FairTgirl

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Plus I think I saw (not sure where - possibly > twitter), that the hard copy leaflets went to > residents on Melbourne Grove but not the > businesses (who were missed out last time) - > similar for closures on Rye Lane. > > The One Dulwich FoI info is also on their website. > Not sure what the base data looked like / how > they extracted the positive info, but looks > interesting... > > https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich- > village-junction This is correct, not a single business in the review area was sent the newsletter about the review, but flats above businesses and direct neighbours were.

Speaking on behalf of Grove Vale and MG North businesses - the figures I mentioned were for BAME owned businesses or managed business in a survey taken late last year - employees may well take it higher as many of us have BAME employees and in many instances the business and employees are entirely BAME. You can check the individual postcodes related to the relevant roads to get a picture of the census data for residents and social housing. It is great to see the crowdfunder has almost reached its target in 5 days.

If you look at census data it has 70% social housing residents on Grove Vale, 63% BAME residents. If you ask the businesses they are 60% BAME businesses on Grove Vale, 60% BAME businesses on Melbourne Grove. Lordship Lane estimate 50% BAME businesses. But isn't the crowdfunder about finding out what is happening with air quality in the area and if problems are being created that are currently not being monitored so they can be addressed? Which surely benefits everyone? Especially schools and nurseries.

This is interesting too from a lifelong Labour member and A road dweller. https://www.onlondon.co.uk/paul-wheeler-why-londons-road-wars-are-tearing-labour-apart/ If you have any objections to the ED LTN you can still officially object today, just go to the first post in this thread for all you need and who to send it to.

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-residents-are-furious-after-council-experiments-with-road-closures/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dulwich-residents-are-furious-after-council-experiments-with-road-closures

Is 2 months after the closures went in, still immediately after? Some of the incidents LAS list relating to Dulwich Village were in September, the closures were 30 June. In a youtube Zoom with Southwark Env Scrutiny Committee on Nov 4 Southwark Fire Service say they were still 'trying to report' to an SC lead around problems. They were not sure if they had been on site at all road closures to advise on problems as SC were introducing them before telling LFB about them. LFB made it clear they had had minimal interaction with SC and LTNs and their usual process of being told about plans before hand so they could visit and identify problems before they arose was not happening. LFB says Nov 4 'depending on what the restrictions are, if it is static, a flower pot, or raised planter we *would* have issues getting through those'. This is after stating quite clearly to SC they did not support hard closures in a meeting 16 July 2020. So nothing had really changed between July 2020 and Nov 2020, some 4 months later.

For anyone interested, a piece in Telegraph about a dossier of emails sent to Southwark Council from London Ambulance Service outlining delays to reach critically ill and patients in life-threatening sitautions caused by the East Dulwich and Dulwich Village hard barriers and LAS continued appeals to remove or change barriers for alternatives. https://twitter.com/GroveReopen/status/1358358160734576642/photo/1

snowy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But one that?s not often recommended by traffic > planners eg > > https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/services/streets-and-hi > ghway-maintenance/road-safety/traffic-schemes/one- > way-streets > > ?Many streets suffer from rat-running or high > traffic volumes and may benefit from the > introduction of this type of control, but it is > likely that: > > Some traffic will simply be diverted onto other > less suitable streets > > The new one-way street may attract more traffic > albeit in the remaining direction > > Residents may have to access their street by an > alternative and less convenient route which may > involve the use of other neighbouring streets > > Traffic speeds may increase due to drivers' > perception that there is no opposing traffic > Without physical traffic calming there may be an > increase in accidents and their severity > Some, particularly short sections of one-way > street are likely to be contravened by drivers > thereby requiring police enforcement.? Much of this describes what is already occurring as a result of LTNs. One ways and cycle routes that could potentially link up public transport hubs and local schools would undoubtably be an improvement on what came before and will lessen the unfair displacement occurring as result of the LTNs.

Think East Dulwich Square may be the same or related to this CIL funding request from... Southwark Cyclists. https://goosegreenmapcil.commonplace.is/comments/5ed42e12df3b12cea3a5c766 - and attached. The space, even if you fill in the loading bay for M & S feels quite limited to create a square, although some tidying up would be good. Not sure if it got CIL funding and this is additional, or it didn't (although I thought I read it had got funding alongside the EDG/LL junction) but as they are both in the Devolved Highways funding requests I am not sure if they had funding or enough perhaps...

Hi there - it is 19 Feb - this Friday "Low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) are being introduced in wealthier streets at the expense of poorer neighbouring roads". [www.thetimes.co.uk]

Wasn't there also a discussion during the meeting of widening the review area to include Dulwich Hill? Perhas it will in relation to the ED LTN. Cllr Rose seemed to be in agreement with Cllr Hartley and Cllr Browning around this. Given they seem to have felt alot of displacement in their ward it should. But whether it does is another matter of course....

If you have an objection to the closures, please read the first post in this thread and email all your local and national representatives. A review process is underway and all objections legally need to be taken into account. It is worth noting that no elderly or disability groups were consulted in any of these schemes, and none sit on Southwark Council Walking or Cycling Steering Groups, who have both been instrumental in steering the path to LTNs. A borough wide exceptionally basic and insufficient EqIA was used, which has already come under heavy critisim from the High Court. Nothing was looked at on a scheme by scheme basis. The only consultees other than Emergency Services (who were roundly ignored as you may have already read from the minutes of meeting between Southwark and Emergency Services and repeated emails to Southwark), were Southwark Cyclists. One of the impacts of this scheme has been an increase in traffic on Underhill Road, where RNIB Bradbury Oak House is located. One of the staff spoke in the Dulwich Hill Zoom meeting on Low Traffic Southwark on Tuesday, outlining how the increased traffic on their road is causing problems for their group as the roads are now far more dangerous for themselves and their guide dogs to cross. This is why proper EqIA and inclusivity and diversity in steering groups on really impactful infrastructure changes are vital, 'experimental' or not.

The A road in question on this was A2216 which is Grove Vale/Lordship Lane, I think the lady lives on it and mentioned her child walks down it and down EDG to school, so relevant as both are boundary roads. It is possible that some people were afraid to say exactly where they lived for recriminations, some local pro-LTNers have been pretty nasty online, creating multiple fake accounts with fake names pretending to be real people who live on closed roads to troll residents and businesses, so can't say I blame her and others for being cautious.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe - the big issue for the council is that they > cannot rely on those benefitting from living on a > closed road to join and herald how "wonderful" the > closures are. Also on the Melbourne Grove meeting > they insisted everyone identified which road they > lived on in the ward so they ensured the meeting > was focussed on the comments of the most local > residents (which is perfectly ok it just meant > that it was dominated by those not living with the > displacement and allowed the council to control > the narrative). > > I know of a lot of people who live in the Dulwich > Hill ward who are being impacted by the > displacement and are taking this as their > opportunity to be heard as they feel they have > been overlooked as the council tries to manipulate > things. Afraid this was not the case, quite a few people who spoke in favour of the LTN, and took it an an opportunity to wang on about their lives, did so without identifiying where they lived to the Cllrs, people we all know who live quite some distance from the ED LTN in question. Sure they will also turn up at the Dulwich Hill meeting too although they do not live in that ward either.

The time has come if you have not already, and wish to object - to legally object to the East Dulwich Road Closures. TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich (road closures on Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Melbourne Grove and Tintagel Crescent); and TMO2021-EXP02_LSP Dulwich?and?TMO2021-EXP16_LSP Dulwich 2?(Melbourne Grove South, and closures in Dulwich Village) Deadline to do so is 19 Feb 2021. You need to write to: traffic.orders@southwark.gov.ukCatherine.rose@southwark.gov.uk, Radha.burgess@southwark.gov.uk, kieron.williams@southwark.gov.uk, harriet.harman.mp@parliament.uk, helen.hayes.mp@parliament.uk, Additional emails to cc in are listed below. State in Subject line: Official Objection to TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich This is the official objection that Cabinet Member for Roads, Cllr Catherine Rose must legally take into account as part of the review process of these closures. *Please add your name and address of your home or business to your email. Grounds for objections can include: - Blocking 4 well-used and vital access to routes to Kings? College hospital - very worrying emails from London Ambulance Service to Southwark Council emerged yesterday, showing they were appealing to Southwark Council to re-open or amend these closures since September as they, and resultant congestion were risking lives. These emails were ignored. They had been appealing to Southwark Council around other local closures since July 2020. - Increased congestion and pollution on surrounding boundary roads users, residents, businesses and schools, heavy pedestrian routes which many use for passage to school, bus stops, stations - Impacts of increased pollution and loss of access and parking to local businesses - Social injustice and discrimination of funnelling all local traffic onto roads with most social housing and BAME residents and lowest car ownership - Increased environmental damage resulting from idling congested traffic, travelling more vehicle miles - the lack of traffic and air pollution monitoring prior to and during the implementation, the absence of any conscientious assessment of the risk and extent of adverse impacts on those in protected groups, and the flawed implementation of existing Southwark policy.?? An expanded list of objections are here: https://www.onedulwich.uk/dv-objections Feel free to copy these objections into your email. charlie.smith@southwark.gov.uk, james.mcash@southwark.gov.uk, victoria.olisa@southwark.gov.uk, richard.leeming@southwark.gov.uk, margy.newens@southwark.gov.ukjohnson.situ@southwark.gov.uk, evelyn.akoto@southwark.gov.uk Dale.foden@southwark.gov.uk, Clement.Agyei-Frempong@southwark.gov.uk, shappsg@parliament.uk, robert.jenrick.mp@parliament.uk, george.eustice.mp@parliament.uk, kwasi.kwarteng.mp@parliament.uk But do send an email if you have any objections. You can also use this link https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp quoting reference ?TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich?. Or write a letter here: Traffic Order consultations, Highways, Southwark Council, Environment and Leisure, P.O. Box 64529, London SE1P 5LX