Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

In defence of James, he has been doing some behind the scenes chasing for me which has resulted in a very satisfactory outcome.

[Rockets]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> "Labour HQ will be well aware of the damage it is

> doing..."

>

> Delusions of grandeur.

Ha ha...so you don't think Labour HQ, with a new leader, after the most humiliating of election defeats where the biggest accusation was that they had lost touch with the electorate, isn't watching with interest what is going on across London with councils, the majority of them Labour run, over LTNs?

I am not the delusional one....;-)

[jamesmcash]

Dear all,

I hope that you are all well.

I have written an article for SE22 magazine about the low traffic neighbourhoods. Many of you will have had it posted through your door but if you have not then you can read it online here: https://semagazines.co.uk/ (Page 38 of SE22).

This follows from the explainer I wrote in our September newsletter, which you can read here: https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/goose-green-newsletter-september-2020

A fair few of the questions in this thread are answered in one of those two articles. I will try to answer a few more here.

LTNs - positive feedback

I really hope the council stay the course, and make these changes as well, as restrictions on Townley Road, permanent. I don't have high hopes though - the reopening of Camberwell Grove to traffic proves that ultimately the petrol heads always win the day over at Southwark HQ.

It is clear that there have beeen major benefits to the schemes and we would not want to lose them. However, this needs to be balanced against the negative effects. I think we need further time to assess this. I am keen to hear the views of all types of road user - not just those who drive.

LTNs - negative feedback

Are you concerned by the negative impact this is having on your constituents?

Yes. It is clear that the measures have so far had mixed results. Some people like them and have benefited a lot. Others have not, and have had a more negative experience. As I said before, I expect the negative effects to diminish in the medium term and I am committed to evaluating the schemes fully.

LTNs - monitoring

Please can you tell us where the council is monitoring car numbers and pollution levels on streets other than those that have been closed?

In addition to the roads which have been closed, I have requested that there be monitoring on East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane, Grove Vale, Matham Grove and Zenoria/Oxonian Street. They are at various stages of monitoring. There are some data from pre-implementation but it is not comprehensive and it is difficult to identify the extent to which changes were caused by the LTN measures relative to city-wide traffic increases resulting from the evolving covid situation. The monitoring will therefore need to look at comparable roads as well as comparing figures before and after implementation.

LTNS - public virtual meeting

I think this is a good idea. I would like to see sucha meeting be incorporated into the evaluation process.

LTNS - consultation, Southwark Cyclists

It was not possible to run a proper consultation for the LTNs (for reasons outlined above). Southwark Cyclists, like local residents, were not consulted regarding whether the measures should be put in place. However, the coucil sometimes asks them for technical advice regarding how best to implement cycling infrastructure.

LTNS - Car targets

Is it correct that the council is targeting a 50% reduction in car usage in the area

I?ve not come across this statistic before.

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.

Cycling paths

The suggestions on here sound great. I would love to see a road network which allows cyclists to totally avoid the main roads. It's just a case of finding the funding, and designing measures which balance the needs of all road users (at the moment the balance is clearly against cyclists!)

Cycle hire

TfL are reluctant to bring cycle hires this far south. There have been discussions about bringing them closer - e.g. Peckham or Camberwell - but Dulwich seems to far for them. I agree that this would be positive though, and it's something I raise at every opportunity I have

Noisy drain

heartblock - would you mind emailing me with further details? Happy to look into this. But if it is indeed a historic stream then I may struggle!

EDG speed bump

I'm in conversations about this speed bump and whether it should be removed. Replacing it with a camera is trickier though, as these have running costs that most other road measures do not.

Response to emails

Completely ignored an email I sent to him and all other Cllrs also regarding the road closures. - dougiefreeman

Many apologies - I try to always respond promptly to emails from constituents. In this instance, I expected one of the other recipients to respond, given that the email contained a number of technical questions which I was not well-placed to answer. I have since responded and hope that you will get a further response from officers in good time.

Yes it seems as if all councillors have a LTN filter on their inboxes that sends any email from anyone daring to question what they are doing to their trash! - Rockets

I don't think this is fair. With the exception of the email mentioned above, I think I have answered all the emails sent to me. I sometimes receive emails addressed to a long list of recipients and do not always respond to those, but if someone emails to ask me a question they can be 99% sure they will receive a response.

General comments

We all miss him and the back and forth we all used to have - he gave as good as he received. - Rockets

Thank you Rockets. I missed you too. One day I will retire and then I'll be able to spend the entire day engaging in banter with you. Until then, sadly I have to fit my time on this Forum alongside my other commitments.

In defence of James, he has been doing some behind the scenes chasing for me which has resulted in a very satisfactory outcome. - peckhamgatecrasher

Pleased I was able to help! (Not sure what this is in reference to!)

Best wishes

James

[Rockets]

Cllr McAsh,

Thank you for your responses

Some more questions for you:

PHASES 2,3 and 4

Given your concerns about the negative impact of the Phase 1 closures made in Dulwich Village would you not agree that it would be foolish to proceed with any other phases of the closures until the issues created by the first Phase are resolved? It appears clear that Phases 2, 3 and 4 are designed to do no more than chase the displacement created by the first phase. Surely the negative impact of any closures needs to be properly assessed before more closures are put in place?

PHASE 4

In the current Phase 4 plans East Dulwich Road will no longer be accessible from the East or West fork of Peckham Rye. Are you not concerned that this will force more traffic around the back-streets of your ward, further increasing congestion and pollution and will have a negative impact on the lives of your constituents?

Why is the council so determined to try and stop East/West travel across Dulwich? Has this been identified as the major cause of traffic through the area? Surely closing these routes (DV junction, Townley Road, Burbage Road, no right turn onto East Dulwich) is just going to force more traffic down other routes like East Dulwich Grove. The issue remains for the council that you cannot close every road and each time you remove a road it places more pressure on the other roads.

LTNs - monitoring

Is all of the monitoring in now? Will you be willing to share all of the data received to be independently verified - the council doesn't have the best track record in reporting accurate monitoring figures? From what I can gather from your email you are we to assume that you will not have like-for-like numbers for comparison? Why did the council initially decide to only put monitoring in place on the closed roads?

Lordship Lane

You rightly raise concerns about displacement on East Dulwich Grove and thank you for that as the situation there is untenable but are you also concerned about the impacts on Lordship Lane. Both ends of it, north and south are now awful and the northbound section heading towards Goose Green roundabout is particularly bad and this is having a significant negative impact on the shopping area where a lot of your constituents chose to shop and eat and drink. Are you concerned about this and what, other than removing the closures causing the displacement, can be done?

LTNS - public virtual meeting

I was suggesting this imminently rather than waiting for the evaluations. When would the council be willing to use a virtual meeting to engage with the Dulwich community? There is a significant weight of public opinion against the closures and 1,500 people signed up to support One Dulwich who are suggesting pragmatic half-way house measures but given the council seems reluctant to engage in discussions about these ideas over 2,400 people have since signed an e-petition to have all the closures removed completely - the council's inaction, and determination to force more closures, is leading people to lobby for the complete removal.

E-PETITION

Do you know why the e-petition was closed by someone at the council? It has since been re-opened but it would be good to know why it was closed and who closed it.

LTNS - consultation, Southwark Cyclists

You don't need to consult Southwark Cyclists whether they agree that the closures should be put in place because you know the answer to that already but it looks very bad that the council can find the time to engage with them (and seemingly pander to their every whim and request) and yet cannot engage with the residents directly impacted by the closures. Why does the council need to prioritise the opinions of a cycle lobby group, given them the same level of influence (or maybe even more so)than the emergency services, TFL and refuse collection services? You would have to agree this is, optically, a very bad look for the council especially as both the council and TFL has departments dedicated to cycling and can surely provide the same input? So, why is this group considered so important and are the people the council engaging with at Southwark Cyclists local to the Dulwich area?

Finally I can assure you, no-one is asking you to engage in frivolous banter - unless of course you happen to categorise the serious concerns many Dulwich residents have about the closures of roads around the area and the associated traffic displacement and increases in pollution as banter. ;-)

Many in the wider Dulwich community just want some answers to questions they are posing due to the negative impacts these closures are having on large parts of our communities. Whilst some of the least populated parts of Dulwich revel in their joy at closed roads and their ability to hold street parties on what used to be a key route through Dulwich others on more densely populated roads are having to live with dangerously high pollution caused by the significantly increased congestion caused by the closures. This is completely untenable and I am, frankly, surprised that any Labour council or councillor is happy to stand back and let this continue.

[ab29]

Agree with everything Rockets has written.

[Lynne]

Me too

[first mate]

Me too.

[FairTgirl]

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?

[holymoly]

very clear FairGirl. Deserves an honest response but our Cllrs reluctant to admit any failure or bias...

[Spartacus]

Rockets and fairTgirl

Couldn't agree more.

The council and councillors are just paying lip service to people whilst ignoring them totally.

Come elections they won't be happy to lose their seats I suspect.

[FairTgirl]

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

[first mate]

In our case the startling similarity between Southwark? HLS scheme and current LTN measures, the former already being pushed well before Covid struck, begs a few questions.

[Rockets]

Cllr McAsh. The council is organising public meetings online such as this https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/empowering-communities/community-conference so why can it not organise an emergency meeting to discuss these closures?

[Spartacus]

James

How can the council continue with the roll-out of LTNs when the emergency services have concerns with their implementation ?

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/police-and-ambulance-service-wont-support-hard-road-closures-as-new-road-changes-unveiled/

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

That comment was made in respect on one specific scheme, not all permeable barriers generally. I appreciate that the article is not clearly written in that respect.

You guys need to understand the hard facts about consultation in this context. The central government gave an extremely short window to councils to access money for experimental and COVID-related measures. They were not allowing councils to go through their normal processes. Doing the consultation would have meant the experiment wouldn't have happened because there would have been no money. The experiment is ongoing. The time to take decisions is once the experiment is finished and there is actual data.

[Rockets]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> That comment was made in respect on one specific

> scheme, not all permeable barriers generally. I

> appreciate that the article is not clearly written

> in that respect.

>

> You guys need to understand the hard facts about

> consultation in this context. The central

> government gave an extremely short window to

> councils to access money for experimental and

> COVID-related measures. They were not allowing

> councils to go through their normal processes.

> Doing the consultation would have meant the

> experiment wouldn't have happened because there

> would have been no money. The experiment is

> ongoing. The time to take decisions is once the

> experiment is finished and there is actual data.

DKHB - Sorry you're wrong. Have a read of the documents.

Emergency services (Fire, Police and Ambulance) have indicated they will not support schemes which promote hard road closures, as they will increase response times. Their preference is for camera enforced closures without physical prevention for vehicles. They also requested that emergency vehicles are exempt from the bus gate.

[siousxiesue]

jamesmcash Wrote:

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

> Hello all,

>

> I'm James McAsh. I'm one of the three newly

> elected Labour councillors for Goose Green ward,

> along with Victoria Olisa and Charlie Smith.

>

> I wanted to introduce myself to the East Dulwich

> Forum community, and to thank everyone who voted

> in yesterday's local elections. I know I speak for

> Victoria and Charlie as well when I say that it is

> a true honour and privilege to have your trust

> placed in us.

>

> Regardless of whom you support politically, or

> whether you vote at all, we three Labour

> Councillors for Goose Green are keen to do

> whatever we can to help.

>

> If you want to raise something with us then you

> can do any of the following:

> - Email: [email protected],

> [email protected],

> [email protected]

> - In person at a surgery on the 2nd and 4th

> Thursdays of the month at 7pm at East Dulwich

> Community Centre, Darrell Road

> - On this thread!

>

> In general, we are able to deal with things

> quicker if you are able to provide:

> - Your address (or the address/location of where

> the issue relates)

> - A brief outline of the problem

> - Any communication you have already had with the

> council regarding the issue

> - For longstanding issues, a brief timeline of

> event

> - Photos, where relevant

>

> Best wishes

> James

Hello Councillor, could you please give details of the councillor for libraries? I'd like to query the non service being offered right now, as I suspect would many people on here. Many thanks

[Abe_froeman]

James I have a query on the road closures. When the second lockdown comes and people stop using their cars to travel to work etc, will the council discount traffic monitoring during that period to avoid ending up with farcical results for the success of failure of the current closures?

I am only concerned because of the severe confusion about whether or not the council exploited the low traffic figures during road works on dulwich village to justify the mess we are in now.

[jamesmcash]

Hi all,

Thanks again for all your comments. It's useful to hear the wide range of perspectives.

I am getting quite a few questions at the moment abot the low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) measures so I have put together a fairly lengthy set of FAQs here: https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/faqs-on-goose-green-ltn-measures

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 worth reading in full to get the whole picture but I want to draw your attention to the final two sections:

-----------

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.

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

There are a few LTN-related questions on here which are not answered in the link above. I will come back to the forum to answer those as soon as I can.

The only non-LTN question was from siousxiesue about the libraries. I understand that the larger libraries are will have fuller opening relatively soon, and that this will include Dulwich Library but not Grove Vale. This is due to the social distancing requirements. The cabinet member responsible is Stephanie Cryan, her email address is [email protected]

Best wishes

James

[legalalien]

That sounds really positive.

Has anyone thought about a rule that sets a maximum level of congestion / pollution for any given street?

[Rockets]

James - Well done, you have listened and reacted and we all appreciate that. Your post is clear and I am glad to see that the council is taking an area-wide view of the challenge now.

We all want to see the pollution issue tackled and I am hopeful that the council can bring all those from all sides of the argument into the discussion to come up with equitable solutions to tackle the problem.

[legalalien]

Exactly this.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> James - Well done, you have listened and reacted

> and we all appreciate that. Your post is clear and

> I am glad to see that the council is taking an

> area-wide view of the challenge now.

>

> We all want to see the pollution issue tackled and

> I am hopeful that the council can bring all those

> from all sides of the argument into the discussion

> to come up with equitable solutions to tackle the

> problem.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Also agree

Rockets Wrote:

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

> James - Well done, you have listened and reacted

> and we all appreciate that. Your post is clear and

> I am glad to see that the council is taking an

> area-wide view of the challenge now.

>

> We all want to see the pollution issue tackled and

> I am hopeful that the council can bring all those

> from all sides of the argument into the discussion

> to come up with equitable solutions to tackle the

> problem.

[AlexandHelenC]

Thanks, James. That?s an impressively detailed and thoughtful post. I?m very skeptical about the scheme but am open to a persuasive case if one can be made.

I?d also urge you to help the businesses that have been impacted as much as you can. I can?t imagine many officials working in Southwark?s highways department have ever put blood, sweat and tears into building a business and may not understand how even the smallest drop in takings can be the difference between them surviving or not. You can give those businesses a voice in Tooley Street.

[Serena2012]

James - I am encouraged by your response, with one caveat, which is that as a resident of East Dulwich Grove, I am incredibly concerned about any proposals to chase the displacement further by closing additional side streets, if that is indeed the plan in the context of Matham Grove and Zenoria/ Oxonian. Our home currently experiences 6-8 hours of queuing traffic outside it Monday - Saturday in circumstances where we experienced none before the initial closures in Dulwich Village and on Melbourne Grove in late June. This became exponentially worse once Melbourne North, Elsie, Tintagel and Derwent were closed in early September, particularly late in the evenings and on weekends. It feels particularly galling that while the residents of these streets (including Elsie Road, which is one of the most expensive streets in the entirety of SE22, and almost certainly the most affluent in the ward), get the benefit of no through traffic and a tranquil home environment, my young family and I have to cope with the extra traffic generated by those very same residents, their tradesmen; their nannies; their gardeners; their deliveries in circumstances where this did not happen previously.

The situation is becoming intolerable. We no longer sit in our front room as the noise pollution is so great. I genuinely don?t understand how you can sanction further road closures in these circumstances. I am wholly supportive of school streets, but what is happening here is hugely disproportionate, and is simply shifting the burden of pollution. The whole scheme needs a rethink, rather than tweaking around the edges.

Edited to add: I am encouraged by your plan to protect nurseries, schools and hospitals. It goes without saying however that if reducing air pollution in schools is the goal, closing roads such as Melbourne North and Tintagel Crescent while displacing all the traffic onto Grove Vale and EDG and therefore creating queues of idling traffic sitting outside schools in circumstances where this did not happen previously (which is the current status quo) is highly unlikely to achieve that aim. I note in particular that the entry point for years 10 and 11 at Charter ED is from EDG, which means that (thanks largely no doubt to the closures in Dulwich Village), hundreds of schoolchildren are now walking to their school gates on a much more polluted and congested

road than hitherto. This is different to safe travel to school/ discouraging parents from driving which can be achieved by less drastic school streets, operative Monday-Friday, a maximum of 39 weeks a year during peak drop off and pick up hours.