Earl Aelfheah

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 Sunak's draft guidance was little more than a NIMBYs charter and a desperate last stand.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?

Don't think this is correct, fairly sure the usual consultation requirements apply. Could be wrong of course, but I would be interested where you have got this information from.

I think it’s self evident what that means. What are you suggesting, that it amounts to a promise of a referendum? Seems like a stupid thing for them to say if they did. Not sure why you think I need to account for it. Again, I don’t work for the council, or consider them particularly competent frankly.

Oh ok. So you’re not discussing how to improve the process of consultation, you’re calling for direct democracy and regular referenda. Happy to discuss the pros and cons of direct democracy vs representative democracy, but it’s a completely different debate about whether we should change our system of government. Feel free to start a thread in the lounge. There is very little point criticising a consultation based on the fact that it isn’t a referendum.

Could you summarise? I thought he explained how you would use representative sampling, which is exactly what I’ve suggested. Perhaps I missed something? Again they don’t need majority support for every scheme. A consultation is not a referendum and we live in a representative democracy. Seriously, Google how a representative democracy works, it might help.

Are you sure that's not one of your conspiracy theories. It's certainly not how it was reported: Southwark Council has scrapped plans to close Turney Road to traffic after local residents gave them the thumbs down …and: Southwark council has been forced to scrap plans to introduce a new low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) following a backlash from residents ….. and: South London council scraps planned LTN after huge outcry from residents There are plenty of examples of schemes being altered as the result of feedback / consultation exercises. So whether or not you think the council listen adequately, it is self evidently untrue to say they take no account of them at all. I think these consultation exercises are unhelpful; and one way in which this is the case is being demonstrated on this thread. They are not intended to be a vote on whether or not a scheme should proceed, yet this is what many people believe. The responses are weighted towards the most vociferous views, which are disproportionately amplified and then inevitably disappointed when a decision is made which remotely attempts to balance the needs of a broader range of stakeholders. Personally I would rather the council run some focus groups and do some market research / canvas a representative sample to understand local views; then make a decision. It would create less 'noise', enable better informed decision making, and ultimately be less divisive imo.

Why? I’ve not said I think the consultation process is a good one. I’ve actually said the exact opposite. If you think I’m ‘sticking up’ for the council, because I’ve clarified how our process of local governance works and the difference between a consultation and a referendum, I can’t help you. These are just matters of fact, whether you ‘like’ them or not is irrelevant. I said that I don’t see the point of these consultations and I’ve suggested some alternatives, but I’m not going to criticise them for not being something they don’t claim to be. That's just dumb. I have nothing to do with the council. I suspect you know this, but you just can’t resist a conspiracy theory eh? No it wasn’t. You do this a lot. It’s very, very easy to check if an impact assessment has been done (which of course it has been). Again, there are plenty of legitimate grounds on which to critique the council, without making stuff up. I don’t know. I’m not obsessive about this stuff like you, but my recollection is that they scrapped the scheme because of local opposition following the consultation - that’s certainly how it was reported. Either way it doesn’t change the substantive point; Southwark have made changes to proposals on the basis of feedback received through consultation, so it is demonstrably untrue that they take no account of feedback. Obviously one can debate whether or not they take enough account of it. Again, they are not obliged to implement changes based on the majority sentiment expressed in a consultation. It is not a referendum however much you want to pretend it is, or want it to be, this is not how it works. There are still objective realities.

The changes proposed to Turney Road. Rather than 'suspecting', why don't you check before insinuating something you do not know to be true? This is not remotely a referendum. Is every decision you take the result of a referendum, because it's a one person 'vote'? This is the same point you made earlier and it doesn't become any more coherent with repetition. Again, you misunderstand what a consultation is and you misunderstand how a representative democracy works. Whether you agree with them or not, whether you like them or not, our councillors are elected. There is nothing undemocratic about elected representatives making decisions on behalf of their constituents; Even unpopular decisions.

Especially when the works include SUDs, with brand new planting / additional green space.

Again, the question suggests that you've misunderstood the purpose of a consultation. Results are considered, in the context of expert advice, a wider policy agenda and the need to balance minority interests. It is intended to give an opportunity for people to influence decisions not make them. The 'majority view' expressed in responses from a self selecting sample of people, doesn't determine the decision, it just informs it. I don't know how else to explain that It is not intended to be a referendum. I am not frightened of democracy at all. I have just taken the time to understand our system of democracy. Complaining about a consultation exercise on the grounds that it hasn't been treated as a referendum is a poor argument. There are better ones. I have answered. The fact that Southwark have scrapped whole schemes and made changes to others, based on feedback, shows that they do consider responses. That they do not treat consultation as a referendum, enacting the 'result' as if it were a straight forward vote, is not surprising. They treat consultation feedback as one input into the decision making process that ultimately they are accountable for. This thread perfectly illustrates why consultations aren't (imo) very constructive or helpful.

Well if Southwark drop a proposal and alter others following consultation, then it self evidently does factor in to their decision making. Again, you are implying that responses to a consultation exercise should be treated as a referendum.

I have already said that I don’t think these consultation exercises are particularly helpful. But it’s pointless criticising them on the grounds that they make for a bad referendum. Well they have dropped some plans and made changes to others on the basis of consultation responses. I agree that they haven’t treated their consultation exercises as referenda.

There are good reasons why we don’t just ask the people what they want on every topic. Again, this is a different discussion about the pros and cons of different democratic systems, suffice to say, a local consultation is not intended to be a referendum.

Having elected representatives who then make decisions on behalf of the electorate is our entire system of government. We do not live in a dictatorship. Influencing decisions, not making them. A consultation is not a vote. It is not a referendum. The council may decide for example that it’s important to prioritise the needs of a minority, or to pursue an unpopular initiative in pursuit of a wider policy aim. There are many good reasons why we don’t live in a direct democracy, which I’ll happily debate if you want to start a thread on it.

They don't need to 'manipulate the process'. Again, you're misunderstanding the point of the consultation. It's not for the public to vote on the outcome. It's for the council to solicit a broad range of views to consider before they make a decision. Again, it is not a referendum. The problem with the current approach to consultation is that it does not solicit a broad range of views. It attracts the views of those who are most exercised by an issue - usually in opposition to a proposed change. That's why market research which canvases opinions from a representative sample of residents is probably more helpful in terms of consultation (getting input from people with different interests / views). Referenda are not good when it comes to local change, because they would invariably lead to no change at all. Ever.

If you want a discussion about the pros and cons of representative democracy vs direct democracy that's fine, but a different conversation. We do not live in a direct democracy. A consultation exercise is not a referendum and is not intended to be a vote. These are just facts. If you did want to change our entire system of local government to one of direct democracy (where referenda are held on every local matter), you would not run them in the same way as these consultation exercises.