Bicknell

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is plenty of evidence of pro car groups > campaigning against local initiatives from outside > the area. I'm sure there is probably the same > thing happening on the other side too (those in > favour of low traffic neighbourhoods). The council > should assess the reality and do what in their > judgement is best for the area. I am pretty > suspicious of online petitions tbh as you can find > one arguing for almost any position nowadays and > it shouldn't be about how shout loudest. Could you point me to the evidnece of pro car lobbies campaigning from outside the area @rahrahrah? Would be good to see that.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Assuming the recommendations to the South > multiward meeting on 25 Feb were approved (I can't > find the decision / minutes anywhere), Southwark > are actually funding Clean Air for Dulwich to > campaign in favour of LTNs, out of the > Neighbourhoods Fund. > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6618/ > Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2025-Feb-2020%20 > 19.00%20South%20multi-ward%20forum.pdf?T=10 > > You could squeeze clean air campaigning into the > criteria at a push (maybe, it's not really the > same as getting volunteers for a local clean up) > but generally campaigning groups haven't been > included before as far as I know, and certainly > not funded to advocate specific council policies! whens the next round? One Dulwich could apply. they are after all campaigning for cleaner air on roads like East Dulwich Grove, and for the council to monitor pollution (which hasnt happened so far)

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey Wrote: > >some people give focus to community roles and i'd > imagine statistically they're more likely to > participate in a number of things throughout the > community. Its not a massive conspiracy! > > Maybe not an active conspiracy but what I see is a > small number of local(?) activists create > overlapping groups, Clean Air Dulwich, Southwark > Cyclists, Mums for Lungs, Safe Routes to Schools > Dul Soc Environment C'ttee etc. These activists > claim to represent "local community" and are > engaged by local councillors and treated as key > stakeholders by the council who are happy to > accept these groups at face value and dismiss or > ignore the concerns of their own constituents and > Resident's Associations without questioning whose > these activists represent. > > At the meeting Katy Savage of Clean air for > Dulwich (Facebook group liked by 79 people, no > info where they are from) was happy to > condescendingly dismiss the 2,700 person petition > to reverse closures without mentioning that the > petition to keep the closures had received a > massive... 51 supporters. > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListD > isplay.aspx?bcr=1 . The narrative she is trying > to put over is that objectors to these road > closures, which are causing such disruption and > pollution to roads such as Lordship Lane and EDG, > are a vocal minority; in reality it is the > supporter and proponents of these these poorly > thought through schemes that are the minority. > > One of Ms Savage's arguments was that there was no > verification where the respondents on the petition > lived - if true, that is clearly a failure by > Southwark council. However, the DV junction > closure has always been justified by the > councillors as the outcome of the OHS phase 2 > consultation. That exercise had about 200 > respondents, mainly on line, and the council has > refused to say where they lived. According to > her views that consultation was therefore > meaningless. > > Note that OneDulwich who , with over 1,700 > supporters is very open about where those > supporters live see > https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters. It is > unfortunate that the local councillors are doing > all they can to misrepresent the views and > proposals of those groups who represent a > significant number of local residents and have put > in huge amounts of effort to analyse the situation > and suggest reasonable compromises. Good points here @slarti b. local councillors arent listening. I wonder what could make this change?

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.

KatyKoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've had a quick scroll but can't find your > suggestions on how to reduce motor traffic and > pollution - would you mind posting them again > please? Genuinely interested to see what other > ideas there are on how to reduce cars and > pollution other than what the council are doing. I dont know Katy Koo but is this what they call Sealioning.

so when are all the other meausres going in like on Townley Road? anyone know? communication not southwarks strong point

Worry is that the council wont listen to objections. Closures are experimental -but who judges if experiments are success or failrue?

some streets empty of traffic, others crammed full. People in the empty streets say, its lovely, and wont listen to anyones problems. thats selfish I guess.

i will take pictures next week @rahrahrah. But Townley Road nose to tail traffic at drop off and pickup. schools have warned parents of chaos.lets see what happnes next.

Its OK to google @andrewc. but start from where we are - London suburb with no tube, used as direct route by cars vans lorrys from Kent and Surrey going north and Wandsworht, Clapham etc going east. Closing roads is an idea, thats all, one of many. May not work here.

New measures have bus gates which means Buses and teh private school coaches and taxis allowed through. ok for P4. OUtside the zone all the cars go on East Duwlich grove and lordship Lane where all the other buses are. Chaos for 176,185,40,37, etc etc.

its the kids I feel sorry for. we're pushing traffic from here to there, and theyre walknig past traffic jams breathing in all the pollution

Got legal advice from a QC. why did they care that much? beyond me. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f20556c9901276144543bb3/t/5f36be2c471fb44cb171bb47/1597423177107/Legal+Advice.pdf

except you dont need a license to campaign but you do need one to put on an event. Especially when there are rules because of covid. Unless youre Dominic Cummings.

Railton Road and road closures is at the end -36 minutes in- last nights newsnight - here https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000l9x0/newsnight-29072020

Railton Road closure was on Newsnight last night.

Dont bother about the elderly. Just a small minority....Let them sit in traffic jams..Better still throw a protective ring of planters round them.

Ive heard alot of people calling it the Dulwich Dead End.

I dont know - im no expert - but if you dont need to close a road day and night why do it? If it makes life easier for people to have it open some of teh time, why not?

Seems to me its the council that wants to make public roads private, not One Dulwich. Tahts what closures do - make little private roads. That's not what ONe Dulwich is saying. Look at their website www.onedulwich.uk.

So you can see where the supporters come from here https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters. Not just one bit of Dulwich.

Agree with you @dande. Close Dulwich village junction, and all the traffic gets pushed on East Dulwich. Nice look for a Labour council.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I think turning consultations in to a popularity contest as seems to have happened in the last few years is a rather silly distraction from the actual aims of the consultation process (which is supposed to be, to discover and, if necessary mitigate, hardships and disbenefits caused by a scheme). "52:48 YOU LOST GET OVARR IT HA HA" doesn't really do anyone any favours. Agree with you mate. But its what the council have done with this one. And if you're using a result, you've got to be able to back it up. Otherwise you're just spinning fairy tales.

The problem is ( somebody said this way back)- that no one trusts what the council is saying . YOu can't rely on them to come up with something thats for the general good when they use figures you cant rely on. Just because the councillors shout it really loud doesn't mean its fact. Its just opinion.

Seems sensible to me, what they say www.onedulwich.uk. Nothing on the roads round here sometimes. Take it slowly I think. Try things out.