Rockets

I thought teachers could only take time off during school holidays - or am I wrong on that? Anyway, you mention Leeming and Margy....this tweet from Margy is hilarious..... I would suggest Margy didn't witness the removal of the ATM on Friday as I am sure, if she had, she wouldn't have allowed Southwark Labour to send the grandstanding tweet on the following Tuesday embarrassing her boss....#awks......

Duncan - I am afraid you do. Back-gardens are not a problem but anything in the front of the house needs a planning application. You need to submit a householder application via this link: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-applications/submitting-a-planning-application?chapter=3 But that's when it starts getting messy as I paid my ?234, paid for documents from the land registry, submitted my application and then got the response below saying my application was invalid. It's absolute madness......it is utterly impenetrable unless you get an architect/design company involved - which will probably cost 5 times more than the bike shed itself........ A 1:2500 or 1:1250 scale site plan is required showing the site and surroundings. The boundaries of the application site must be edged in red. Any other land within the applicant's control must be edged in blue on the site plan. 2 Drawings of all existing floor plans are required. The scale shown on the submitted plan(s) should state the paper size at which the scale applies, e.g Scale 1:100 at A3. The plan(s) should also display a scale bar. This information is required to avoid errors and misinterpretation due to variations and accuracy associated with the copying and printing of plans that have been stored electronically. 3 Drawings of all existing elevation plans are required. The scale shown on the submitted plan(s) should state the paper size at which the scale applies, e.g Scale 1:100 at A3. The plan(s) should also display a scale bar. This information is required to avoid errors and misinterpretation due to variations and accuracy associated with the copying and printing of plans that have been stored electronically. 4 Drawings of all proposed floor plans are required. The scale shown on the submitted plan(s) should state the paper size at which the scale applies, e.g Scale 1:100 at A3. The Southwark Council, PO BOX 64529, London SE1P 5LX ? southwark.gov.uk ? facebook.com/southwarkcouncil ? twitter.com/lb_southwark plan(s) should also display a scale bar. This information is required to avoid errors and misinterpretation due to variations and accuracy associated with the copying and printing of plans that have been stored electronically. 5 Drawings of all proposed elevation plans are required. The scale shown on the submitted plan(s) should state the paper size at which the scale applies, e.g Scale 1:100 at A3. The plan(s) should also display a scale bar. This information is required to avoid errors and misinterpretation due to variations and accuracy associated with the copying and printing of plans that have been stored

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes it does require planning. I just parted with > ?234 for the pleasure. Apparently the council > views the applications favourably but do require > you to pay for the pleasure - a bit surprised they > don't waive the fee for bike storage given their > commitment to active travel and their inability to > satiate the demand for cycle hoops. An update on this. Submitted the application and got a response saying that the submission wasn't right and was returned. It seems you need architect plans for any planning submission all drawn to scale with different aspect ratios etc. Really don't have the time or money to get someone to come and draw up plans for a bike shed. I appreciate the council has a planning process to follow but this seems ludicrous - the expense you would need to go to if you want to embrace active travel. Now in the process of cancelling the bike shed and Asgard told me that many people are in the same position in that councils want planning submitted for front garden bike sheds and the planning process is not built for such applications. They said many customers just install them anyway but then have problems if any neighbours complain. It would be good if the council could streamline/simplify the application process for bike sheds if they really want people to embrace active travel - they have to make active travel easier to embrace for those that don't have side returns or huge back gardens.

Legal - I agree. A lot of the "increase" in residential traffic that is touted by the pro-LTN lobby is being driven, no pun intended, by the move to online delivery services - and they will still deliver whether a street has an LTN or not.

Finally we have agreement....! But apparently local car journeys are not as big an issue in Dulwich as other parts of Southwark as, in the same report as the PTAL scores, it said 68% of local journeys were already active travel. Again, it begs the question why LTNs were chosen for Dulwich - it makes no sense at all. Talking about questions, this dropped through our door today from Dulwich Alliance - what they are doing is so important as the council buried some many of the key facts from their propaganda document, sorry Review report, that leaflet drops are the only mechanism DA have to shine light on the council's manipulation of the report. Many people I have spoken to are so angry with the council for the way that they have hoodwinked the residents of Dulwich and I suspect many who receive this leaflet will feel the same way. DA are right - we have been conned.

Ah ha...that's where he is and no doubt why he isn't responding ;-) Isn't he a primary school teacher though - do union reps/activists get time off from schools during term-time?

They are at BP in Forest Hill - ?35 per customer.

Rahx3 - not diversionary at all - it is you who are trying to convince (yourself maybe) that Dulwich has good transport links. It hasn't - at best they are moderate but large parts of Dulwich has poor accessibility to public transport. We are not saying you shouldn't try to reduce car use just the means that the council has chosen is utterly inappropriate for an area with poor/moderate PTAL scores. It is one of the worst served areas in London (certainly within the north and south circular) on the basis of PTAL scores - just look at the TFL PTAL score link I posted - it's all there for you to see in glorious technicolour - darker areas are good, lighter areas are bad. It is about now someone will probably come on and say: "but PTAL scores are not reflective and shouldn't be used, blah, blah blah" but here is how TFL defines them.... "PTALS are a detailed and accurate measure of the accessibility of a point to the public transport network, taking into account walk access time and service availability. The method is essentially a way of measuring the density of the public transport network at any location within Greater London." Maybe you should ask some of your peer-reviewed research lobbyists to do analysis on the PTAL tipping point - the point at which LTNs do more damage than good. I suspect, though, that someone has done that before as Southwark was originally recommending that LTNs only go in in areas with high PTAL scores.

It does seem to be the case that getting there early helps. I got to the BP in Forest Hill (thanks Dave for the tip) by just after 8 and it took about 15 mins but by the time I left it had got a lot more chaotic and the queue was much longer. The Shell at the top of Sydenham Hill on the way to Crystal Palace was also open this morning.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rahx3 - stop this nonsense about good transport > > links - you know that is not true. > > I pointed out that we don?t have one of the worst > PTALs in London. Another assertion by the > scientifically rigorous contributor who denies the > existence of peer reviewed research by other > academics. The PTAL for most of Dulwich is rated > ?moderate? (by London standards, which are > generally high). I would love to see improvements. > But how good does local transport have to be > before you attempt to reduce car use? Around 40% > of car journeys in London are under 2 miles as we > know. It?s an absolute cop out to say, we > shouldn?t tackle casual car use until we have , > what? A PTAL of 4, 5? > Heartblock is talking of banning cars entirely > when PTAL improves.. improves to what?! Would you > support that? It?s absolute nonsense. Rahx3 - read it again: "Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich." The PTAL for Dulwich Village is 2 - that is poor (per the PTAL definition, 2 is poor, 3 is moderate) - Dulwich Village is where the council have made the focal point for the LTNs and put the most disruptive LTN in - that makes no sense. The council asserted many moons ago that LTNs should only be put in place in areas with high PTAL scores. Even the areas closest to the station "only" reach a 3 which is moderate. And then the council's report goes on to say: "This is confirmed also by more general DfT accessibility statistics which show that, in general the area has a lower public transport accessibility level than the remainder of Southwark whilst by car it tends to be on par with the other parts of the borough or somewhat higher for hospitals, particularly due to the proximity of Dulwich Community Hospital." Even that suggests that whilst we don't have the good PTAL scores of other parts of Southwark our car use is on a par with those other areas in the borough. So why is Southwark so focussed on Dulwich? You can see the extent of the issue by looking here: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat/webcat - look at that huge swathe of poor/moderate PTAL scores around Dulwich and compare it to Camberwell or further north in the borough. You need to start looking at the cause of the problem not the outcome. The pro-LTN lobby focusses solely on the outcome (too much traffic) and says let's stop the traffic that will solve the problem. It doesn't because there is, no acknowledgement of, or action to tackle what the cause of the problem is. It is well documented that areas with poor PTALs have higher car use because there are limited public transport options. - so what happens when you block some roads with LTNs - the traffic goes elsewhere because people cannot use public transport because it is poor? And you don't need a piece of peer-reviewed research to understand that.

Rahx3 - stop this nonsense about good transport links - you know that is not true. Southwark's own words...... PTAL is a measure of accessibility used by TfL based on distance and frequency of public transport. The areas with a high level of public transport accessibility usually score 5, 6a or 6b on the PTAL scale, whilst areas with very low levels of public transport accessibility will score 0, 1a or 1b. The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't have any issue with banning cars - if > > there is a decent public service and no closed > > roads - the problem is that LTNs DO NOT reduce > car > > use...or pollution. > > You keep saying that LTNs don't reduce car use, > but all the available evidence suggests that they > do. We have very good public transport compared to > 90% of the country - several train stations, lot's > of buses, electric hire bikes, and thanks to the > introduction of a small number of LTNS, even a > few, relatively quiet walking and cycling routes. They reduce car journeys (not use - that is an important qualification as there is no proof that people living within them use their cars any less) WITHIN the closed area but increase car journeys OUTSIDE of them. That, in a nutshell, is the Achilles heel of every LTN. And Rahx3 - have you been smoking something strong with your suggestion we have good public transport links - even the council admits the transport links in Dulwich are "poor" - their words not mine?

P3girl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kiera Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > According to last night's zoom meeting, the > > reopening of Rye Lane to buses will be on 18th > > October. I only watched about half of it > because > > of problem with wi-fi and then zoom using up > too > > much of my mobile data. > > Most of the audience's contributions seemed > to > > me to be from supporters of closure. I switched > > off at the point where one such supporter was > > emphasising how much better it is at the moment > > for the disabled, as it's much easier for a > > wheelchair user to use the road than the > > pavement. > > I've attended several of Southwark's Zoom events > in relation to road closures and they all follow a > similar pattern which appears structured to (a) > propagandise the "benefits" (b) limit the number > of adverse questions:- > > 1. They started 14 minutes late. > > 2. Cllr Rose then spent 22 minutes giving a PP > presentation about the Council's ambitions with > closures. It was unnecessary propaganda. > > 3. The chair selected those who were allowed to > ask questions. The very first question was from a > campaigner from a cycling club. He rabbitted on > and on about the virtues of closures. He came > across as a deliberate plant. > > 4. Many of the other early public contributions > were similar - not really questions but rather a > rehash of Rose's monologue. They appeared to be > pre-selected. > > 5. Rather than focus on questions from the public, > the Chair regularly asked the other Councillors to > make contributions and of course they responded by > amplifying the pro-closure position > > It smacked of manipulation - similar to the biased > questions in the LTN consultations where > answering "Yes" to the question "Do you want fresh > air and safe streets" was taken by them to mean > support for LTN road closures. > > Blatant and unforgivable. To be fair to the council at least they are being consistent as your summary of the meeting is so reflective of every other meeting they have ever organised in relation to LTNs - filibusters punctuated by the occasional input from a vested-interest group that lauds how wonderful the measures/council are!

Malumbu - you light bonfires with petrol.....my goodness me...that is an absolute recipe for disaster and so dangerous so please be careful.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do not excuse the councillors for ignoring the > majority view, but the fact that so few of us > (yes, that could include YOU), really CBA with > local elections. It is widely acknowledged and > shown by statistics that a minority vote in most > local elections. If we all were to take more of an > interest those we vote in will know that they have > a wider and more invested electorate and may shape > up a bit! I very much suspect that quite a lot more people will be taking an interest in the councillor elections in May - perhaps that will be the only "consultation" that the council pays any attention to! The campaigning for those elections will be interesting - the councillors might actually have to face their constituents again. I very much suspect that a few of our councillors won't stand for re-election and try and save some face.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 300 respondents to a consultation on the cash > machine in DV and our councillors mobilise into > action...... > > https://twitter.com/SouthwarkLabour/status/1442434 > 104444653568?s=19 > > 3612 of their constituents say remove the LTNs in > another consultation and they...........ignore > them.... One day is a long time in politics. The cash machine that our councillors were claiming to have saved has gone one day after their grandstanding tweet (I took this pic this morning).....that's a bit embarrassing......perhaps those 300 responses counted for nothing either after all - at least they can claim they are being consistent! Anyway. per Heartblock's question on solutions to the traffic problems that are not LTNs I am more and more convinced means-tested road pricing is the only way forward. What has been interesting during this fuel crisis debacle is the roads seem quieter during the last two days. I suspect people are questioning whether they really need to make a journey and I do think that that is the only thing that will force people to make long-term changes.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mounting a pavement is not a 'good temporary' > solution...honestly, no idea. I can hear my > paramedic students laughing right now...partly in > horror and partly in disbelief. I really hope this > is not a comment from a Councillor or a Council > Official. Heartblock - but surely if a bike can bump the kerb then surely an ambulance, water-laden fire engine or police car could do the same......;-) Raeburn, no-one is trying to discredit it we're just asking why it took the council so long to do it (14 months) when all of the emergency services were telling them to do it immediately. Surely that is of concern to you too?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even LTN cycling poster boy for Southwark - > Guardian's Peter Walker admits that "Motor traffic > on the roads in many places has returned to > pre-pandemic levels, and there are concerns that > in some areas it could rise further as people shun > public transport because of concerns about > coronavirus" > Which means traffic fell due to the pandemic -lock > down and NOT LTNs > > and > > "This is seen as particularly an issue for > cycling: the number of bike trips rose notably > during lockdown, but there is concern that many > new or returning cyclists could stop now" > Which means cycling increased when people were off > school and working from home during the lockdown - > NOT due to LTNs. Interesting on this - do people think public transport is being shunned? I know the train and tube aren't indicative of all public transport journeys but I have travelled on both on weekdays and weekends and they have been incredibly busy - weekends particularly. P.S. I think Peter Walker knows falling bike journeys are not a "concern" but a reality - I suspect he has seen the DfT figures on cycling in 2021 and is trying to put his usual pro-cycling pro-LTN spin on things!

Raeburn - I really don't know what point you are trying to make - other than repeatedly blindly defending the council. Just because the council is promising to do something now doesn't make it ok that they did nothing for 14 months. That is endangering lives. The police, ambulance and fire services all made their feelings abundantly clear about non-permeable barriers to Southwark council in July 2020 after the measures went it. They did not support them and wanted permeable (for emergency vehicles) barriers. They have continued to lobby Southwark to make those changes. Southwark did make some changes to Melbourne Grove (for example) but have done nothing at the DV junction. Absolutely nothing. The DV junction is as non-permeable now as it was when the road closures went in. And now, in documentation that Southwark has posted as part of the review LAS and MPS have both stated that the DV closures led to delays in responses to blue-light incidents (where, I am sure you appreciate every second counts). So it doesn't look good for the council as the question still remains: why did they ignore the input from the emergency services about the DV junction for 14 months? Any ideas? Here is a suggestion for you: I think the council have resisted doing it because if you make that junction an emergency access route you cannot have the "party in the square" nonsense and that grandstanding event has been more of a priority than emergency vehicle access. And are you really suggesting that emergency services had access around the DV closures by mounting the pavement? Once I stopped laughing at that absurd suggestion I tried to imagine being in the back of the ambulance and the driver saying, hang on for a second patient (let's imagine they have a back injury for example), we're just going to bump up and down the pavement for a moment or two whilst trying to avoid pedestrians as we navigate our way around this road closure.

300 respondents to a consultation on the cash machine in DV and our councillors mobilise into action...... 3612 of their constituents say remove the LTNs in another consultation and they...........ignore them....

My point was they ignored it from the moment they received it - which was July 2020 - not sure where you interpreted my note as my suggesting they actively ignored a letter from the future...maybe it was wishful thinking on your part. They ignored it for at least 14 months (and it will be more given the changes being suggested won't be in for some time)....that's horrendous and a complete dereliction of duty by our councillors and the council. Lives were being, and are still being, put at risk by their stubbornness and refusal to open the DV junction to emergency vehicles. It's clear from all the comms sent by LAS recently that LAS (and MPS for that matter) are reminding Southwark that they have been telling them this since July 2020 - they are the type of comms that go in ahead of a public enquiry so everyone know where the responsibility lies. Why did the council ignore the advice of the emergency services? Was it that they felt their strategic goals with LTNs were more important than the needs of the emergency services? Are they so disorganised that they didn't read it? Or was it another "oversight"?

Raeburn - how on earth am I mis-representing facts? Maybe you should be asking yourself why the council has ignored numerous requests from emergency services to not have non-permeable barriers in place....that letter was sent to Southwark in July 2020 - why it has taken 14 months for them to act upon it? DV/Court Lane has been permanently closed to emergency services since the measures went it. I also refer you to this from LAS to Southwark that Southwark posted as part of the review....LAS has been telling Southwark the measures have been causing delays in response times and reminded them when LAS reviewed the new changes Southwark is proposing..... ? The proposed scheme to create a cycle and emergency access lane would improve the emergency vehicle access/egress into the area and will be an improvement on the current hard physical closures that the ambulance service have been unable to access since the implementation of the scheme last summer, that has resulted in a number of incidents of delayed ambulances being reported to Southwark Council. Additionally, look how LAS refer Southwark back to the letter they sent in July 2020.....a subtle reminder that the council chose to ignore the July 2020 letter. Why, despite numerous requests from the emergency services, has the council not allowed emergency vehicle access at the DV junction for 14 months? This has clearly endangered Dulwich residents' lives. Increased permeability of the scheme is required as a number of hard physical closures still exist within the scheme, the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust formally wrote to all local authorities in London including Southwark in July 2020 to request the greater use of soft camera enforced modal filters instead of hard physical closures to ensure emergency access/egress to areas is unimpeded, although improvements have been proposed we would kindly request that further soft closures are included as part of the overall review of the Dulwich scheme. You can find it here if you think I am making it up or "wilfully misrepresenting facts" - https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101521/Appendix%20F3%20-%20Emergency%20Service%20response.pdf

If this letter was sent to every council from London Ambulance Service in July 2020, I wonder if Southwark will ever tell us why they ignored it - LAS makes it clear any immovable barriers need a 3.5 metre gap to allow emergency vehicle access at all times - Dulwich Village continues to have none? Perhaps LAS's view and input was outweighed by the "strong views" on the other side of the argument (per Cllr Rose).

But Rahx3 - there is increasing evidence that LTNs don't work. Take a close look at the council's own Dulwich LTN review and it's clear they are not delivering as intended - in fact, it looks as if they are making the problem far worse rather than better. We can't just hang on to these measures on the promise of what might happen - it isn't happening and it won't happen. We were told let them bed in, well we have and things haven't changed. Our local councillors are continuing to wilfully ignore the majority of residents (and remember these are the people who should be benefitting the most) so we have to find someone who will listen.

It was a rally to show support for the council?s LTNs. Were there many people there?