FairTgirl

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Indeed the Cllr's statement very much reads like - > "after consulting with Southwark Cyclists we have > decided that there is a simple fix: we will remove > more parking spaces and replace them with cycle > racks." > > In all seriousness the pressure is now mounting on > the council and councillors as each time there is > an article or news report like this more people > say: "wow, do the council really know what they > are doing". > > We know from Cllr McAsh's statement that there was > no consultation with shop owners and this is an > utter dereliction of duty on the council's part. > It may also make the closures unlawful due to a > lack of proper consultation. The business collectively feel quite depressed that Cllrs think a few cycle racks will prevent them losing ?1000s a week. Surely even they read that quote and feel embarrassed? What was it Grant Shapps said about failure to consult? 'Get it fixed or no more cash'.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Indeed the Cllr's statement very much reads like - > "after consulting with Southwark Cyclists we have > decided that there is a simple fix: we will remove > more parking spaces and replace them with cycle > racks." > > In all seriousness the pressure is now mounting on > the council and councillors as each time there is > an article or news report like this more people > say: "wow, do the council really know what they > are doing". > > We know from Cllr McAsh's statement that there was > no consultation with shop owners and this is an > utter dereliction of duty on the council's part. > It may also make the closures unlawful due to a > lack of proper consultation. Curious to discover quite why Southwark Cyclists hold so much sway, as Rockets you said in another post elsewhere, why would Southwark continually include this lobby group in decision making reports - when TFl will have all necessary data required. Popping onto their website and reading their campaigning material, reports, minutes is quite edifying. The url is the name of an East Dulwich former councillor until 2018. He states on his (former) councillor page that he was previously chair of Southwark Cyclists - the fact his name is in the url suggests he is still heavily involved and he states he lives locally. I am possibly the last person to be aware of what feels a relevant connection. Over in Oval, it has come to light that one of the first LTNs that was created there is home to three local councillors...

dulwichquine Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I cycled to work via Townley Road and onto > Greendale yesterday. Shocked at traffic queues. > Cyclists, including myself, are having to cycle in > middle of road, weaving our way through till we > reach the traffic lights. Far harder to cross the > actual junction now, as well, given huge increase > in traffic. Feels more dangerous than before. As a cyclist you should write to your coucillor and express this and go on to Streetspace and express your fears. Given that much of the road closures have been lobbied for by cyclist groups, as a cyclist it is important that if it is not safer or working for you that you let them know.

Islington residents are starting legal action, as have Ealing residents against road closures. Notable quote from the piece in Islington Gazette - a 2018 High Court battle between Trail Riders and Fellowship and Wiltshire County Council set a precendent that consultation is still necessary under ETROs. (Experimental Traffic Road Orders). Erik Pagano (resident who brought the case) said: [ETROs} should only be used when the works are genuinely experimental and not just novel and certainly should not be used to circumvent the normal consultation process." https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/politics/threat-of-court-action-over-islington-people-friendly-streets-1-6871719

Islington residents are starting legal action, as have Ealing residents. Notable quote from the piece in Islington Gazette - a 2018 High Court battle between Trail Riders and Fellowship and Wiltshire County Council set a precendent that consulatation is still necessary under ETROs. (Experimental Traffic Road Orders). Erik Pagano (resident who brought the case) said: [ETROs} should only be used when the works are genuinely experimental and not just novel and certainly should not be used to circumvent the normal consultation process." https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/politics/threat-of-court-action-over-islington-people-friendly-streets-1-6871719

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Following the council manually overriding my > petition timeline (that was due to run until 21st > Dec) and closing it on 1st Oct, they have now > re-instated it following my request for them to do > so. > > There are, I am certain, a great number of ED and > DV residents who are not aware of the existence of > this petition - so if you know of anyone who lives > or works in the area that is not in support of the > road closures or just the way the council has gone > about implementing the LTNs, I urge you to forward > on the link for them to sign. > > Here?s a shortened link to make it easier for > sharing: ?shorturl.at/beqvz? > > And the direct link to the petition: > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDispl > ay.aspx?id=500000049 > > There are 2448 signatures so far that have been > garnered in just over 2 weeks - as the 500 > signatures required for this to be presented at a > cabinet meeting were met, the matter will be > debated on 20 October at 4pm. Glad it will get debated, but presume this is closed meeting? Will the public be able to view the minutes of that meeting?

Agree with Rockets and have some comments to make on your post Cllr McAsh. While we applaud you for trying to answer some questions on a public forum, probably to save some time, it might have been better if you or your colleagues had actually just answered some emails from very worried people in your ward - I am yet another whose email (sent on 9 September to yourself and other councillors) remains unanswered - as do all the questions posed in a meeting and in a follow up email. So as you have choosen to engage on a public forum, perhaps you can explain and answer some of the below. Firstly this; "LTNS - Local businesses I totally accept that we did not do enough to communicate with local businesses in advance of implementing the measures. For that, I apologise. We are trying to rectify this now by organising regular meetings with the businesses in the affected area." Just to clarify you did not 'not do enough' you and fellow councillors did exactly nothing. You have not arranged a single meeting - the exceptionally worried businesses contacted you and have arranged and chased for every single meeting, and continue to do so. You have as yet not responded to any of their questions. Perhaps you can explain why yourself and other councillors courted the opinions of only select residents in February, door knocking for a resident only survey and holding meetings in July to show them plans? Did those plans include the discussion of the removal of more than 1/3 of business customer parking at the same time as the road closures? Why did you tell businesses the road closures were related to Covid and social distancing when flyering had preceded it in February 2020? Businesses have seen you outside their premises over the course of the year with other stakeholders, who we now know were involved in decision making. We know you are aware of the businesses and where they are, so why in decision making documents relating to the East Dulwich Phase 2 were the businesses omitted from the site map diagrams, on Melbourne Grove north in particular where there are 13 separate businesses, and omitted as stakeholders and thus from any consideration in impact surveys? All businesses had re-opened by the time you held your meeting on July 15th - some had been open again post-lockdown for a month. Why did you again not invite them? Would you consider an apology enough in light of the above and the fact that many business owners have already had to start exceptionally stressful conversations with their partners and families over their likely business future, eg Should they close and make redundancies just before Christmas? Should they get themselves into debt to try and ride out this minimum 6 month experiment? What kind of festive season can they and their children expect if they can't pay their mortgage? Real lives, real impacts. And you just ignored them. Why?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Someone has filed a legal challenge at the High > Court for a judicial review of the Ealing Council > LTNs. Will be an interesting one to watch because > the filing claims the way the council has > implemented then is unlawful. Saw that also, from conversations with barrister and solicitor it is doable, especially if you can prove council did not consult properly, but very expensive if don't win. I think that is the only reason more groups have not gone down this road. If groups can get crowd-funding and still have time, (ie within 6 weeks of the date of Road Traffic orders) this may be worth investigating for them.

The E-petition appears to be back up on Southwark website. Do sign it and use genuine addresses so the strength of feeling can not be easily dismissed by the council. Sign Residents Against Local Road Closures Petition here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=500000049

I agree also with Rockets. This was published in SE22 magazine last week as well. Disagree with Cllr McAsh statement that there was no chance to consult with community - they did consult three times with very specific people, February started out flyering particular roads, held door to door surveys and meetings in July with specific people and shared the plans of the road closures. Only explanation thus far business have been offered was that it was to do with social distancing, no mention of traffic or cut-throughs. But they were flyering residents a month before Covid lock-down. Also don't undertand why if you are not sure - 'so it is a complex job to assess whether the roads would be better or worse without the new measures' - and it could (and has had) very negative impacts why you would just forge on anyway. Why not do some actual proper data gathering post lockdown to see if traffic has actually increased first, then if it has discuss it with ALL stakeholders, and assess it better before others have to suffer the impacts on their livelihoods and health while a handful get cul-de-sacs. Traffic will increase in winter, if you look at all pollution data it always does for obvious reasons, is that the best time to experiment with road closures that will just add more pressure to already polluted roads, a time when people are least likely to visit local businesses on foot or by bike, adding further to their post-lockdown suffering. Overall pollution is coming down in London as per the Mayor's report at the weekend, car ownership is decreasing in Southwark, less young people in Southwark are getting driving licences, according to the council's own data. Report today says sales of electric cars are booming. There are so many other ways to keep this going in the right direction that don't have such poor outcomes.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FairTgirl, did you get the sense those councillors > who spoke to the shopkeepers were actually going > to do anything about it? Or did you sense they > were just paying lip service? I do wonder if any > councillors are allowed to have an opinion beyond > the party line. > > Unfortunately, the council e-petition that you > link to has been closed by the council. No one > knows why but the suspicion is the Cabinet Member > for Positive Communication, Misinformation and > Statistical Manipulation became aware of it and > ordered it to be shut down! > > Still the 2441 people who signed it know they at > least tried to register their annoyance at the way > the council has been behaving! Curious, why would they shut it down? What might their issue have been? Some councillors are definitely concerned and don't agree with all the changes, some are probably towing party line or have own agendas. Businesses are still talking to them, they don't all appear to be as intent as past and some current councillors on making changes just because they can and because funding is there, we hope some more considered choices will be made.

Hi, yes the meeting did happen. The councillors who had not been involved in the process were shocked by the businesses experiences and the total lack of information or discussion with them. We are now aware of least three separate occassion the councillors involved met or canvassed opionion with residents - even showing them plans for the road closure - and not once spoke to businesses. We have seen the background papers related to the East Dulwich closures and they have omitted the businesses from the Melbourne Grove north as if they don't exist. They were not included as Stakeholders despite there being at least 13 businesses and taking up a stretch of at least 1/3 of the length of the road. They have not been mentioned in a Community Impact statement - again as if they don't exist. This looks incredibly bad. Again the same with road closures at junctions of Derwent and Elsie on Grove Vale and removal of customer parking there - no mention of all Grove Vale businesses or impact. What was it Grant Shapps said about not consulting with appropriate interest groups who will be impacted, including businesses? The closures have been in for more than 4 weeks now, businesses saw an immediate drop off and are really struggling now. As well as closing the road they removed more than 1/3 of customer parking at the same time on Melbourne Grove. Anyone who agrees this is not right, fair or just needs to lodge their objections to the road closures https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=1081 quoting reference ?TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich?. Please note that if you wish to object to the scheme you must state the grounds on which your objection is made. And email and Tweet Grant Shapps here as well as all local councillors at the top of this thread [email protected] and Twitter @grantshapps Sign our petition to Re-open The Roads here: https://www.change.org/p/helen-hayes-help-us-to-stop-the-road-closures-in-east-dulwich?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_24177815_en-GB%3A1&recruited_by_id=99cb3070-eeab-11ea-842f-6bf2fee0f1e3&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initialto or copy and paste chng.it/k62TTfZD2G Sign Residents Against Local Road Closures Petition here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=500000049 You can also voice your views here Streetspace East Dulwich:https://eastdulwichstreetspace.commonplace.is/comments

Thank you so much. slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can try teh Soutwark Maps Page at > https://geo.southwark.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobil > e/#/main it is slow, not very intuitive and has > only partial information but better than nothing. > > > In "Map COnfiguration" box on top right Select > "Soutwark Highways" and you can then select eg NO2 > or traffic counts to see on map. Not a lot of NO2 > counts in East Dulwich, except for a cluster round > Goosed Green Primary School. > > Southwark seem to make it as difficult as possible > to get access to underlying data, from my > experience this is becuase they dont want people > querying their own messaging or spin. > > You can also try TfL and DoT, they have a much > better "open data" policy and you can see the > undelying data, assumptions, locations etc without > havoing to put in an FoI request as you do with > Southwark :-( > TfL and DoT will generally cover only roads for > which they are responsible. Sorry I donty have > time to give you links but try googling, eg TfL > air quality monitoring. or try > https://data.london.gov.uk/ > > There is also the Kings Air Quality study > https://www.londonair.org.uk/LondonAir/Default.asp > x This, I think, extrapolates from fixed readings > (TfL montoring sites?) to provide estimates across > whole of London. However, the actual monitoring > sites are pretty spreadh out with none in > Southwark SOuth of Camberwell New Road. > > Hope this helps > > Several edits to add stuff I keep remembering!

There are clearly many people on here who are already expert at finding what monitoring data does exists. Searches for traffic and air pollution data on Tfl and Southwark sites for East Dulwich is not revealing alot. Does anyone know of the most recent data that covers East Dulwich? Not the DV area as there is clearly quite alot for that area, and doesn't seem to reveal much for ED, unless there is a report that covers DV and good parts of ED as well?

We were recently advised by the police after a spate of break-ins and thefts in our area over the last few weeks that there are no schemes supporting ex-prisoners door to door in this area - so your suspicions could be founded.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sports clubs in Dulwich: > > JAGs - accessible via Greendale for many with a > short stretch on the road - do-able with children. > Alternatively kids on pavement, adult on the > road. As long as they're sensible - give > pedestrians room and go past slowly no one minds > kids not being in the road (cycling at people is > more of an issue!) > > > Dulwich College - with the filtered streets near > the station those on the Oglander side > (incidentally also filtered roads) can cycle up > Melbourne / Derwent etc and then a very short > stretch on EDG (agree that a cycle lane on there > would be good and would support), turn off on > Glengarry, Trossachs, Hillsboro - turn left onto > the little bit of cycle lane by the junction and > then along Townley to Calton - lovely for cycling > down to the square. Then can chose to cycle up > Court Lane to the park and through, or down > Dulwich Village - once you get to the Gallery > there is a shared use path right the way to the > College. > > I guess my point is that these locations are easy > to cycle now. > > Busses are obviously tricky for the moment - but > JAGS has been long term served by the 37 bus and I > don't see huge take up of people using it in > preference to driving there! > > > > FairTgirl Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Decent public and alternative routes across to > > Dulwich Vilage are a must, so many children > from > > Peckham Bellenden area (as an example) do > sports > > clubs over in and around Dulwich Village as > that > > seems to be where nearly all sports clubs are > > located. > > > > Some of the locations are nowhere near any > public > > transport, so most have no other option than to > > drive - especially if taking a few kids and > kits. > > If there were buses that serviced those areas > > better, or cycle lances the whole way, I know > for > > a fact people would use them. Geuninely, any advice on using public transport to get several kids from Bellenden area to Dulwich Sports Ground - as that also hosts many clubs.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since 2010 traffic on smaller roads is up 70%, > whilst traffic on A and B roads has decreased. A > worrying trend. > > https://twitter.com/martin_mckee/status/1307391031 > 499984897?s=20 Could this be to do with Google/Sat Navs etc? If lower on A roads suggests same traffic but being diverted by apps.

Shaggy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No need to crowdfund. I?ve had one of these for > two years, and it?s great and inexpensive. It is > perfect for attaching to bicycle handlebars or a > rear view mirror, if you are that way inclined. > > > > https://plumelabs.com/en/flow/ Thanks very helpful.

Decent public and alternative routes across to Dulwich Vilage are a must, so many children from Peckham Bellenden area (as an example) do sports clubs over in and around Dulwich Village as that seems to be where nearly all sports clubs are located. Some of the locations are nowhere near any public transport, so most have no other option than to drive - especially if taking a few kids and kits. If there were buses that serviced those areas better, or cycle lances the whole way, I know for a fact people would use them.

As totally ridculous as it may be, perhaps ED DV residents need to crowdfund/club together and buy own air pollution monitors if council are not willing to monitor it - especially as lowering traffic and air pollution is one of the councils key aims, alongside active travel for health purposes, prior to the necessity of space for social distancing. This whole plan seems to be so at odds with itself. Get out and be active, onto increasingly dangerous polluted roads, unless you are lucky enough to live and work and regularly walk along a closed one. You are more likely to die from Coronavirus if you live in a polluted area. So keeping traffic congestion down should be the first reponse surely? The overarching aims are admirable but the immediate effects appear to be opposite of what they are trying to achieve. Build the infrastructure, the cycle paths, the tramlines, improve bus routes, make it easier and cheaper to buy electric cars, put in more charging posts, educate, educate, educate and perhaps you won't need to close roads at all. We were told that they do have all the necessary traffic and air pollution data by a councillor yesterday for the road closures - though admitted the baseline was pre-Covid (who knows what time frame it represents as they didn't elucidate) so not ideal (their words) - we await to see it all with keen interest.

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FairTgirl Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Speaking only for self here - there are many > > businesses on the road - who may have own > > specific opinions - but I would be very > amenable > > to the school closing the road for short > periods > > as it needed for pupil safety at school > > arrival/departure as an alternative to the > current > > planters. > > Interesting that you say there?s a range of views, > as that?s what I?ve found speaking to the > businesses along Melbourne Grove. Some are clearly > worried by the change, some confidently say less > traffic will be better for their business, some > are indifferent and don?t see it will impact > either way. > That's not a correct interpretation I am afraid. I was asked directly by Dogkennelhillbilly specificially about how I would feel about school streets, to which I said I did not want to speak for other businesses opinions on school streets as I don't know what they all are. I don't want to presume everyones opinions on that although I may be in favour. However, when it comes to the planters business owners on both Melbourne Grove and Grove Vale are overwhemingly against them. Even if they are unsure of what impact they may have on their business - eg their business location and accessibility is not necessarily a large factor on their business success - eg a solicitors - they are gravely concerned about the manner in which is has been done and the impacts for the surrounding roads, schools and nurseries. I fear Rockets may be correct and Southwark do not care much about business. Perhaps they assume the business owners are not locals and don't vote? But we are and do. I seriously hope the new council leadership and team are committed to paying more attention to everyones concerns and greater equality in all forms.

Speaking only for self here - there are many businesses on the road - who may have own specific opinions - but I would be very amenable to the school closing the road for short periods as it needed for pupil safety at school arrival/departure as an alternative to the current planters.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=500000049 This should work, just tested on laptop

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I cannot recall any occasion on which I have ever > heard a shopkeeper (including family members!) or > taxi driver say anything in favour of any proposed > change to traffic management. Not yellow lines, > not red routes, not the congestion charge, not > ULEZ, not CPZ, not school streets, and not LTNs. > Not in Dulwich, not anywhere else I've lived. > Perhaps this is a result of my own confirmation > bias. Definitely in favour of timed closures for school streets. So there you go, you have heard one.

And meanwhile?