slarti b

You seem to have no idea we are in the middle of a pandemic. Look at this and tell me if it complies with Govt guidelines and rules about public events.

Does being a friend of Mary Newens Plaza, sorry, Dulwich Square, mean you are exempt from the law or considerate behaviour to your fellow citizens? If so, what hypocrisy.

James, This is not directly within your ward but affects it and I am raising this since you seem to be the only local Councillor who(sometimes) responds on this forum. :-) An organisation has been organising weekend events at the closed off junction of Calton Avenue, Court Lane and Dulwich Village, in contravention of Govt Covid guidelines. In my opinion this is totally irresponsible in the current situation. Can you tell me whether this sort of event in a public space needs authorisation from the council and\or the Metropolitan Police and, if so, whether that authorisation was granted? Also, is there a department in teh council responsible for ensuring compliance with Covid regulations to which I can raise a complaint? see /forum/read.php?5,2137567,2137567#msg-2137567

Duplicate deleted

The junction of Calton Avenue, Court Lane and Dulwich Village was temporarily closed off under emergency measures on the basis this would help the fight against Covid by allowing social distancing. However, an organisation has used this opportunity to promote a series of concerts and other events in the closed off area. I have seen a video showing about 70 people there last weekend which, in my opinion, is totally irresponsible and also seems to contravenes government guidelines (if not laws). Is there a department in the council responsible for ensuring compliance with Covid regulations and to whom we can report this anti-social behaviour? See https://www.friendsofdulwichsquare.co.uk/ for past and future events.

gkb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please be aware that the "One Dulwich" group should be re-named as "one bit of Dulwich" they > are not representative and appear to be a select group who are against change. Changes can never > appease everyone, but the road closures (temp) in the village are a great step towards cutting down > pollution and making the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians. These changes have been requested > for years and it is at long last they have been implemented. The "One Dulwich" name refers to the East and West parts of Dulwich separated by the DV junction and other closures in OHS. I would imagine we are just as representatative, or more so, of Dulwich as pressure groups behind OHS sush as Safe Routes or Mums for Lungs. We are not agasint change, we just want changes to be properly thought through and appropriate. Indeeed we actually proposed a low traffic neigbourhood 5 years ago, before the last botched re-design of the junction. In terms of pollution, I am afraid the current changes, and indeed OHS, will move the pollution elsewhere, look at Dulwich Village last week. Anyway, the Foundation schools have now gone on holiday so things will be better for a couple of months. Wait till September and see what happens then. edited to add: One Dlwich now has over 500 supporters who have signed up ove the last 3 weeks or so.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think we have to ask ourselves whether this is > genuine accident (poor management/piecemeal) or > design? What can Southwark hope to gain from this approach? These consequences were obvious and, as Metallica says, have been pointed out to the council by many people. So, my view is that it is deliberate. The council's next action will be to say, crikey, we hadn't anticipated how bad it would be in DV and EDG, we will have to close off Dulwich Village by Roundabout, Townley Road\EDG, Burbage Road etc etc. Effectively they will be using Covid to implement the full OHS scheme by the back door. Except that the closures are likley to be full time rather than timed with residents access. This will reduce traffic on DV and divert it onto the main roads ( one of teh key objectives of OHS) meaning EDG, Lordship Lane, Croxted Road Half Moon Lane etc.

JaeFaulkner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi bro , i am newbie to what exactly happened? I recently passed there and > everything was fine Jae, I cycled through DV junction just after 10.00 and and it was fine, hardly any traffic on Dulwich Village or Turney. However, if you have a look at 9.00 am or 4.00-5.00 pm you will find total chaos. This is because the problem of high traffic volumes is very much limited to peak times.

Nick, I looked at this but stopped on first page when you asked for year of birth and salary level as required answeresa. Too much personal data to be putting in Google Docs for an anonymous person. At the very least you should be putting your name, mayeb supervisor;s name and contact details so we can verify you are who you say you are. Does UCL have guidelines for this sort of survey and any sort of reassurance about privacy, GDPR etc?

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Have you walked through Dulwich at this time of day any time in the past 5+ years? that's normal. > Where on earth are people actually driving, anyway? I have cycled through the junction most days for the last 20 years. I have never seen such chaos since Autumn 2017 when Southwark carried out the previous, failed re-modelling. And if it is bad now, think about what will happen as schools start returning properly in September! Remember that the Council used the traffic figures for Oct 2017 to claim that overall traffic volumes had increased by 47% when they had actually decreased. Any statistics used by the council in connection with the current, temporary, measures need to be treated with great caution.

KatyKoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The council ran a year long consultation - didn't you know? it got one of the highest responses ever > in a Southwark consultation - over 2000. There were lots of posters around advertising public > meetings, and leaflets, street stalls etc. Would have thought you being so knowledgeable on the > subject you might have attended some of the meetings? Very misleading statement. According to the council the measures put forward for rubber stamping in Phase 3 were decided during the phase 2 consultation. According to you and other posters, phase 2 was a huge consultation involving workshops ( 3 I think?) posters, advertising etc etc. So how many responses were there to the section on the DV Junction? 217 online responses and the council has refused to say where those responses come from. Not a solid basis to make huge changes to a consultations area with around 7-8,000 adults is it? And sadly, following the failure of Southwarks previous schemes and disillusionment with tainted consultation processes, many residents have given up since they feel the council ignores them and just goes ahead with what it had already decided. You seem to know a lot about the consultation process, what meetings did the Village councillors have with the RAs or other groups represneting Area B before the Phase 3 plans were published in Jan 2020?

I imagine this is severely affecting the P4 and probably also the 37 and 42 bus routes. Has anyone had experience of these services yesterday or today?

tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > utterly bonkers. plus the people living in woodwarde road and the closed off streets now have > to undertake a massive loop simply to get through the village. Presumably the next step will be to close off some of the other acess points, eg Townley\EDG, Townley\Lordhip Lane, Eynella Road, to deal with the inevitable consequences of the DV closure. And it will be difficult to have teh timed clsoures Southwark was proposing earlier so I suspect this could get much worse for those in area B.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They're being asked to implement these measures "specifically* via the ETRO process, by both the > Mayor, and the DfT, as a way to enable active travel as a response to coronavirus. This is an > emergency, and the appropriate tools are being used. It looks like they are using Coronavirus as an excuse to implement the OHS scheme through the back door without full consultation and scrutiny. Closing DV junction was inevitably going to lead to this chaos, even with schools not fully back and many people working from home. So, if they continue teh OHS approach and start putting in road blocks at say Dulwich Village roundabout and Burbage then traffic in DV will be reduced but it will be displaced onto Lordship Lane, EDG, Croxted Road etc. I wonder what TfL will think of that? By the way remember that diverting traffic onto these "main roads" is one of the explicit aims of OHS though they refused to model the impact. So, they will continue with a whack a mole approach with the self appointed activist groups pressing for more andf more ill considered, poorly thought through changes.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And there's more from MumsforLungs, Dulwich Safe Routes and so the list goes on and on - who are > these people and why do they wield such power with the council?! rarahrah, a support of the schemes but also a realist summed up the process very well in another post The assessment went like this. A small but vocal group living on Melbourne Grove petitioned councillors to close their road. A small but vocal group living near the junction of duulwich village / Court lane lobbied the council to close their road. The council responded to the loudest voices, with little reference to the wider area and seemingly no strategic plan. As we have seen before, the Councillors are happy to listen to activists rather their constituents. However, it seems to be even worse now and it doesn't help that politically, the Dulwich area is now a one-party state with no opposition councillors.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What you have in this area particularly is highly-mobilised, university educated people who are very wedded > to their cars Looking at travel to work stats (2011 census), which comprise most of the problems that OHS is trying to solve, the vast majority of those living in Dulwich Village ward do NOT travel by car to work, in fact only 12% do. This slighty higher than Soutwark as a whole (8%) but reflects SOuthwarks location at the edge of the Borough with inferior public transport. Remember that much of Dulwich has low PTAL scores. Edit to add that Dulwich Village at 11.9% is very similar to East Dulwich with 11.5% so please stop this demonising of Dulwich Village. And these Village Ward figures are much lower than surrounding boroughs such as Greenwich 18%, Bromley 27%, Lewisham 14%, Croydon 24%. These figures are 9 years old, but I suspect this proportion will have decreased even more, if you have more recent stats I would be interested to see them.

@Northernmonkey March46 was comparing the current point closure of the DV junction with the One Dulwich proposal. My point was that One Dulwich needs to be looked at in the context of the wider measures in OHS in particular Area C. We have never proposed restrictions on DV junction by itself. This has come about because the Councillors have taken advantage of the Covid 19 situation to rush through ill considered changes. Southwark's OHS scheme for area B has 3 or 4 timed restrictions and 2 permanent closures. OneDulwich proposes turning all of those into timed restrictions. In area C there are at least 2 further timed restictions so the concept is well established even by Southwark. Hope that answers your question.

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > slarti b - you've spoken from a onedulwich perspective previously so I wonder if you can > clarify how the displacement at 3.30pm would have differed under the onedulwich solution (which I > believe would have operated at peak times)? March, Are you asking the question in the context of the OHS scheme or the current "temporary" Covid measures? As part of OHS, the One Dulwich scheme would work in conjunction with other OHS measures in Area C such as closure of DV Northbound at peak times and Turney Road becoming one way. This would significantly reduce through traffic but would result in less traffic diversion than Southwarks's OHS proposals. Closing the DV junction, or restricting at peak times, by itself is not part of the OneDulwich concept. Anyone who understands the traffic flows in the area will know this will cause diversion and extra traffic along alternative routes as I mentioned previously; going North or North East principally DV North and EDG but maybe also Court Lane\Dovercourt\Townley\EDG or Dekker\Calton\Townley etc. Going South ould be EDG\Townley Lordship Lane or DV South. Any action taken at DV junction, whether permanent or temporary, will have significant impact elsewhere which is why I think it is opportunistic and ill considered. The reality is that closing the DV junction by itself, without reducing traffic coming into Area's A and B, will just cause diversion of traffic, often past local schools. But if you reduce through traffic coming into the area, the complete closure of DV junction is not needed as traffic volumes will be massively reduced. So, can I ask you how you, or rather the Councillors, assess the impact of diverted traffic under both the proposed OHS scheme and the current closure of the DV junction. This was barely covered in the OHS phase 3 slides apart from saying that this traffic should be diverted onto "main roads". Please tell me which roads these are? Looking at the traffic flows these are likely to be Croxted road, Lordship lane, East Dulwich Grove, Matham Grove and Half Moon Lane. Can you confirm this ? And remember, the OHS slides estimate a maximum of 11% of traffic will evaporate, that leaves over 6,000 traffic movements to relocate. Final point, we do need to be careful about looking at long term decisions based on current traffic volumes. More people are probably driving to work but there is much less school traffic, especially the Foundation schools that cause so much congestion during their term time. As we have seen, the council officers and the Councillors seem very happy to promote alarmist tales based on highly misleading statistics (the "47% increase" in traffic through the junction). Any conclusions presented by the council need to be backed up by detailed, objective data that can be independently reviewed. I look forward to you reply.

I popped down there this afternoon on way to Post Office around 3.30. Long queues in Dulwich Village going North from Roundabout (and before). Not unexpected given narrowing of road to one Lane. Cars that would have turned right into Calton will now go North along Dulwich Village to Red Post Hill then right along EDG. Similarly cars that would gone South East along Calton will now go along EDG then South along Dulwich Village. Poorly thought out and opportunistic. Just diverting most of the through traffic really.

Indeed, the question of diverted traffic resulting from OHS, or indeed the temporary closure of DV junction, has not been addressed at all by the Council. Croxted Road is in Lambeth but I am surprised that Councillors for the East Dulwich Wards have not considered the effect on Lordship Lane and EDG. I suspect Half Moon Lane will also see increases.

Would you apply the same criteria to voting if they are old enough to read and write, ie about 5? What about undue influence, if a councillor comes to your school and is presented by your teachers to talk about this wonderful scheme that they should support, where is the balanced viewpoint? Will children be able to understand and balance issues such as the impact of potential traffic diversion (though to be fair the council and councillors struggle on this) Will they be taken in by emotive, misleading statements such as traffic increasing by 47% ? Nope I don't think so Edited to ask : Are you aware of children being encouraged to respond to the consultation by parents, teachers or campaign groups?

It is interesting to see how the results of the OHS phase 3 consultation are being presented by the councillors. Initially being boasted of as the largest Southwark consultation ever, then when queried about location of respondents they claimed that the "vast majority" came from close to the junction (though they said it would take too much time to analyse properly)and were 55% in favoiur of junction closure. This alleged result was used to support the DV closure It now seems that, of the 2,000 respondents (I think online), only about 1,200 came from the Consultation Area but the councillors will still not provide the breakdown of those within the area supporting or opposing the closure of DV junction. Nevertheless they claim the unpublished results as justification for local support to go ahead with the scheme. Other unanswered questions include, - Was the Western side of the Dutch Estate included in the Consultation, they are not in areas A, B or C on the OHS slides. - Were children encouraged to respond to the conultation ? I have heard this anecdotally though I have not had confirmation. - Did the release of interim results to the Councillors and local pressure groups affect the final results? - Are Dulwich Village and College Road part of the Consultation Area, they are in Area C according to the maps (and common sense) but the Councillors think not. - When will the council analyse the written responses, presumably more likely to be from those in the Consultation area. - If the majority of adult responses in the consultation area oppose the closure, will the Councillors reverse their position? Lets see...

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dande - ref your point 3. I?m interested to know how you think the onedulwich alternative tackles > the displaced traffic you?re worried would be an issue under the council?s plan? > The Council itself has not stated how they will tackle the displaced traffic under their own scheme. Any questions about this have been brushed aside with airy comments about evaporation, though by their own estimate over 6,000 vehicles will be displaced onto "major" roads. This means EDG, SOuthern part of DV, Croxted rd, Lordship Lane, Half Moon Lane, Burbage South, South Circular etc. This a major flaw in their scheme. All I can say is that if the DV closure is restricted only at peak times the amount of displaced traffic will be less than under the COuncil's scheme. Edited to add If you can provide detailed data for teh traffic movements though the junction, ie O&D data or traffic count data for all arms by time period we can certainly come up with some estimates. There is a certain amount of data in the "evidence pack" and supporting schedules but it is quite selective. And the Council and Councillors are generally very reluctant to publish full underlying data, presumably in case it undermines their assertions.

@Exdulwicher thank for that though it is more an opinion piece than a proper study. I note that TFL are talking about traffic levels being 78% of normal at teh begining of June, so nowhere near the alarmist "doubling" quoted by Lynnae, the OP. I expect these levels will rise, but lets see. Personally I am guessing that there will be a big increase in e-bikes and e-scooters, especially if the law is changed. However, using a bike or e-bike in the summer is very different to a wet, dark winter ride so it is moot what teh long term effects will be. One thing that will definitely help is better access to Public Transport, much of Dulwich has low PTAL scores, and increased bus frequency, especially if capacity is reduced due to Covid. Sadly the council doesn't seem to consider this a priority

Katy, I see you have made 3 of your 4 EDF posts yesterday, on this subject, so I guess you are pretty new to the forum - welcome. I will try and address your points but will also ask questions which I hope you have the courtesy to answer. Given your comments and phrasing I suspect you are close to or involved with either the DV ward Councillors or one of the pressure groups they have been working with on their informal "Steering Group", so you should be able to answer my questions below. . For full transparency I am involved with the One Dulwich group but I must emphasise I am responding in my personal capacity rather than on behalf of the group. Apologies for the long repsonse but it is a complex subject that cannot be solved by emotive slogans and I look forward to your answers to these questions 1) Misinformation The One Dulwich group, of which I am part, has tried to be as open as we can and, as a community led group, I hope we have not been spreading misinformation. If so, we will try and correct this. However, we have concrete examples where Councillors and their supporters have spread misinformation about the DV Junction and their proposed scheme but have refused to admit and correct it. I hope they will change their stance on this. Examples of deliberate misinformation (or totally negligent assertions) include: - the traffic through the junction has increased by 47% on a like for like basis since the 2017 remodelling. This is quite frankly outrageous and discredits any other statistics promoted by the Council. - if the council had known about the current, ie 2018, traffic volumes they would not have decided in 2015 to put Quietway 7 through the DV junction. See above... - the remodelling of the DV junction in 2017 was down to TFL and nothing to do with Southwark council... - the claim of "3,500-4,000 pupils at peak hours" crossing Calton Avenue and Court Lane Examples of unsubstantiated assertions include: - "The vast majority of responses received for the phase 3 consultation were from within or immediately adjacent to the consultation area and 55% of respondents agreed with the proposal to close the Dulwich Village/Calton Avenue/Court Lane junction to motor traffic. " 2) Phase 3 Consultation You claim the Council has been consulting on this for over 6 months (updated to 12 months in a later posting?) . I believe the phase 3 consultation started in late Jan 2020 and after 3 stage managed public meetings, led and controlled by promoters of the scheme, we reached early March when meetings with eg RA's became very problematic due to Covid. Also, many peoples attention was focussed on other Covid related issues, nevertheless the council continued withe their timetable. This interfered with the normal consultation process. But lets look at the responses to the Phase 3 Consultation. You say the council received over 2000 responses to the Phase 3 consultation and claim 55% want the junction to be a "permeable filter" ( this phrase can cause confusion since the meaning was not explained in the councils slides) . Question: Where have the results of the phase 3 consultation been published and where can we see the detailed analysis? Question: Of the 2,000 responses you mention, how many were within the Consultation Area (as defined by the Council) and how many were from outside the Consultation Area Question: Of the responses from inside the Consultation Area, how many supported closure of the DV junction? Question: We know that outside pressure groups such as Southwark Cyclists requested their members to reply to the on-line consultation and instructed them how to answer the questions. Does the council consider these responses to have equal weight with residents within the Consultation Area? Question: Was the Dutch Estate east of East Dulwich Grove included in the consultation area and leafleted, they were not shown on the map. 3) OHS Phase 2 Consultation The phase 2 consultations happened, I think, in Q3 2019 and the council has said these are the basis of the plans put forward for phase 3 consultation. Though councillors have also said the phase 3 proposals for Area B are fixed so it is not a proper consultation. Ho humm.. Anyway, I went to one of the Phase 2 workshops which had very few other attendees and seemed to be more of a propaganda exercise to excuse why Southwark's previous scheme had made congestion worse. To be frank, I think a lot of people were, like me, totally disillusioned by the Council's so called consultation process and couldn't be bothered to turn up. However, since these are the basis of the OHS scheme, which is being implemented by the back door using the COVID crisis measures, can you answer these? Question: How many events, public meetings, street stalls etc did the Council carry out for phase 2 Question: How many people responded to the phase 2 consultations, split by on-line and paper. Question: how many of the responders to the phase 2 consultation, on which the Council's OHS scheme is based, voted for a permanent closure of the DV junction. Question: How many of the people in the phase 2 consultation who voted for a permanent closure of the DV junction were in The Consultation Area? 3) Interaction with local residents The local councillors have claimed they have been working closely with local residents associations, ie those in the consultation area, on these phase 3 plans. Question: Can they provide a timetable of which groups, eg residents Associations, Safe Routes to School, etc they contacted and when? Question: in the event of any meetings that occurred, did the Councillors receive full support for the phase 3 proposals or not? Questions: Presumably any interactions on which the councillors claim to rely will have been properly minuted by someone independent and the results recorded. Where can these be seen? 4) Covid measures - Phase 2 You mention in your post that "There are traffic count tubes all over Dulwich - monitoring the impact ready to implement further measures in Phase 2" Can you explain what your (or rather the Councillors) intentions are for "phase 2" of the emergency Covd measures? The Covid documents refers to further actions on Townley Road, Eynella Road, Turney Road , Dulwich Village and Eynella Road. That suggests you (or the councillors) are trying to impose the full OHS scheme while avoiding scrutiny or consultation. Can you expand on this please? Also, In terms of traffic counts, the current situation is far from normal. Any traffic counts and comparisons need to be considered even more very carefully than normal to ensure they are on a like for like basis. As we have seen, the council has used highly misleading comparisons during the phase 3 consultations, ie the "47% increase" in traffic. 5) Specific issues re One Dulwich proposals You say the following about One Dulwich "Rejected is not the same as 'completely ignored'. Their suggestions have not been ignored by the council - they have been responded to in detail and yes - rejected - both at the workshops and since then in ongoing correspondence for the following what could be seen as 'eminently sensible' reasons:- a) there is no budget for ANPR cameras throughout the area to enforce timed restrictions - using just signage only is not effective / enforceable (think 20mph speed signs) b) the surveys One Dulwich have conducted do not meet basic criteria to be considered - the council have considered other surveys from the community because they did meet the criteria. c) their proposal has no mention of how to make cycling and walking easier - although they 'claim' this to be one of their objectives." Question: Can you detail when the One Dulwich proposals were considered in workshops and who attended them? Also, have they actually been responded to or just dismissed as being annoying interference? a) Southwark Council's OHS scheme includes timed restrictions and, according to the main Southwark Council officer, 3 or possibly 4 ANPR cameras. One Dulwich , based on schemes elsewhere, does not think these are all necessary but if they are, will be similar to the councils own scheme. Question: what is the difference between Southwark Council's and the One Dulwich approach and why would the One Dulwich approach be any more expensive than the council? b) The Council are rejecting local Residents's Associations surveys because they do not like the result. On the other hand they are very happy to use the result of an unpublicised phase 2 survey with a tiny number of respondents to justify massive changes to the local neighbourhood. Question :what are the criteria the council has set out to accept the results of residents surveys and where can these be found, presumably on the Council's webs site? c) With the major exception of the permanent closure of the Dulwich Village junction, the Council's proposals are very similar to those of One Dulwich, not surprising since these were first drawn up by local residents and presented to the council 5 years ago. Our proposals will therefore have the same effect on making cycling and walking easier as the OHS scheme. Apologies for the lengthy post but it is a complex problem that cannot be solved by emotive slogans. I look forward to you answers, especially about the Phase 3 Consultation