highlights Dulwich having the highest car ownership in the borough but omits the fact that Dulwich has some of the worst PTAL scores in Southwark. Look how the council are trying to manipulate and control the process - no wonder Clive is getting frustrated. The same thing happened on the Melbourne Grove virtual meeting where the supporters of the closures were given disproportionately more air time then anyone opposing the closures. Apparently that was just coincidence. Yet on this last cabinet meeting we see the true colours of our council and I laughed at the irony of the painting of One Dulwich and the Dulwich Alliance as groups that are unwilling to engage in dialogue. Honestly, it's all getting a bit Comical Ali from the council but you can tell from the desperate nature of the impassioned defence by the pro-lovby that you know the pressure refuses to diminish.

I think everyone can agree that all we want is some clarity from the council - they are dithering over every aspect of these measures and even the most pro-closure supporter must be wondering what the council is up to. It's almost as if they put them in and had no strategic plan in place to back them up. A couple of councillors thought it good to leverage "social distancing" for these personal vanity projects and now the council can't find a way to make them stick. As I have been saying from the outset, the complete mis-management of this project by the council is likely to have long-term implications on the appetite for and ability to execute any future traffic and pollution control measures. That, I am afraid, is probably going to be the long-term legacy of this ill-thought out programme and we should all be holding the councillors accountable for that.

I agree with both of you and it does seem that the council seems to be changing the rules of engagement at every opportunity. I very much suspect that this is because the feedback and data they are seeing coming in from both the local residents and their monitoring doesn't back their position of unwavering support for the measures they have put in. Cllr William's comments on "finalising" the design of the review this close to publication should be ringing alarm bells for everyone on both sides of the argument.

Wow, every email, every bit of analysis, every FOI strikes another blow to the pro-closure lobby and the "facts" they have used to prop up their assertations. The house of cards is beginning to wobble. Perhaps some of our dear friends on this forum from the pro-closure lobby might like to comment........;-)

NorthernMonkey - I like all of the report. Your accusations of wrong-doing do not stand the test of scrutiny as each of them can equally be applied to the way the council has manipulated data throughout years of "consultations". I am not for a moment saying that two wrongs make a right but what Dulwich Alliance is doing is based on complete mistrust of the way the council is handling it. They have taken data that is from a website that is publicly available and one where the council has encouraged the community to leave their comments. Of course, the council could issue a strongly worded rebuttal if they believe the Duwlich Alliance have manipulated the data. To date, they haven't. In fact, Cllr Rose tried to address their analysis by saying that Commonplace "evolves" and is part of the process. She could have easily issued a rebuttal if she felt the analysis was manipulated. She didn't. That speakers volumes. What she instead did was do what the council has been doing for the duration of this process and issued a "wait and see" directive. It's akin to their "let it bed in" narrative they have tried to push. What was also slightly concerning was Cllr Williams' assertation that they were "finalising" the design of the review. Surely if you are due to publish something in a couple of weeks, as the council is promising, the design of the review should have been determined by now. That suggests to me the council might be having to tweak the findings. Good on the Dulwich Alliance for taking the time to do this - it shows how strongly people feel about this and it demonstrates that the council cannot just hope this issue goes away and are being forced, by their constituents, to be accountable. The pressure is mounting for the council to prove that the LTNs are 1) supported by the majority of the Dulwich community 2) are actually delivering what they promised they would 3) not impacting anyone negatively in terms of displacement and increased pollution I think the council will struggle to reach the threshold on any of the above points and from their actions I think they know that. And from your de-positioning of any resistance I think you know that too.