jamesmcash

Hi all Hope everyone is doing well. Bus cuts I completely agree with Spartacus on this. Southwark Labour has launched a petition which we are using to raise the issue and mobilise support against the cuts. You can sign it here: https://www.change.org/p/save-southwark-buses-76a6cd96-80f9-41d6-be68-dd7ccbc18e67 The proposed removal of the #12 in particular is completely galling. Cabinet role Yes, as of next month I will be covering Cllr Helen Dennis's cabinet role: Climate Emergency and Sustainable Development. I will still be representing Goose Green though, so no change there. Daily Mail Thanks Rockets - that's kind of you. Best wishes, James

The Tories and the Lib Dems were never going to agree to do that. Their goal was not to remove the LTNs. It was to win seats for their respective party. As for Labour's mobilising strategy, we do exactly the same thing as every other major party. We speak to people, hear their concerns and try to persuade them to vote for us. On polling day we visit the people who have told us they'd vote for us to remind them to vote. We didn't win with any magic tricks. We were just more popular than the other parties this time. This is especially true in somewhere like Dulwich Village where the turnout was so high that mobilisation on the day was less of a factor.

Hi all Thank you to everyone who voted in yesterday's local elections. Thanks to your support, Cllr Charlie Smith and I will continue on as your Goose Green Labour Councillors, joined by Portia Mwangangye. I know I speak for all three of us - and our Labour councillors across Dulwich and Southwark - when I thank you for putting your faith in us. Across the Dulwich area, Labour Councillors have been returned by significant margins. In Goose Green, 57% of the votes cast were for Labour. Whoever you voted for, or if you did not vote at all, we are here to represent you. So do feel free to drop us an email if there is anything that we can do. Best wishes James

I hope this thread isn't representative of the wider Dulwich area, it'd be a Labour wipe-out! Thanks for an interesting thread. Whoever you support, please do try to vote. See you on the other side. Best wishes James

You've missed out some crucial words from that quote! The phrase 'across the whole of the borough' refers to the lower charges for green vehicles. It's not committing to a boroughwide CPZ. That said, I suspect there will be more controlled parking implemented in Southwark. Residents often ask for it and once it's in place they almost never want it removed. I can't promise a boroughwide CPZ though.

Hi CPR Dave and Tiddles The Southwark Labour manifesto is here: https://www.southwarklabour.com/manifesto2022/. Page 17 discusses clean air and healthy streets. There is a commitment (#34) to more school streets (timed closures at the start and end of the school day), although most schools in the area already have this. There is also a commitment (#35) to work with local communities to make our streets safer, greener and healthier. This could include a range of measures such safer junctions and crossings, but also potentially low traffic interventions. I hope that helps. We had a local hustings last night and it was clear to me that no party in attendance was ruling out further low traffic neighbourhoods, although I understand that the Conservatives (who were absent) will commit to this. Best wishes James

Hi all, Good to see there's some interest in this proposal, I'll be interested to see the results of the consultation. The idea initially came from the businesses on the street. Best wishes James

Thanks for coming Rachel, and everyone else too. I thought it was a really productive meeting - and great to see everyone getting on together so well :) Best wishes James

Hi LordshipLaneResident If you're a Goose Green resident, please email me on [email protected] with your address and any ref code and I'll look into it asap. If not, you can find your councillor here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgFindMember.aspx? And, as you know, we're hosting a community meeting to all issues about waste. Next Tuesday at 7pm. Sign up here: https://bit.ly/CleanerED Best wishes James

Dear all, Yes, we can discuss any of these things. As much as possible, I want the meeting to be shaped by the issues people choose to raise. Looking forward to seeing you there! James

Hi all, Thanks for everyone's comments. I think we can discuss all of these issues. And all Goose Green residents are very welcome! Best wishes James

Hi all, I'm really sorry to hear about everyone's terrible experiences with the Royal Mail service over Christmas, and more generally. When I've raised concerns on behalf of constituents with the Royal Mail, it tends to result in short-term improvements but the problems soon re-emerge. They try to excuse the recent problems with 'covid' but frankly, this has been an issue for longer than the pandemic and it's not as though they could not have anticipated this being an issue over Christmas. We are now almost two years into the pandemic, after all. Instead, the real cause is the closure of East Dulwich sorting office and other cost-cutting schemes. I met with Helen Hayes MP today to discuss this issue. As mentioned above, she has done a lot of work on this, including raising the issue in parliament. We're looking to escalate the issue further so please watch this space. As always, if you're a Goose Green resident and you have anything to raise (on this issue or others!) please do drop me an email: [email protected] Best wishes James

Hi all, I'm really sorry to hear about all the issues that everyone is experiencing with Royal Mail. I've had issues myself and I'm getting lots of emails about it too. In the past, I've managed to get the Royal Mail to sort out their services after complaints to those in senior positions but it seems to only work for a short while. This is not a sustainable solution. As you know, this has been a big problem since the Royal Mail was privatised and the new private owners decided to sell off the company's assets, including our SE22 sorting office on Sylvester Road. It's clear now that this experiment has been a total failure. For what it's worth, this is not the fault of the local posties, who are working incredibly hard despite the difficult context and who share the same frustrations as local residents. I hope to get back to you with more updates in the new year. Helen Hayes MP is also doing a lot of work on this in her role too. Best wishes James

I think we both know that I did not say that... Best wishes James

Hi CPR Dave Me: "The data show that traffic on EDG central has fallen while traffic on EDG east has risen" You: "That only makes sense if all of the additional traffic in "EDG east" stats and finishes before the counter at the health centre." No, this is not correct. Traffic going between EDG east and EGD central has almost certainly risen. But traffic between EDG central and MG (north and south) has fallen more than the rise in traffic between EDG central and EDG east. So this produces an overall net reduction in traffic on EDG central. Best wishes James

Hi CPR Dave, The counter on EDG central is just slightly west of the intersection with Melbourne Grove. This means that all vehicles which are counted on the EDG central counter are doing one of the following three things: X) travelling between EDG central and EDG east (either eastbound from EGD central to EDG east, or westbound from EDG east to EGD central) Y) travelling between EDG central and MG north (either eastbound from EDG central to MG north, or westbound from MG north to EDG central) Z) travelling between EDG central and MG south (either eastbound from from EDG central to MG south, or westbound from MG south to EDG central) We know that traffic is higher on EDG east, suggesting that X has risen. We know that traffic is lower on MG north, suggesting that Y has fallen. We know that traffic is lower on MS south, especially in the tiny section north of the planters (which intersects with EDG), suggesting that Z has fallen to almost zero. The data show that traffic on EDG central has fallen while traffic on EDG east has risen. This makes sense so long as the combined reduction in traffic on Y and Z is greater than the increase X. And this makes sense regarding the data we have. None of this assumes anything about what the vehicles do when they are west of the health centre (which may be before or after, depending on the direction they are travelling) but a similar logic will be at play there regarding the side streets that cars can enter/exit EDG before reaching the EDG south counter. I hope that helps. Best wishes James

Hi CPR Dave No, I was talking about both directions of travel. Pre-pandemic, vehicles travelling on 'EDG central' must have been going to or from one of three locations to the east: Melbourne Grove north, Melbourne Grove south or EDG east. In other words, vehicles travelling eastbound on EDG central must be going to MG north, MG south or EDG east, whereas those travelling westbound must be coming from these same locations. My comments regarding the situation now are also about traffic in both directions. With the LTN in place, the number of vehicles travelling between MG south and EDG central has dropped to almost zero, and the number of vehicles travelling between EDG central and MG north has plummeted too. This explains the figures on EDG central and EDG east: the drop in vehicles travelling between EDG central and MG (north or south) is greater than the increase in vehicles travelling between EDG central and EDG east. travelling between is intended to cover both directions of travel. Best wishes James

Thanks, now fixed.

Hi all, The council's data show that after the LTN was introduced, the traffic count dropped on EDG central but increased on EDG east. I can see how this sounds counter-intuitive but it does make sense if you look at where vehicles can travel. The counter on 'EDG central' is by the Health Centre, just west of the intersection with Melbourne Grove. Pre-pandemic, vehicles travelling on 'EDG central' must have been going to or from one of three locations to the east: Melbourne Grove north, Melbourne Grove south or EDG east. With the LTN in place, the number of vehicles travelling between MG south and EDG central has dropped to almost zero, and the number of vehicles travelling between EDG central and MG north has plummeted too. This explains the figures on EDG central and EDG east: the drop in vehicles travelling between EDG central and MG (north or south) is greater than the increase in vehicles travelling between EDG central and EDG east. This was a key reason for why the council changed its position on Melbourne Grove south. Before EDG central data were available we assumed that traffic on this stretch had risen, as with EDG east. Now we know that it has dropped, despite the rise in traffic on EDG east, it's clear that encouraging more traffic on MG would only lead to it rising again. EDG central is the section with Charter and the Health Centre so reducing traffic here is a high priority. The changes to the timed restrictions will hopefully help to reduce traffic across the entire stretch of EDG too. Best wishes James

We can definitely discuss that! James

Hi all, A few people have contacted me recently about issues regarding waste: location of bins, collections, street cleaning etc. So I am organising an online community meeting where Goose Green residents can raise concerns and hear directly from the council's relevant Cabinet Member and Senior Officers. I hope it's helpful! Details below: Hello Goose Green resident, Join your local councillors in Goose Green, Cllr James McAsh, Cllr Victoria Olisa and Cllr Charlie Smith on Tuesday 18 January 2022 for an online ward meeting. The theme is: Keeping East Dulwich Clean Guests include Cllr Darren Merrill (Cabinet Member for a Safer, Cleaner Borough) and senior council officers who can answer your questions on: - Residential waste - Business waste - Public bins and street cleaning The meeting starts at 7pm ? 8:30pm and will take place online via Microsoft Teams. Pre-registration is required to attend this meeting. Simply visit: https://bit.ly/CleanerED and enter your name and email address. Hope to see you on the 18 January 2022. Best wishes James

Hi all I hope everyone is well and staying safe. Like many people locally, I recently came down with covid, despite being vaccinated. So please do take all necessary precautions. Leara Has this been resolved now? It's not in my ward but if you're one of my constituents then I'm happy to look into it. Please email me at [email protected], and please include your address too. Nigello Sounds sensible. I will look into it. Speaking of bins etc, I have had a number of constituents contact me about these issues so I am organising a community meeting on the subject. Details below Hello Goose Green resident, Join your local councillors in Goose Green, Cllr James McAsh, Cllr Victoria Olisa and Cllr Charlie Smith on Tuesday 18 January 2022 for an online ward meeting. The theme is: Keeping East Dulwich Clean Guests include Cllr Darren Merrill (Cabinet Member for a Safer, Cleaner Borough) and senior council officers who can answer your questions on: - Residential waste - Business waste - Public bins and street cleaning The meeting starts at 7pm ? 8:30pm and will take place online via Microsoft Teams. Pre-registration is required to attend this meeting. Simply visit: https://bit.ly/CleanerED and enter your name and email address. Hope to see you on the 18 January 2022. Best wishes James

Hi all, The crossing on Whateley Road was a project that I worked on with parents and governors from Harris and Heber School. It's there to make the school run safer for children from both schools. Until reading this thread, I'd only ever received positive feedback on it. If there are any issues please let me know and I will see what I can do. As for dog mess, if there are areas with a particular problem please email me at [email protected] and I can look into getting it sorted. Best wishes James

Hi all I presume this refers to public bins not residential or commercial waste? These collections haven't been reduced in recent weeks as far as I know but it may be that the rota does not match up well to current usage. If there are specific bins which are often overflowing please email me, ideally with a photo, and I will see if I can get them collected more frequently. I'm already trying to do this at other locations. Best wishes James

Hi all, Meetings I agree that we should have more community meetings. We've used the chat function at legalalien suggests in the Goose Green High Street Forum meetings I mentioned above and it worked well. Cllr Simmons disabled the chat for the Dulwich Review meetings after the first couple because some people were sadly using it to be incredibly abusive to fellow residents. When some cases escalated to involve the police, greater restrictions were put in place in the meetings. I would like to avoid this in the future. Data I have to disagree that there is not a lot of data published, or that it is just "headline summaries". The link above (this one: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50027352&Opt=0) includes 22 documents, most of which include lots of data. As far as I can see, most of the forms of data requested in the posts above are already available. I'll draw out two examples. Appendix C3 has traffic counts at 23 locations, broken down by vehicle type and time of day, and at between 5 and 8 points in time. Appendix C5 has average bus times every week for over 2 years, in both directions, on 8 roads. From this you can get a very good idea for how traffic has changed in the area in terms of both vehicle counts and congestion (for which bus times is a good proxy). The vast majority of this is not adjusted whatsoever - it clearly states the month where it was collected so does not need to be adjusted to take into consideration season factors. The exception is the "baseline data" which for obvious reasons could not be collected specifically for this project. So instead the council had to use data it already had, which were not all from the same month. Hence the adjustments. This was all done by an independent analyst. None of this is to say that there aren't pieces of information that some would like to have but which are not available. But it is to put these requests in the context of the large amount of information that is already published. And providing this information comes at some cost. When the council publishes data it needs to go through rigorous checks first. As mentioned above, sometimes these do not catch errors but the more data there are the more likely that these errors will come through. So requesting more data means more time spent on it by council officers and external parties. Best wishes, James