Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[4321]

As James Barber (who lets not forget closed his own street in the first of the east-West closures) said, Labour have created a school street for Alleyns. Perhaps Cllr James Ashworth-McClintock might tell us about his work to give Alleyns coaches access at the expense of local parents?

[northernmonkey]

What are you asking for here 'Alleyns coaches access at the expense of local parents' - whilst there may be an argument for the coaches to drop off elsewhere, like the park and stride that has been discussed previously, its the 'at expense of local parents' that is confusing me - what need do 'local parents' need access for and how is this being denied?

4321 Wrote:

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

> As James Barber (who lets not forget closed his

> own street in the first of the east-West closures)

> said, Labour have created a school street for

> Alleyns. Perhaps Cllr James Ashworth-McClintock

> might tell us about his work to give Alleyns

> coaches access at the expense of local parents?

[alex_b]

4321 Wrote:

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

> As James Barber (who lets not forget closed his

> own street in the first of the east-West closures)

> said, Labour have created a school street for

> Alleyns. Perhaps Cllr James Ashworth-McClintock

> might tell us about his work to give Alleyns

> coaches access at the expense of local parents?

How did James Barber close his own street in when: a) he hasn?t been a councillor for a couple of years b) even when he was a councillor he was a Lib Dem and therefore not running Southwark?

[Penguin68]

was a Lib Dem and therefore not running Southwark

There was a time when we were not a one party state, and indeed when Lib Dems had influence and power.

[heartblock]

Is there an FOI about which councillors live in an LTN as there are financial implications of increased house prices? Also is a reduced house price on a boundary road due to LTNs without any consultation a case for suing the Council?

[Abe_froeman]

Hello James

I understand that the council intend to implement a CPZ in this and all the other wards in East Dulwich, in spite of the views already expressed by the people who live here.

On the basis of what you said below, will you resign if this happens?

"Posted by jamesmcash 01 May, 2019 23:33

Before I was elected last year and when I was a Labour candidate, I was frequently asked about controlled parking. Whether the person questioning me was for or against I always said the same thing: a CPZ should only be implemented if local residents want it"

[4321]

For an FOI you could email [email protected] and Cc the proper constitutional officer [email protected] and ask: under the freedom of information act 2000 please provide me with the full details of the property interests of land in which councillors in 1) Dulwich hill, 2) Dulwich village, 3) goose green wards have a beneficial interest. This is not a vexatious request and nor do I believe incompatible with GDPR, however I am prepared to accept street name and postcode data should that be a concern. Thanks etc.

[alex_b]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> was a Lib Dem and therefore not running Southwark

>

> There was a time when we were not a one party

> state, and indeed when Lib Dems had influence and

> power.

Not since 2010

[Penguin68]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> was a Lib Dem and therefore not running Southwark

>

> There was a time when we were not a one party

> state, and indeed when Lib Dems had influence and

> power.

Not since 2010

And your point is? I've lived here for over 30 years, and for only a third of that time has there been a one party state. Before that there was effective opposition (sort-of) and indeed collaborative working. And council proposals were properly debated locally and local views won out over central proposals, when clearly stated. At least sometimes. And local councillors thought they owed something to their constituents, and not just to the party machines (whichever party that was).

[alex_b]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > was a Lib Dem and therefore not running

> Southwark

> >

> > There was a time when we were not a one party

> > state, and indeed when Lib Dems had influence

> and

> > power.

>

> Not since 2010

>

> And your point is? I've lived here for over 30

> years, and for only a third of that time has there

> been a one party state. Before that there was

> effective opposition (sort-of) and indeed

> collaborative working. And council proposals were

> properly debated locally and local views won out

> over central proposals, when clearly stated. At

> least sometimes. And local councillors thought

> they owed something to their constituents, and not

> just to the party machines (whichever party that

> was).

My point was to 4321, who had said James Barber ?closed his own street in the first of the east west closures?. Labour have had complete control for 11 years so places this claim as either untrue or over a decade ago.

[DuncanW]

Deleted - posted in wrong thread - sorry

[jamesmcash]

Hello all

I hope you're all enjoying the sunny day today.

End of lockdown

The Streetspace measures were introduced as a matter of urgency due to lockdown but that does not mean that cannot serve other purposes. The council is organising a monitoring and evaluation process over the summer which will assess them on a number of variables - if the covid restrictions are over by that point then there will be no need to assess them with regards to that issue.

Langton Rise Ah, no wonder I wasn't aware of this. It's in Dulwich Hill ward. It sounds like Siduhe has explained why this is, but if you have any further questions then do contact Cllrs Browning and Hartley.

Hierarchy of roads No, people don't live on motorways. I was just using motorways as one extreme in the hierarchy of roads, with cul-de-sacs at the other end. The point I was making is that roads are designed with specific functions in mind. Main roads are built to sustain higher volumes of traffic, higher speeds, and larger vehicles. This isn't my personal view, but the universally accepted one.

That's not to say that people living on main roads should have to put up with poor quality air. Of course not. We must improve air quality everywhere, but especially where there are vulnerable people (children etc).

4321 I have to say, I have never before been accused of pandering to private schools. Nor do I own property in the Dulwich wards.

My legal name is indeed Ashworth-McLintock. It is a combination of my parents' surnames. Before I was born - and before they knew whether I'd be a boy or a girl - they started calling me "McAsh" as a first name. They never stopped. It's an unusual story but nothing underhand. I'm quite open about it:

James Barber - I do not know if James Barber had anything to do with the changes in Champion Hill. But it happened after his term ended and not in his ward in any case. He is completely entitled to campaign for changes in his local area - as we all are.

"One party state" - This phrase normally refers to states where rival political parties are banned. This is not so in Southwark: our elections are free and open to all, and there is a lively group of opposition councillors from the Liberal Democrats. It may surprise some of you to hear that I get on fairly well with them.

The fact that Labour wins elections in the local area does not make Southwark a one party state, it just means that we're popular.

Abe_froeman

I believe you're referring to a paper that was wrongly published, without the knowledge of either local ward councillors or the relevant Cabinet Member. There are no plans to implement a further CPZ in East Dulwich.

Thanks, everyone.

Best wishes

James

[Metallic]

How about this?

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

Posted by Metallic Today, 10:28AM

James McAsh is not my councillor but he says a lot on behalf of the council, and says things our councillors in Village Ward should expect to say to us their ward constituents, discuss with us and for us to see them acted upon.

October 14th 2020. I'm copying in almost all of it as it appertains to any area with LTNs and traffic building up on the roads that have to take the overflow. Councillor McCash writes:

" .......They cover the intentions behind the scheme, the process by which they have been implemented and what I think should be the next steps. It is also an attempt to honestly acknowledge the mistakes and shortcomings on the part of the council, and indeed on the part of us Goose Green councillors.

It's useful to hear the wide range of perspectives.

-----------

WHAT DOES SUCCESS LOOK LIKE?

In my view, we need to look at the effects across the whole area but also on individual streets.

The two key criteria are air pollution and traffic volume. Put simply, if these two measures are not reduced across the whole area then the scheme has failed. It is not enough to displace the traffic - we want to reduce it overall.

But even if air pollution and traffic volume decrease across the board, it matters how it is distributed. I want to see a social justice approach to the analysis. No matter what we do there will inevitably be some pollution and traffic. I want this to be shared equitably: protecting schools, nurseries and hospitals above all else; and not allowing the negative effects of air pollution to fall on those least able to bear them.

We have a new Leader of the Council, Cllr Kieron Williams, and this approach is already reflected in his leadership team. Instead of creating a post for ?Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?, he appointed Cllr Radha Burgess as Deputy Cabinet Member for ?Low Traffic Southwark?. The shift in emphasis is important: we want to reduce traffic across all of Southwark, not segregate ?low traffic? and ?high traffic? neighbourhoods. (To be clear, this is not the intention of LTN measures, but if they do not work properly this can be the outcome).

WHAT NEXT?

I have spoken to Cllr Rose and Cllr Burgess (the Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet members with responsibility for this area) to request that these measures be evaluated as soon as we can. I have further requested that the evaluation considers the following factors:

- Overall levels of pollution

- Overall levels of traffic

- The ?social justice? implications of how pollution and traffic are distributed (i.e. who lives on the more polluted streets?).

We will learn more from this evaluation process but here are my initial thoughts:

- Local businesses on Melbourne Grove, Grove Vale, Lordship Lane and elsewhere need support from the council: there should be a joined-up approach between councillors, the highways team and the local economy team.

- Matham Grove and Zenoria/Oxonian Street are clearly experiencing problems which can and should be remedied, probably fairly cheaply.

- The junction between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane has long been a problem, and this has only got worse.

- Nurseries, schools and hospitals should be considered ?vulnerable hubs? which we prioritise for protection from pollution."

So now I'm asking, in all humility, what has happened? This is damning for Councillor McCash and all his fellow councillors, because we in the south of the Borough know what has happened: NOTHING.

[ab29]

"That's not to say that people living on main roads should have to put up with poor quality air. Of course not. We must improve air quality everywhere, but especially where there are vulnerable people (children etc)" - by introducing the so-called LTN you (=Southwark council) have done exactly the opposite to improving air quality or noise pollution.

You have closed the roads that were never very busy like Calton Av., which helped to ease the traffic on very busy roads like Lordship Lane and sentenced residents living on these busy roads to much higher level of pollution and noise.

"We must improve air quality everywhere" - how are you planning to improve air quality on Lordship Lane and other roads that are now taking the excess of traffic - and when?

[smooch]

Yes I am just sick of the fact that the majority of us going about our business (walking to work/school) are suffering increased pollution and congestion.

Small businesses are bearing the brunt of reduced trade - melbourne grove, Lordship lane, and of course our local mobile businesses who have posted on twitter.

I'm sorry, most of us cannot afford to buy a cargo bike for carrying large loads - most of us do not have anywhere to store the blooming things. I am a cyclist and car user - and I am very unhappy with the whole implementation of this disaster.

[heartblock]

Hi James,

This is incorrect ?that roads are designed with specific functions in mind. Main roads are built to sustain higher volumes of traffic, higher speeds, and larger vehicles. This isn't my personal view, but the universally accepted one?

East Dulwich Grove was specifically built as a residential area as was many of the older ?main? roads in London. In fact a new house in the 1880?S on EDG was won by a private in the army, in a Tib-bits competition as a dream family home. Was not ?designed? for higher speeds and larger vehicles?. Also ?universally accepted? by whom? Cycling campaigners?

Southwark are making a choice to designate areas as gated communities and the rest of us. 10% of Londoners live on so called ?main roads? 4% in LTNs. Labour councils have really got this very wrong and have compromised the health of those least likely to be part of very white, very middle class and well organised pressure groups. Start listening to black and minority voices and those living on ?main? roads.

[Abe_froeman]

Hi James, thanks for your response on CPZs. Fingers crossed that it won't turn out to be the case that the document you refer to was accurate after all.

Back on the Covid-19 road closures, I wonder what you make of the Southwark council consultation leaflets that have been published showing that the only areas being consulted are those inside the closed roads? As a reminder, these were your commitments in October:

WHAT DOES SUCCESS LOOK LIKE?

In my view, we need to look at the effects across the whole area but also on individual streets.

The two key criteria are air pollution and traffic volume. Put simply, if these two measures are not reduced across the whole area then the scheme has failed. It is not enough to displace the traffic - we want to reduce it overall.

But even if air pollution and traffic volume decrease across the board, it matters how it is distributed. I want to see a social justice approach to the analysis. No matter what we do there will inevitably be some pollution and traffic. I want this to be shared equitably: protecting schools, nurseries and hospitals above all else; and not allowing the negative effects of air pollution to fall on those least able to bear them.

We have a new Leader of the Council, Cllr Kieron Williams, and this approach is already reflected in his leadership team. Instead of creating a post for ?Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?, he appointed Cllr Radha Burgess as Deputy Cabinet Member for ?Low Traffic Southwark?. The shift in emphasis is important: we want to reduce traffic across all of Southwark, not segregate ?low traffic? and ?high traffic? neighbourhoods. (To be clear, this is not the intention of LTN measures, but if they do not work properly this can be the outcome).

WHAT NEXT?

I have spoken to Cllr Rose and Cllr Burgess (the Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet members with responsibility for this area) to request that these measures be evaluated as soon as we can. I have further requested that the evaluation considers the following factors:

- Overall levels of pollution

- Overall levels of traffic

- The ?social justice? implications of how pollution and traffic are distributed (i.e. who lives on the more polluted streets?).

[Nigello]

I want this to be shared equitably: protecting schools, nurseries and hospitals above all else - Given that pupils and teachers are only there for a certain part of the day and on certain days of the year, do statistics take this into consideration when working out exposure? If someone lives on a road that is suspected of being polluted, do the statisticians make out that that person lives on that road all the time and sleeps with the windows open? I am not being provocative for the sake of it - I would really like to know waht constitutes exposure and how it is measured.

[ab29]

I would also add an increase in noise level - as the traffic is now mostly stationary (and it will get worse when the lockdown restrictions are eased) there is this never-ending honking coming from angry drivers and coming to a screeching halt noise - started happening a lot after so-called LTN was introduced. Not to mention screaming, shouting and swearing coming from frustrated drivers, cyclists, pedestrians etc.

[heartblock]

Hi Nigello, so to be very boring.... the pathophysiological triggers of a lethal asthmatic attack in a child can be a spike in particulates from idling traffic. Hence the upholding of the cause of death of Ella Roberta. The idling traffic on Croxted during the school run is probably spiking illegal levels as is EDG on some days. One death of a child is too many. I?m not against LTNs, but the choices of rds seem to be about white, upper middle class loud voices rather than the real victims of car pollution.

[malumbu]

There is no threshold for the effects of particulate pollution. We have legal limits but they are not 'safety' limits. Safe would be none, zero, zilch. To be 'safe' there would be no particulate pollution, which would mean no burning of fossil fuels through energy production, forms of domestic heating and cooking, incineration and the internal combustion engine. Particulate pollution did not suddenly arrive with LTNs. To achieve the near zero pollution society you would have to go back 100s of years. I doubt if the most recent example at an attempt to achieve this, The Khmer Rouge, would work at a Borough level.

[heartblock]

World Health Organisation - 2013

'a meta-analysis of cohort studies found an association between asthma incidence and within-community variations in air pollution (largely traffic dominated). Similarly, a systematic review suggested an association between asthma prevalence and exposure to traffic, although only in those living very close to heavily trafficked roads'

[malumbu]

Not denying that pollution is harmful. But in a modern society there will be pollution. The most polluted roads in London are those most congested carrying the most traffic, I've posted before, but these include Marylebone/Euston Road, Brixton Road, Putney High Street, A4, A40 etc. We'd either need to move the houses or bury the roads. A simpler solution is to drive less.

[Rockets]

But modern society shouldn't tolerate a programme of measures that reduces pollution for one area at the expense of pollution in another. That is not equitable. If a programme does not reduce pollution for everyone then it is not fit for purpose. That's basic commonsense.

[Nigello]

I agree with you about idling - I ask adults (often responsible looking or, unbelievably, in liveried vehicles) to stop idling of engines and I get success about 60 percent of the time. Schools could do more - do they, for example, send out notes to parents in letters/post on social media, do they have teachers asking drivers to not do so? I suspect not, even though this would be a very simple and very achievable thing to do. Priorities....