Rockets

"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.

NorthernMonkey - yes I did read the report and I am glad someone has done some area wide analysis. I liked the way they combined both the East Dulwich and Dulwich Village element linking the two - which the council steadfastly refuses to do and tries to divide and conquer by dealing with each set of closures in isolation. The methdology makes it clear how they built the report - you might not like it but it's clear that the majority of comments left on the Commonplace website (to which councillors have been encouraging people to leave their comments as they said it would be used to judge local sentiment) is against the closures. Have you used the Commonplace website? Have you seen how biased it is towards leaving comments supporting the closures and measures? It's actually quite difficult to leave anything other than glowing praise for the measures so these stats speak volumes. And remember, we were repeatedly told by both the council, the councillors and the pro-closure lobby that it was a "small, vocal minority" who were opposing these closures. With each passing day it seems they all got that assessment badly wrong. The Dulwich Hill zoom call will probably be a good barometer for wider area sentiment over the Melbourne Grove one.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In fairness, it was stated by the meeting chair > that supplementary questions would not be taken. > Clive asked if he could make one, and that was the > chair's response. I had thought that much later in > the meeting the reason for the response was > further qualified as Clive's question was > submitted late in day and not as expected, or > something like that. Do Clive and Cllr Williams have some previous - the way Cllr Williams addressed Clive suggested so? He was abruptly dismissive - as if he was expecting it. I think the downgrading of the Commonplace was that the Dulwich Alliance got to it first and the council realised they had no way to manipulate the data from then on. Either that or no-one had looked at what was being posted and didn't realise that the sentiment was, in the majority, against the closures. I think the council are on the ropes on this one and they can't make it go away. The Dulwich Hill ward meeting will be very interesting as the council can't expect a group of pro-closure supporters from closed roads from turning up and trying to filibuster the duration of the meeting as the Melbourne Grove residents did. Dulwich Hill is one of the key displacement zones and there are not many who are benefitting from the closures.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I completely agree with your comments on the > inadequacy of commonplace as a measure (in fact I > filled in a feedback form to that effect) - but if > the council is going to hold it out as its means > of collecting data, and in the absence of ?proper? > data, you can hardly blame people for trying to do > something with it. > > I?m not quite sure what I think the role of > residents? associations should be in all of this - > I?d say to be conduits for communication rather > than any of them coming out ?for? or ?against? > based on their (probably) unscientific perception > of their residents? views. Our local one forgot to > include us for many years after we moved in. Out > of interest do residents associations have any > formal standing with the council? Am I imagining it but didn't the council say that they will be using Commonplace to assess the local sentiment towards LTNs? I interpreted Dulwich Alliance's publishing of the stats as a very clever move to put the council on the back foot. By the looks of the council's response (or lack of it) it looks like it has been successful. Just watched the YouTube video and I thought the representation from Hazel and Bridget was very well done. Cllr Rose really needs to stop turning to her right, it looks like she is reading her responses from a pre-prepared script! THe points Cllr Rose's made about the use of Commonplace don't really stand much scrutiny as the stats speak for themselves. Why was Clive Rates shut down so quickly by Cllr Williams

Do you need to email Fitzroy to get an invite? Have they changed the process from the Melbourne Grove one? Could be interesting given the displacement issues create on roads like Underhill due to the closures.

Malumbu - let's back up a little. What point are you trying to land with those links? One is a potted history of the Rambler's Association right to roam battle, one is an article on road usage (that I agree with entirely) and one is a link to a book. Are you not meandering a bit off-topic here - this thread is on Our Healthy Streets so I am not sure what point you are trying to make - there's a perfectly good debate (one which you fervently try to engage with but other than name-calling never actually do) here - you seem obsessed with trying to take the conversation away from the subject in hand. And on the subject of name-calling you're doing it again and descending into your usual dismissive de-positioning stance referring to "educating yourself". By default that suggests you don't think I am educated.

Local authorities are making such a pig's ear of these measures that they are turning the majority against them so you can scratch them off the "dirty work" list from here on in I suspect. This is going to cost votes and that, ultimately, is what decides the fate of any idea or plan. Those councillors who were the loudest advocates of the LTNs seem to have lost their voice over the last couple of months and don't seem to keen to grandstand over Dulwich Square and other areas - that is very telling. Even chief LTN advocate in chief Peter Walker seems to have moved on to other things.

@malumbu - good try, no cigar I am afraid....it's clear all I was hoping for was a return to some semblance of normality in relation to Covid - not traffic levels. I refer you to my earlier point... @Malumbu Your increasingly spiteful de-positioning of anyone who has a view differing to your own on this subject speaks volumes: it suggests you don't have a valuable contribution or rational argument for the points being raised so have descended to name calling and accusatory finger pointing at people you don't know anything about. A bit childish don't you think?

Has anyone else noticed that Dulwich Square is fast becoming a skate park.....am I the only one to think that this might test the community minded spirit of some of the Square's most vocal supporters.....?;-) I wonder how long it will be before the signs get changed to...Open To....bikes, pedestrians, buggies, scooters (but not stunt scooters or skateboards)