Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[Earl Aelfheah]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The extremely steep hills at either end of ED (

> Dog Kennel and Forest ) are quite likely a factor

> as to why more people do not cycle to commute,

> even Greendale involves a hill. Add in rain and

> wind and it is a rare cyclist that?ll go those

> routes day in day out, especially on a ?heavy?

> hire bike.

>

> This is why it is irritating that cyclists who do

> not live in the area have been able to access the

> consultation process to push CPZ.

>

> Don?t know why Southwark has been unwilling to

> invest in Santander bikes elsewhere in the borough

> though.

Hire bikes are intended for shop journeys (i.e. cycling to Brixton tube, Herne Hill or Peckham), or just the local ED shops and back).

There are lot's of people who also make the longer journey into central London on their own bikes every day (myself included). You can easily avoid going over Denmark Hill.

[Earl Aelfheah]

... although, the CPZ has nothing to do with encouraging cycling (if anything, it makes it more attractive for households to keep a car).

[Rockets]

All,

If you actually want your voice heard look here and sign-up - a fantastic, non-political, pragmatic group taking a balanced approach to the road challenges around Dulwich. It was set-up by people who were fed-up with the council's reluctance to engage in a balanced area-wide debate on traffic issues.

https://www.onedulwich.uk/

156 people have registered thus far and hopefully this will create the leverage needed to get our councillors to finally start taking a more democratic approach to these issues.

And James, you were misled - the baseline measurement was during the road works - perhaps you would like to investigate further and let us know what you find out?

[Earl Aelfheah]

They appear to be a group looking to water down the already depressingly timid efforts of Southwark to improve the environment.

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> All,

> If you actually want your voice heard look here

> and sign-up - a fantastic, non-political,

> pragmatic group taking a balanced approach to the

> road challenges around Dulwich. It was set-up by

> people who were fed-up with the council's

> reluctance to engage in a balanced area-wide

> debate on traffic issues.

>

> https://www.onedulwich.uk/

>

> 156 people have registered thus far and hopefully

> this will create the leverage needed to get our

> councillors to finally start taking a more

> democratic approach to these issues.

>

> And James, you were misled - the baseline

> measurement was during the road works - perhaps

> you would like to investigate further and let us

> know what you find out?

[Rockets]

In your world maybe, to others they are taking the balanced, rounded and pragmatic approach that the council should have taken from the outset - acknowledging that traffic is an issue but being smart enough to realise that just blocking roads is not the solution - it just pushes the problem elsewhere.

They make it very clear that their objectives are aligned to that of the council - it's just the implementation and execution of the strategy that they are questioning.

156 people have registered their support thus far and I am sure many more who are fed-up with the way the council handles these issues will join. There is growing anger and frustration at the way the council manages these consultations - they would be well-advised to take note and course-correct quickly.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Don't get me wrong - I think the Council's approach is far from ideal. But the biggest problem is how little they are doing and how slowly they are moving to solve the problem of local pollution and dearth of decent alternatives to the car.

[rjsmall]

One of the problems appears to be that Southwark's default solution to a traffic problem is to close a road / make it impassable. By closing or restricting the Dulwich Village intersection the council appear to assume that people will stop using their cars and instead use the P4 or P13 buses. From my experience these buses are unreliable in the afternoon / evening (the P13 is pretty good in the morning) and both suffer from slow journeys along the South Circular. Both buses are usually full with school children of most ages. With the added capacity restrictions on the buses currently I am not sure what the council think people are going to do instead of drive.

Cycling with young children is not too bad in the spring and summer but not so attractive on a wet evening in winter.

[notiti]

Hi James,

This morning we woke up to the dulcet tones of a tree removal on Shawbury Road. The tree appears totally healthy and when asked the surgeons didn't know why it was coming down. It was a gorgeous healthy large tree so this is disappointing, especially as this is the second tree on the street we have lost recently. (The other was hollow and needed removal, but still.) We have noticed that next to the first removed tree there is some spray paint that says "tree" and were hoping it was going to be replaced but it has been months. Any idea if this is another case where we are going to be left with a stump?

I know this is a small question and you have a lot on, but trees really do make a difference to an area and two is a lot to lose.

Thanks for your time,

Eleanor

[jamesmcash]

Hi notiti

That's odd - I don't know of any planned tree removals on Shawbury Road. Let me look into it.

Best wishes

James

[Abe_froeman]

Hi James, did you get anywhere with the dates the council gave on traffic numbers in the so-called "healthy streets" consultation?

[slarti b]

jamesmcash Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As I said, I was told that the baseline measurement was not during road works. Has the council now said that this

>isn't the case? If so then yes I was given the wrong information too! I very much doubt that anyone was misled

>intentionally though.

James, Thanks for responding on this, much appreciated. It is a shame your fellow Councillors in Village Ward aren't prepared to come on here.

And yes, a council officer has now confirmed that the base period for the traffic measurements was indeed during the road works but astonishingly claims this didn't affect the traffic volumes. Given the huge disruption caused by the road works, resulting in a 33% reduction on the previous year this is clearly and demonstrably false. That a Council officer, apparently a traffic engineer, can put forward such a specious argument is in itself a cause for major concern.

In terms of your fellow councillors, they gave huge prominence to the "47% increase" at the public meetings and used this alleged increase as the reason for the failure of Southwarks previous remodelling of the DV junction (In reality of course, traffic has decreased but Southwark made things worse). Surely they should have verified those figures before using them, it didn't take me long to work out they were not right? I suppose it is just about possible they didn't realise the figures were misleading but they were queried and then challenged on them and kept insisting that the figures were fully comparable.

So, either your fellow councillors are naive, unable to recognise obvious inconsistencies, have no understanding of the traffic flows around the junction, incapable of looking at data themselves, unwilling to listen to anything which challenges their own pre-conceptions or... they were misleading us. In either case this is unacceptable behaviour.

Sadly we are seeing this misuse of statistics continue with the draft results of the consultation. The councillors, while claiming there is a majority in favour of the closure of the junction, are refusing to release the results from within the actual consultation area. Quite frankly this is as bad as Hancock's figures on Covid tests.

btw you may wish to feedback to your fellow councillors that their patronising, aggressive, evasive, deceitful and sometimes abusive emails are not persuading constituents to accept their dogmatic view. They may want to think about the next council elections - not a party political point btw, I will vote for people who stand up best for my local interests.

[slarti b]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They appear to be a group looking to water down the already depressingly timid efforts of

> Southwark to improve the environment.

Rahrah, you may not be aware of the history. This low traffic neighbourhood scheme, or a very similar one, was first proposed by local residents 5 years ago as an alternative to the councils changes to the DV junction (which have, not surprisingly, failed). The council refused to consider them as too ambitious. What the council is now proposing is not that different but, critically, adds a full closure at the DV junction. This is, unneccessary, disproportionate and seems to be a vanity project with an undeclared agenda to create a Newens\Leeming square.

If the councillors were prepared to work with residents in the consultation area they could come up with a scheme that would adress teh junction issues and be accepted by their constituents. Sadly, up to now they have preferred to try and impose their dogmatic views with the assistance of external pressure groups and misleading statistics.

[Abe_froeman]

They seem to be under a huge amount of pressure from two pressure groups, one called "Clean Air for Dulwich" and the other "Southwark Cyclists".

[Rockets]

Not sure how the council officer can claim there was no impact on traffic flow through Dulwich Village during the roadworks to build the last phase - here are the council's own figures (you can clearly see where the 40% "increase" comes from):

2014 = 15,414 movements

2015 = 15,055

2016 = 14,822

2017 = 10,007 low because of works to DV

2018 = 14,375 estimate because they changed the reporting basis

2019 not yet published

And remember, since the last round of works were completed the council's own report also says that there has been a "moderate" increase in NO2 levels around the junction - so their last round of Healthy Streets tinkering has actually caused an increase in pollution.

[first mate]

But this is probably a desired aim so they can then justify further tinkering because of increased air pollution.

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

slarti b - would you mind sending this information over to me so I can look at it myself?

Best wishes

James

[gumshoe]

Hey James,

Lots of missed food waste collections as of late - was fine earlier in the pandemic so it?s puzzling that this has become an issue now. As you can well appreciate, it?s a huge hygiene issue. Would you be able to look into this?

[Rockets]

Any second now we will get an update from Cllr McAsh (an update written by the Politburo! ;-)) on how they have listened to all of the concerns regarding the closure of roads around East Dulwich to through traffic but have ignored them all to pursue this folly.

In two years, during the local councillor elections, we can remind Cllr McAsh of his unwavering support for the party line and how he systematically overlooked his constituents and caused untold misery for the majority of East Dulwich residents. We can also remind him that he, and his party, did nothing to manage traffic challenges as a whole instead focused their attention on the evil folks of "leafy Dulwich" (his words not mine). We can remind him that when called upon he did nothing to support those outside of his own echo chamber.

He will no doubt retort with heroic tales of how he was busy single-handedly defeating the government's plans to re-open schools in June, will send us a few videos of police brutality, tell us that private schools are evil, hand us all socialist worker placards and proudly show us his Order of Karl Marx that Richard Livingstone gave him for his services to Goose Green during his time in office!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Any chance the bin men could not wake up the entire house at 5:30 by shouting their heads off?

[Spartacus]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Any chance the bin men could not wake up the

> entire house at 5:30 by shouting their heads off?

I should be so lucky, I think they were here before midnight (or was it foxes looking for glacier mints)

[Jakido]

I wish there was some movement in Goose Green ward on reducing traffic flows on solely residential roads. A few planters well placed would make a world of difference. No need for grand schemes, where simple solutions exist to reduce unnecessary rat runs.

[Abe_froeman]

lol

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

Hope everyone is well and enjoying the sunshine!

Santander cycles

The council is looking to extender the scheme further south but there are no current plans to go further south than Peckham and Camberwell at the moment.

There are two main reasons for this

1) TfL reluctance

TfL would need to agree to fund the running costs. We understand that a challenge here is the cost of reallocating bikes at the end of the day ? each evening they have a lorry that picks up bikes from locations where they disproportionately end up at the end of the day to move them to where they are disproportionality needed at the start of the day. The more this happens, the higher the operating cost.

This is complicated in Dulwich with Dog Kennel Hill: the belief is that this is more attractive to cycle down from than to cycle up, and so bikes will have to be replaced at the top of the hill every evening.

This is further complicated by the dire state of TfL funding thanks to the Government's cut of the operating grant and then covid-19.

2) Funding for the docking stations

TfL no longer fund new docking stations as a matter of course. Instead they are mostly funded through the planning process re local developments. Not much of this is happening in Goose Green so this makes it hard to find the funding.

Baseline figures for Our Healthy Streets

Can someone send me the information that shows that the council's initial baseline figures were misleading? It's been said a few times here that the council has admitted its mistake but I've not seen this myself. I'd be keen to find out what happened here.

As I said before, if anyone wants to make a complaint against the council then I am happy to support this.

Regarding the Dulwich Village councillors, it is very hard for me to comment on the tone in their emails as I have not seen them. All I can say is that my experience of working with Margy and Richard has always been positive and that, if you think any councillor has fallen short of the council's Code of Conduct, then you can raise this through the appropriate channels.

One Dulwich

Fantastic to see people getting involved in local politics! I would be more than happy to meet their representatives.

Tree on Shawbury Road

I have looked into this amd had it confirmed that the council did not remove any trees in the area on June 17th. Is it possible that the tree was privately owned?

Food waste collections

Thanks for raising this gumshoe. Have you reported it on this form yet? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/bins-and-recycling/general-household-waste/report-a-missed-collection

If not, please do. The Waste Management team are normally very good at rectifying any mistakes. But if there continue to be any issues please let me know by email, specifying your address.

Rockets' musings

Thanks Rockets for your creative and unorthodox account of my beliefs and actions. As a primary school teacher I am constantly amazed by the vivid imagination harboured by the children I teach, and I often wonder how it is that most of us seem to lose this by adulthood. Your example is a heartening exception to the rule.

Planters

Jakido - there should be planters in the road on Melbourne Grove south very soon! I am chasing up plans for elsewhere in the ward.

Thanks a lot everyone

Best wishes,

James

[Rockets]

James,

Well I thank you for your, one must say rather good, attempt at a back-handed compliment but as someone who has made a living from my vivid imagination and creativity it is something I am more than proud of and glad it wasn't taught out of me during my time at school.

It naturally leads me to muse at how much better you, and your other council colleagues, would be at serving the community if you took a leaf out of my, and you pupils' book, and took a more imaginative approach to solving the complex issues presented to it...but I am sure you were expecting me to say that!

In all seriousness, the pressure is mounting on you, your colleagues and the council to be accountable to more than just a minority of the constituents you represent and, as you can see from OneDulwich, people are mobilising because they feel the council and councillors are not listening to them.

Let's hope you have the imagination, wherewithal and political flexibility to take a different approach during your next two years of office.

[first mate]

James,

Is MG having planters as well as concrete bollards now or just the former? Are the planters easily moved for emergency vehicle access?

Planters

Jakido - there should be planters in the road on Melbourne Grove south very soon! I am chasing up plans for elsewhere in the ward.