Rockets

Bucky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No signs or cameras? Is this in effect yet? Nothing this morning when I ran through Dulwich Village.

Agree with all of the above. Rosendale is good, albeit a little further afield - although a nice walk through Dulwich Park it's easy to get to. Lots of outdoor heater seating.

So once again a group funded by the Mayor is used as both a general public lobbying organisation and a consultant for the council on the implementation of these schemes - talk about keep it in the family and a bit of a closed shop! I do wonder whether our local councillors may be causing a bit of a problem for the council as they are spending an seemingly never ending amount of money on what appear to be nothing more than local councillor vanity projects when these funds should be going elsewhere where the problems are greater. If the council is deemed to have mis-spent the money and gets no further funding (no doubt the govt will be looking for cases like this to make a point) then I would not want to be one of the people behind the plans.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree heartblock. I think she was involved in > the push to amend the LTNs in Lewisham? > > Anyway, I managed to watch the youtube of the 17 > June Environment Scrutiny Commission meeting (Game > of Thrones it wasn't). > > LOUye1bJv3Ur2qLE3D5dYUyyl8t_77N4r&index=2&t=7s > > Interesting bit to watch (really!): from 15:19 > where Cllr Livingston explains that a decision on > the first 19 schemes has gone up on the website, > not just in response to the streetscape/ > commonplace input but also to cover some > preplanned work. Cllr Werner (who is chairing) > asks how the decision to prioritise those schemes > was made and whether the council is looking at eg > levels of pollution or deprivation - in response > he refers to the fact that they have been working > on the Dulwich and Walworth projects for some time > but doesn't answer the actual question... Cllr > Burgess comes back at about 29 mins to clarify > with Cllr Livingston that when decisions are being > made the council is prioritising areas of > deprivation, poor air quality etc and BAME > population given COVID. Gets fobbed off a bit and > then says that they are looking at prioritising > issues where the commonplace site (then) indicated > a high degree of consensus. Cllrs Werner and > Burgess take issue with this given lots of people > don't have internet access etc . Some of the > facial expressions are priceless. You also get to > see Cllr Leeming's dinner. And then Cllr Werner > expressly asks that going forward, Cllrs be > provided with info about the criteria being taken > into account in making these decisions. > > Takeaway points (my interpretation): Having Cllr > Burgess more involved going forward is a good > thing; some of the other Cllrs share the views of > a number on this thread that some of the > priorities given to date seem a bit suspect; those > commonplace sites seem to be the main mechanism by > which the council plans to assess how things are > going. > > Cllr Werner has just published a piece on the > Labour Environmental Group (SERA) website > https://www.sera.org.uk/scrutiny_has_a_critical_ro > le, describing the findings of the Commission as > follows: > > "The commission?s findings show that it can no > longer be acceptable for any transport schemes to > be developed which cause increases in traffic > volumes on other roads, particularly where there > are vulnerable populations like schools and > hospitals, and when we know those living in > poverty, BAME populations and residents in areas > of existing poor air quality are least able to > cope with the effects of diseases like COVID-19. > > We must be driven with a proper scheme design: > modelling the likely impacts of traffic > interventions, understanding the communities who > benefit and those who benefit least. This would > mean an expansion of air quality monitoring > throughout the borough with clear-eyed analysis of > the outcomes. We need a proper understanding of > where traffic is generated, who generates it and > how it can be reduced; an understanding of car > ownership volumes and consumption of street space. > In all cases we need to gather sex-disaggregated > data. > > This commission recommended that, in conjunction > with TfL and the GLA, the council prioritises the > dramatic reduction of traffic volumes in the > borough, through a combination of incentives for > those who do not own cars, disincentives for those > with a car and improvements to neighbourhoods. > > This commission recognised the significant harm > done by traffic emissions, and that this is a > social justice issue. Those on low incomes are the > least able to cope with poor air quality. Our > strategic priority is the significant reduction in > traffic volumes across the borough. > > Our principles of social justice and a strong > dataset will guide our interventions in a > systematic way. > > We should: > > prioritise those most in need and monitor all > schemes for consequent harms, and where necessary, > revise them. > reclaim the use of the kerbside from parking > for the few and instead transform it into a public > amenity for the many. > spend the next five years taking steps to > making Southwark the cleanest and greenest borough > in London." Legal - that video is a fantastic find. I agree with you that it seems there may be some discussion within the council about why they are prioritising areas like Dulwich Village for these measures and Cllr Livingstone did not have an answer other than they are responding to Commonspace feedback - what he meant to say, I suspect, is that they are going to places to do this where they have been able to drum up enough support amongst upper-middle class residents who don't want cars on their streets! He did seem particularly bereft of answers - he also agreed (somewhat misleadingly) that the measures were being implemented based on 1) consultation with the public 2) levels of pollution and 3) levels of depravation - which we know they are not. The council has been clear from the outset that it is the areas in most need that should get these and those have been identified as those with good PTAL scores, low car ownership and social depravation - things that no-one ever considers Dulwich to have. It looks more and more like these LTNs are local councillor vanity projects to appease their neighbours which are having hugely detrimental impacts on other residents in the area. Also a couple of other things came up which I thought were fascinating: - the acknowledgement that the council wants to pro-actively remove parking spaces - that the Healthy Streets team had been furloughed (this was recorded in June so it make you wonder when they return to their jobs) - which seems a little odd given there was so much focus on the need for modal change etc during lockdown why on earth weren't they working. It might go some way to explain why widening of the pavements in East Dulwich did not happen for two months into lockdown. Oh and Cllr Leeming having his evening meal delivered to him and chomping away during the call is hilarious. His study looks like an old record shop with his vinyl collection!

This meeting will be fascinating as on the LTN section we will hear from Lucy Sanders who runs Healthy Streets Ltd, the company that provides all of the data that councils use to determine their approach to things like LTNs. BTW does anyone know is Healthy Streets funded by TFL? If not, who funds them? Her group is a big advocate of LTNs and their data was used extensively during the lobbying efforts during OHS and they have a big lobbying presence on social media. Secondly it will be very interesting to hear from the borough fire commander on the agenda item: LTNs: access to emergency vehicles - especially in light of the comments from the emergency services that they are not supportive of LTN road closures due to the delays they cause in responding to emergencies.

Indeed and what point is Cllr Newens trying to make here with her comment that "We want less traffic for the many not the few" when the polar opposite of her stated desire is what is actually happening. What I think she means to say is that she wants less traffic for her neighbours and doesn't care about the many further down the road!

There was someone dropping leaflets from an estate agent earlier today around the area. He was a long grey haired chap.

yes you will be able to. Not sure the cameras are in yet anywhere - Cllr Newens is putting pressure on TFL to get them in this week in the Village but nothing had gone in this morning. I suspect TFL will be needing to look at how road signage will need to change in other places as they need to ensure people are aware of the closures - for example, you have to alert traffic on the A205 signage that there are going to be times when you now can't get through the Village. Cllr Newens will be desperate for these to go in before the school return as it will likely be chaos if they go in in the middle of a school week.

Fascinating data that LegalAlien is uncovering that requires further scrutiny. These excerpts are taken from the Scrutiny Report Air Quality FINAL found here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89830/Scutiny%20report%20air%20quality%20FINAL.pdf The council admits that public transport links in Dulwich are not good. As an inner-city borough, levels of public transport provision (as evidenced by PTAL ratings8 ) is very good in certain parts of Southwark, particularly the north and around central Peckham, Camberwell and Rotherhithe. TfL has more work to do, however, to create a borough where it is easy to move around by public transport everywhere. More investment is needed along Southampton Way, Canada Water, Surrey Quays, the Camberwell/Peckham borders and Nunhead and Dulwich. They also make a series of recommendations when implementing LTNs - many of which the council in our area seem to be ignoring or overlooking (interesting background our part of the borough has some of the worst PTAL ratings and the highest car ownership levels - Dulwich Village has the highest car ownership rate in the whole borough yet seems to be getting more LTNs and measures than the rest of the borough put together!) Recommendation 14: Introduce a borough wide programme of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. These should be implemented:  Over a wide enough area in order to realise the benefits of traffic evaporation, which has been shown to take place when there is a significant reduction of short journeys by car under 2km.  As a priority in areas with high levels of public transport (high PTAL ratings), poor air quality, lower levels of car ownership, in areas of deprivation and where the programs would impact positively on local schools and hospitals.  Where traffic may be displaced onto main roads, the council must monitor the impact on air quality, and mitigate negative effects in advance of implementation, possibly by widening pavements and creating cycle lanes, managing traffic to reduce vehicle idling time and introducing green screening programmes.  In conjunction with the introduction of CPZ and a reduction of parking so the kerbside can be utilised for active travel and public realm improvements (such as pocket parks and cycle parking).  In conjunction with improvements to Public Transport and other work on adjacent main roads to increase cycling and other forms of active travel. The Conclusion section is the most damning when applied through the LTN fiasco optics: It can no longer be acceptable for any transport schemes to be developed which cause increases in traffic volumes on other roads, particularly where there are vulnerable populations like schools and hospitals, and when we know those living in poverty, BAME populations and residents in areas of existing poor air quality are least able to cope with the effects of diseases like COVID-19 We must be driven with a proper scheme design: modelling the likely impacts of traffic interventions, understanding the communities who benefit and those who benefit least. This would mean an expansion of air quality monitoring throughout the borough with clear-eyed analysis of the outcomes. We need a proper understanding of where traffic is generated, who generates it and how it can be reduced; an understanding of car ownership volumes and consumption of street space. In all cases we need to gather sex-disaggregated data. You have to ask why the council are ignoring their own recommendations in Dulwich - what is the motivation behind that? Political opportunism perhaps? Many of us have felt that some councillors saw this as an opportunity to good to turn down and one wonders whether the money being spent on these changes would have been more beneficial in the areas stated in the aforementioned report as needing to be the priority. Of course the report also contains regurgitated "facts" from the Living Streets lobby groups, the cursory statement of "All is great in Waltham Forest" and the usual overloading and overweighting on inputs from the cycle lobby groups.

That is really interesting. Can someone tell us whether this is unusual, especially given one of the stated aims of Clean Air for Dulwich in their submission to the council for money was to campaign for LTNs (see below)? Isn't this a little incestuous, using tax-payers money to fund a group that you then use as a lobby group to help push through your own proposals? Makes me wonder, in the application of balance and fairness, whether the council would fund a group to investigate how they handled the implementation and consultation of the LTNs.....;-) Clean Air for Dulwich Council Funding Submission Work to improve air quality for all, encouraging active travel, directly addressing causes of air pollution via targeted campaigns and promotion of low traffic neighbourhood. Needed targeted campaign on air quality specifically rather than as part of a wider remit as air quality continues to worsen especially with independent school traffic. Our campaign is to work more directly on this targeted issue and with the community as a whole rather than just via the schools network. Those affected by pollution aren't limited to people in schools and therefore getting wider engagement will be critical to changing this quickly. We will also work to campaign for low traffic neighbourhoods, building awareness amongst local residents for the benefits that can be gained through this approach.

Well done Mirash!

I don't think they are responding either - complete radio silence from the everyone on all these matters. People are resorting to trying to engage with them on social media and, once again, they just don't respond to anyone who isn't praising the closures. Has anyone had any sort of response from any of the councillors or anyone involved in the closures recently? Perhaps if they refuse to acknowledge the existence of any dissenting voices then they can continue pushing the narrative that it is only a minority. I did read with interest the Southwark Code of Conduct that LegalAlien posted (keep up the great work your digging is turning up some gens!) and how badly many of the councillors are performing in relation to them and these closures: SELFLESSNESS: Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. INTEGRITY: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties. OBJECTIVITY: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit. ACCOUNTABILITY: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office. OPENNESS: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands. HONESTY: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest. LEADERSHIP: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

Is anyone receiving any responses to emails on the subject - I know Cllr McAsh encourages people to email him but there seems to be radio silence on this issue from all councillors now?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry rather ignorant comments, irrespective of > the comedic value (you can catch Yes Minister/PM > on Four Extra). > > And ..... Road closures funding (if Southwark will > be given anymore) should be focused in the more > northern parts of Southwark where poverty is > highest, BAME population highest, they have the > best public transport links and lowest car > ownership but the worst pollution. These are the > exact categories outlined for successful > LTNs..... > > Let them eat cake/brioche. Rather pompous > comments. That good education seems to have gone > to waste. I very much think that sketch captures precisely what a lot of people think about local councillors and the ones we have are demonstrating very aptly why people don?t trust them. They are refusing to engage with any debate around the issue (unless you support their ideas). They are hiding from the majority of their constituents, hoping desperately that this will blow over.....I am not sure it will. The tide of local public opinion is turning against them and as much as they try to pigeon-hole those with an opinion other than their own as a vocal minority they know what the reality is. Meanwhile the council cosies up to middle-class lobby groups whose only intention is to reduce traffic outside their own homes and don?t care what happens to anyone else. Groups who no doubt live in big houses, with space to store bikes, who like to cycle to the cheese shop to get some cheese for their dinner-parties, get home deliveries from Ocado and keep a big car for those long journeys to the country house (this is not the Tesla they have on the drive that?s just for show and can?t get back and forth to the Cotswolds on one charge) ;-) I jest of course but you get the drift!

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Feels to me that im hearing a lot of anger about > road measures in dulwich wherever I go now. Maybe > the general public has woekn up to whats going on. The discussions will go up a level next week when the council puts the cameras in and activates them on the new measures next week. Cllr Newens confirmed the DV ones are expected to go in and start operating next week. At some point the council might actually start listening to their constituents I wonder when it might be though...

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All been to the Sir Humphrey Appleby school of > replying. I think the fact my dad was a big fan of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister helped mould my general distrust of any politician. Their views of local councillors are oh so familiar!

Cllr McAsh - could you give us a definitive list of where monitoring is currently taking place (on which roads) when it went in and how long the monitoring will run for? Is, for example, any monitoring being done on the roads east of Lordship lane which now seem to be soaking up much of the displacement from the council's closures? Whateley, Underhill, Goodrich, Upland, Overhill, Melford etc?

Whilst car owners are sitting ducks our councillors are of the lame variety of ducks... It seems some of our councillors are quite fond on the opinions espoused by the esteemed Peter Walker...the comments are hilarious as the councillors try to dissect what is going on in their wards..... https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1319178810529632256?s=09 Just look at the language being used by the councillors (and I hasten to add these are snippets from conversations not a single thread and in no way are presented as such - I am just interested in the way they are all saying "too early to tell" "so many things changing" - this is the political language of people who know there is a problem but are not prepared to admit it) and notice how they refuse to engage with anyone who challenges them (there is a real pattern emerging here): Newens: One of the problems I find is that whilst supporters of these schemes are very conscious of the voices against, the reverse seems rarely to be true. It is unhelpful to deny that there is a considerable diversity of opinion locally. Leeming: I think this is a good point. But very often it is equally hard to establish if a scheme is successful or not. That can take several months & as traffic changes all the time & it takes time to design and build neighbouring schemes making that judgement is nigh on impossible McAsh: True, it's hard to assess the impact of the LTNs as they've come in at a time when so much else has been changing.

I drove down the A24 today and was really pleased to see how they have been able to put dedicated cycle lanes in place (with bollards) on what are some very busy stretches of road through Tooting and other areas. So nice to see a programme that allows all modes of transport to share the roadspace and live harmoniously together. Lots of people cycling and little disruption to those who drive - I can imagine that section of road would have been quite daunting prior to these measures. Now that is a pragmatic and sensible solution that benefits everyone. I think they have been rolling similar schemes out in west London through Kensington and as far out as Chiswick.

Sorry miss/sir - Nigello started it! ;-)

What I am hearing is that their inbox is far fuller of nays than they are the yays and a lot of people are giving their addresses so the councillors understand the weight of local feeling against these closures (including many who are on roads that are directly benefitting from the closures). Also, the council is very familiar with the yays as they have worked with them for years and aren't so inclined to write in given they get so much face and consultation time anyway...(sorry couldn't resist it ;-)).

And here are our local councillor email addresses. Drop them an email - they love hearing from their constituents - although tend not to reply if you aren't supporting the closures! ;-) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm far more angry that we are f..king up the > planet. You should all be too. ...Our thoughts entirely which is why we are campaigning against these measures as they are actually making pollution worse.

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So they're closing a road at school times that > has > > already been closed - a double whammy!? Why do > > they need this - according to the pro-closure > > propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has now been > > fixed - reference the photos of children > milling > > around the school. Or is it that the closure of > > the road has created a school drop-off > cul-de-sac > > - as is happening at the end of Court Lane at > the > > moment which looks like a car park? > > > > Have the traders been consulted as the council > > states that there is a "minor inconvenience" > that > > no-one will be able to get access to the > parking > > bays? This could be the final nail in the > coffin > > for some businesses around Melbourne Grove. > > > > Are the residents in support as that prevents > all > > access to their properties during those hours? > > We brought this up months ago with Cllrs when > first becaome aware of the proposal, and actually > referenced it again to Cllrs today. It is pretty > unnecessary given the road is already closed, Head > of Charter admitted as much. > > There is no issue with these timed restrictions > for School Streets on it's own but the fact there > is already a closure, removed parking bays, CPZ > AND this will disrupt what little parking there > is... yes probably final nail in coffin. > > Depending on the barriers residents cars can > usually get through - but not sure how that > applies to business/delivieries etc - will they > just be doing U-turns on EDG? Wondering how that > will help the EDG congestion situation and safety > of pupils. What I find amazing is the blinkered, tone-deaf approach of some of the pro-closure lobby groups. Was the pro-closure lady on the council meeting from EDSTN Healthy Streets group? If so, they would have heard from Dougie and FairTGirl about the drastic reduction in footfall and sales being experienced by the shops on Melbourne Grove and the other streets and yet we see tweets like this the day after the council meeting....it's almost as if they are trying to convince themselves that everything is rosy..... Does anyone know, is that cafe thriving, is the owner supportive of the closures? What is interesting is that people are commenting and putting their views across.

Superb idea - often the council moves documents on their website so will be good to keep track of where everything is so anyone can access it.