Earl Aelfheah

It's interesting that you think 'the only fact that matters' is that you can name a road which wasn't monitored; ignoring all the ones that were, and dismissing all available data.

So where do you draw the line. You think they have to monitor every road, no matter how far away? every road in the postcode, in the borough, in London? They monitored a good number of roads in and around the LTN and showed a fall in traffic overall, across the wider area. To claim it showed the opposite is simply untrue.

Yes, exactly why I stated that it was only a correlation, the point being however, that pollution did not increase on surrounding roads. It fell. So when people claim that pollution rose, they are wrong. When they claim that traffic didn’t fall across the wider area, they are wrong. Wrong on matters of fact, not opinion. So some opinions and anecdote, versus peer reviewed, data based research?

No evidence of this at all. In fact the data shows that traffic did reduce across the wider area post LTN implementation and air quality has improved (although this is only a correlation).

This sounds like it's straight out of a dystopian novel. For the love of all that’s holy, someone replace it with idling cars.

You do realise that the square is here to stay right?

Which measures? Are we talking about the Dulwich LTN, what happened in Lambeth, or the CPZ. You see I don’t think it matters for some on here. They’re against any change. And that's the problem. If you're still talking about the square, (and whether you approve of Southwark council or not), it’s just not true that they’ve cheated anything. They held multiple consultations and won challenges mounted by One Dulwich. @exdulwicher lays out the history very well above. I don't need to forget 'what they've done'. I think it's great - the square is a great improvement. I think you on the other hand would be well to try and heal some of your 'wounds' over it. I really don't think that so many years on your continued obsession is likely to be doing you much good.

To you personally? What did he promise? Did he whisper 'it's all a secret conspiracy' as you slept?

Pretty sure they didn't say FOR ALL (and certainly not at the volume your capitalisation suggests). At some point Rocks, you are going to have to accept that Dulwich now has a nice pedestrian area where the used to be a line of traffic. It's literally been years since the layout was changed. It's actually a nice space, you should go and have a sit there and enjoy the sun.

The data shows that traffic did fall across the wider area. Don't think I've said anything much about the CPZ - except to point out some facts about what a consultation is and isn't and how our system of democracy works. I don't really have any strong views on the CPZ. I'm not disputing this - but are you able to provide a link to where they have said this and exactly what they've said? It seems like a silly 'promise', as outside of the usual consultation procedures there is no duty on them to prove a majority (of who exactly) are in favour of such a scheme.

Did they say this? If so, it's a silly thing for them to say, and no, clearly they don't have evidence for 'majority support' whatever that means (a majority of who?). You keep asking the same question about it, but surely you should be directing it to the councillor in question? No, I'm fairly sure it doesn't, but Penguin does seem to believe otherwise.

At least years later Rockets has taken it on the chin and is not still absolutely obsessed with it

I can't find anywhere where it says there must be majority support as a matter of statutory guidance or law. Some councils clearly do have a policy of only installing CPZs where there is clear majority support (probably because they know how politically contentious parking can be), but I'm not sure this is a legal requirement of consultation. Again, i could be wrong, but I haven't been able to find any evidence that it is a legal requirement.

Like I say, there is no process of consultation that you would have considered adequate, except one that resulted in keeping a queue of cars where the square now is. But luckily the improvements did go ahead and the village is a lot better for it. This many years on, your continued obsession with it really does feel quite unhealthy.

What patterns of behaviour? You have been obsessed with reversing the improvements to the village for several years now. You have never demonstrated any issue with how people were consulted over the changes and I don't believe there is any process that you would have been happy with, except one that kept a queue of cars where the square now is. This many years on, it's also irrelevant. We've had local elections since and councillors were returned to office. Most of the objections made in regard to the consultation by Southwark seem to be based on the idea that it should have been treated as if it were a referendum. That's kind of like criticising an elephant for being a poor cat.

It is not clear. This is just more conspiracy nonsense That's because a consultation is not a vote. They just need to make reasonable efforts to engage and give appropriate consideration of the feedback, before making a decision. But they are still accountable for the decision, not those who have responded to the consultation. This is actually the most ridiculous thing about the whole case - were they able to demonstrate that they had considered the 53 page presentation (on which the judgement hinged), then they could still have made exactly the same decision and it would have been entirely lawful. It will be interesting to see what the judges directions are. Whether he instructs them to end the trail, or perhaps just reconsider the submissions, or something else.

🤣 Yes, I can't imagine they'd thank you for that. Sounds like keeping the car is probably the right thing for you.

If you think about the amount you spend on keeping and using a car and how infrequently you use it, you might be better just getting the occasional Uber. We often underestimate the cost of owning a car, as opposed to using a cab. There is actually a name for it in Psychology ('the taxi meter effect'). It's likely you're spending at least £1000 - £1,500 a year on keeping a car (£500 on insurance, £200 on MOT and service / repairs, £180 on VED, Then the ULEZ fee each time you use it, plus fuel, plus depreciation... maybe minimal in this case). If you put that in a separate 'pot' and used it to cover the occasional Uber, you may find your needs more than covered.

Exactly. Sunak's draft guidance was little more than a NIMBYs charter and a desperate last stand. I don't think it was relied on in this case though, and I don't believe it's legally binding in any way. The issue in the Lambeth case is that they couldn't demonstrate that they'd taken account of a 53 page presentation, before making a decision. I really don't think you're right about this. Again, I stand to be corrected, but I suspect you've relied on the AI summary Google generates, which from what I can tell, refers not to any legal requirement, but has scraped information from Richmond councils guidance which it applies to itself. As Mal points out, Sunak issued draft statutory guidance, his "Plan for Drivers," which included around 30 measures to try and make it more difficult for local authorities to try and improve road safety (in a nakedly populist last stand before he was booted); Richmond have decided to make it local policy. My understanding however, is that it is not legally binding statutory guidance or legislation. Again, if I've got that wrong, please do point me in the right direction.

Yes, whilst also opposing every single intervention to actually improve pedestrian spaces, add pedestrian crossing etc.

There are some people who just predictably and consistently oppose any change.

'The LTN lobby'. LOL someone can’t just have a different opinion to you, they have to be a ‘lobbyist’ or an ‘activist’ or a ‘secret councillor’. 🙄

Why do I love the Guardian? Your reaction to that article kind of proves my point. I've not made any comment on it, except to say that it is not: ...as it was described. It's not meant to be - as Mal says it's an opinion piece.

Sure. That's exactly what it is. I was challenging the idea that it was balanced. Ok, this is what I thought. You've quoted a council's own policy on how they conduct consultation exercises in relation to local parking schemes. I think some of what you've quoted comes specifically from Richmond Council. This is not the same thing as saying that: ...the implication being that this is a legal duty on all councils. There is no legal duty for councils to hold a referendum when it comes to introducing a CPZ as far as I'm aware. Again, happy to be corrected.

It's not remotely balanced. It starts with the following opening sentence: "Should cars be illegal? Are drivers evil? The way some councils have been imposing “low-traffic neighbourhoods” over the past five years, it seems their leaders definitely think so." Really? Council leaders 'definitely' think cars should be illegal and drivers are evil? Hyperbole much?