LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[holymoly]

Submit questions anyway and note that the Council meeting has not been well publicised and that questions should be permitted.

[legalalien]

On the objections point - this is not an area I know much about, but if mr google is to be believed, it doesn?t sound as though there is a discrete list of grounds for objections. I think these

Regs apply

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents/made

The wording in the orders is as follows (this one specific to the Melbourne grove etc ones)

?The council will in due course be considering whether the provisions of the experimental order/s should be continued in force indefinitely, by means of a permanent order made under section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Anyone wishing to object to the making of the permanent orders or make any other representation regarding the scheme would have 6 months to do so, from the date the experimental order comes into force (or, if the order is varied by a subsequent order or modified pursuant to section 10(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, from the date that variation order or modification comes into force), and may send a statement to [email protected] or to: Traffic Order consultations, Highways, Southwark Council, Environment and Leisure, P.O. Box 64529, London SE1P 5LX; or use the form labelled 'Parking - Road traffic and highway schemes - responding to statutory consultation notices' at www.southwark.gov.uk/statutoryconsultationnotices 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.?

They really don?t make it easy for the average person in the street tbh.

[first mate]

Well this makes interesting reading. The deadline for deputations was 14th October. Two deputations will be heard re road closures.

1. Dulwich Village/College Road and Woodyard residents associations (road closures)

2. Clean Air for Dulwich (road closures)

Is anyone aware of a petition by Clean Air for Dulwich? If so, where can it be viewed? How many signatures.

Thing is, what about all the other road closures? Where is the representation for those? How is it these bodies who will have deputations got wind of it?

The One Dulwich petition is mentioned as item 8 in the public agenda pack, but there seems to be no deputation and it seems as though the council has issued a written point by point response. Can anyone shed light on the process here? Why does a smaller residents association and a pro closure lobby get a proper hearing but not a 2,500 petition. In terms of the latter, is that now it as far as council process goes?

[Rockets]

They are trying to rig it as they did the CPZ representations. They are trying to make it as difficult as possible for any dissenting voices to be heard and for democracy to prevail.

Cllr McAsh would have been aware of this hearing date yet did not mention it. One suspects the councillors have alerted and mobilised the opposition. It's probably going to be a whitewash.

It is ludicrous that they can admit their own (unlawful) failings in terms of a lack of consultation, can admit the current closures are causing pollution problems yet steadfastly stick to rolling out further closures. If this was the Tories they would be up in arms.

[legalalien]

Sadly Rockets I suspect you are right. Given the somewhat draconian nature of experimental traffic orders, I would expect councillors to be proactive in ensuring those ?outside the bubble? were made aware of the limited inputs they might be able to make in a proactive way ie not just following whatever bare minimum rules exist to publish things on websites. Most people don?t have the time or resources to spend their hours trawling through this stuff on the local authority website.

[Spartacus]

First mate

Clean air for dulwich is a twitter group with around 879 followers.

The closest I can find to a petition is here https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1311771597943066625?s=09

I agree it's a whitewash if one dulwich and the 2500 plus signature petition aren't represented at the meeting.

Can't wait till the local elections as this lot have lost the plot.

[Metallic]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Well this makes interesting reading. The deadline

> for deputations was 14th October. Two deputations

> will be heard re road closures.

>

> 1. Dulwich Village/College Road and Woodyard

> residents associations (road closures)

> 2. Clean Air for Dulwich (road closures)

> Is anyone aware of a petition by Clean Air for

> Dulwich? If so, where can it be viewed? How many

> signatures.

>

> Thing is, what about all the other road closures?

> Where is the representation for those? How is it

> these bodies who will have deputations got wind of

> it?

>

> The One Dulwich petition is mentioned as item 8 in

> the public agenda pack, but there seems to be no

> deputation and it seems as though the council has

> issued a written point by point response. Can

> anyone shed light on the process here? Why does a

> smaller residents association and a pro closure

> lobby get a proper hearing but not a 2,500

> petition. In terms of the latter, is that now it

> as far as council process goes?

You register with the Council for all news on meetings and get emails about business and planning stuff. You delete it for years then suddenly wham!! an important meeting about something that affects us all. It is not devious or secretive play by LB of Southwark, for people who are interested in the borough beyond their backyard, they have been watching for years.

The bloke who started the e petition says somewhere on EDF that he can't make the meeting and therefore you will have to trust that whatever is presented to the Cabinet bu the deputations will embrace or address what he has found support for.

Get the name of your councillors and start tweeting or emailing them if you don't like what you hear. They will be listening if they want a forward career in local government after May 2022.

Let's see how the DV RA get on because I'm pretty certain they will be largely echoing the views of many of the signatories. I have a friend in College Road who told me to read their website. I already had - but maybe people on here spouting conspiracy theories ought to have a look themselves.

[Rockets]

Metallic - to be fair there's not a lot on the DV RA website that makes me think their concerns go much further than the "hardship" the residents in DV are having to endure....their thoughts are outlined below and they are lobbying to get Phase 2 put in quickly to close DV to traffic...which of course makes the problem a lot of worse for others outside of DV.

Here is a clip from their website;

In summary, we expressed the following views which reflect the balance of opinion among the 40+ residents we have spoken to:

? the junction closure has caused significant issues and in some cases real hardship for residents, particularly those living on Dulwich Village

? the phase 2 measures are needed to fix a problem which Southwark should not have created in the first place

? the key issue for our residents arising from the phase 2 measures is access; in combination, they mean that during the restricted hours, it will be very hard for residents on Dulwich Village to access their homes by car from the south, or for residents on College Road/ Woodyard Lane to head north (for instance to Kings Hospital)

? this raises many issues around carers, deliveries, hospital visits, mini-cabs

? we also pressed for increased frequency of the P4 bus, though in practice steps being taken by TFL are likely to reduce access to the P4

It also makes one wonder whether other RAs from across Dulwich are attending the meeting on Oct 20th and if not why only the group in support of the Phase 2 closures made the list. It will be interesting to see if their "delegation" is called upon by the council.

What the council seems to be avoiding is a cross-area public meeting on this. I very much hope Oct 20th is a democratic event and not something that just appears as one-sided and biased as other council actions around this issue.

[legalalien]

It would be good if the councillors could take another good hard look at some of the caveats in the Commission report rather than just the recommendations. Here is another one:

"The demand for School Streets is high and there are over 30 schools in the borough on the waiting list. School Streets are highly popular with parents and children; however, the drawback is that they only cover a very small area and only a part of the journey to school. We have found the process and criteria for selecting which schools are chosen is not clear, for example if the area has high pollution levels or high levels of deprivation.

We need to consider how decisions are made as it is often the local residents who have the means, time and the knowhow who are able to influence council decisions such as targeting side roads.

There is also evidence that the closure of side roads, and other small schemes, do not reduce air pollution exposure for the people on main roads who are at greatest risk. There are certain criteria that must be met for traffic evaporation to take place effectively, a fact that is often overlooked by policy makers. If drivers can find an alternative route where levels of congestion are acceptable, they will continue to drive. If alternatives like cycling are deemed unsafe due to lack of protected cycleways or if there is insufficient space on public transport (as is the case at the moment due to the need for social distancing) then those with access to vehicles will continue to drive, increasing traffic congestion and air pollution on boundary/main roads.

While the Commission welcomed these local initiatives, on the whole, there was concern that the operational activity to deliver the positive ambitions of the Movement Plan lacked a coherent programme. The Commission discovered deprivation data sitting behind the plan, but this was not referred to by the officers in the meeting and there was no evidence that this is being used to drive funding decisions in a systematic way.

There is a risk that pockets of good practice will emerge only in places with the most vocal activists or in areas of large-scale regeneration, but these will not necessarily be the places with the greatest objective needs or that they will deliver the changes which will benefit the majority population. Furthermore, hyper local changes are most likely to cause unintended outcomes with displaced traffic, rather than the win- win outcome of traffic reducing overall (on both the neighbourhoods roads where through traffic had been removed AND adjacent main roads where traffic has evaporated." This is the main point that lots of us are making based on the evidence of our own eyes.

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Metallic - to be fair there's not a lot on the DV

> RA website that makes me think their concerns go

> much further than the "hardship" the residents in

> DV are having to endure....their thoughts are

> outlined below and they are lobbying to get Phase

> 2 put in quickly to close DV to traffic...which of

> course makes the problem a lot of worse for others

> outside of DV.

>

> Here is a clip from their website;

>

> In summary, we expressed the following views which

> reflect the balance of opinion among the 40+

> residents we have spoken to:

> ? the junction closure has caused significant

> issues and in some cases real hardship for

> residents, particularly those living on Dulwich

> Village

> ? the phase 2 measures are needed to fix a problem

> which Southwark should not have created in the

> first place

> ? the key issue for our residents arising from the

> phase 2 measures is access; in combination, they

> mean that during the restricted hours, it will be

> very hard for residents on Dulwich Village to

> access their homes by car from the south, or for

> residents on College Road/ Woodyard Lane to head

> north (for instance to Kings Hospital)

> ? this raises many issues around carers,

> deliveries, hospital visits, mini-cabs

> ? we also pressed for increased frequency of the

> P4 bus, though in practice steps being taken by

> TFL are likely to reduce access to the P4

>

>

> It also makes one wonder whether other RAs from

> across Dulwich are attending the meeting on Oct

> 20th and if not why only the group in support of

> the Phase 2 closures made the list. It will be

> interesting to see if their "delegation" is called

> upon by the council.

>

> What the council seems to be avoiding is a

> cross-area public meeting on this. I very much

> hope Oct 20th is a democratic event and not

> something that just appears as one-sided and

> biased as other council actions around this issue.

I don't think you read all of it? There is a poster like picture on there which is long and addresses some of the issues you just have to scroll through it. And they are being much more pro-active than One Dulwich about the rest of the area so read it properly....I think it will be a positive impact for us in Area B as well as helping Area C with all the extra traffic they are enduring.

The council website is where everyone should register, it is the only way to know what is on the cards. It is no use jumping up and down afterwards because you missed the boat. In normal times there is the Dulwich Community Council or whatever it is now called, where we could hear what the councillors have to say. Nowadays it is imperative to register for those emails because for sure they are not going to waste money on leafletting.

[legalalien]

Metallic - I will go and register on the website now if I can figure out where to do so - but I still don't think that's the answer. It's never been suggested to me before that I should register on a council website in order to be informed of major decisions like this - that's the whole point of mandating consultation in the normal course of things. Where something is being done that would usually be consulted on, I'd expect councillors to take the initiative to make sure that their constituents are aware of it - say a flyer through post boxes, saying "we've put these experimental things in place, if you don't like them, you need to do X by Y date". I get your point that this costs money, but it is still the right thing to do because they must know what proportion of people (and where presumably) have signed up for online info and I suspect it's far from everyone (I'd be interested to see some figures on that - more googling needed!)

I find the whole thing quite bizarre, but possibly because I grew up in a place where almost all local councillors were independent, the population was much smaller, and the level of engagement was accordingly much higher.

We learn from our mistakes.

As it happens, I think I might sign up to support a campaign for proportional representation in local government. If anyone knows anything about such things, by all means send me a message!

[first mate]

Agree we are badly in need of independents to stand as as councillors. It is utterly clear that reps from major parties are too caught up in party politics and furthering national agendas. It does feel as though every person that signed the massive One Dulwich petition will not get fair representation while our local councillor went the extra mile prior to Covid to knock on doors and garner support for road closure.

[legalalien]

I was hoping not to post this but I can't for the life of me figure out how to sign up to some kind of Southwark news feed that will get this stuff to me. I've been to the home page, the democracy page and the engagement and consultations page but I am missing something. I've worked out that I am already signed up to an electronic version of "Southwark Life" by all accounts, even though I know for a fact that I have never received one.

I'm genuinely not trying to make a point here- I just can't find what I'm supposed to do. Can anyone help?

TIA

[Roky Erickson]

Further signs of the tide turning in today's Telegraph:

Transport Secretary admits new cycle lanes are leaving roads 'backed up' with traffic

Grant Shapps warns he is 'not prepared to tolerate' badly designed closures and cycle lanes, imposing 'sweeping changes' to communities

The Transport Secretary has admitted too many cycle lanes are being left ?unused? with traffic ?backed up? as a result of his green transport revolution, The Telegraph can reveal.

In a strongly worded letter sent to councils, Grant Shapps has warned he is ?not prepared to tolerate? badly designed road closures and new cycle lanes which are imposing ?sweeping changes? to entire communities.

And in a move that will infuriate cycling and green campaigners, he has declared the Government is not anti-car, explaining: ?No one should be in doubt about our support for motorists.?

Mr Shapps announced a ?250 million Emergency Active Travel Fund in May intended to promote walking and cycling as the country emerged from lockdown. Councils were invited to apply for the cash by drawing up projects intended to entice people away from their cars and take more active forms of travel.

However, critics have complained that badly designed road closures and new cycle lanes have in fact increased traffic and pollution on main roads, as well as reduced the number of people visiting high streets at a time when small businesses are desperate to recover from lockdown.

Private residents have even launched legal action, claiming that because the schemes were introduced under emergency Covid powers, disability groups, local residents and businesses were not consulted, and consequently, normal local democratic procedures have been ignored.

Meanwhile, so-called ?Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?, where bollards and planters close off residential streets to traffic, have resulted in delays to 999 emergency response times as police, paramedics and fire crews encounter newly shut roads.

The letter, sent on Friday to local authority transport bosses and local highways authorities and seen by The Telegraph, warns how a ?notable number of councils used their funding poorly and were simply out of step with the needs of the local communities.?

Mr Shapps continues: ?I saw or heard from the public and parliamentary colleagues about far too many instances where temporary cycles lanes were unused due to their location and design, while their creation left motor traffic backed up alongside them; of wide pavements causing unnecessary congestion in town centres; and other issues that many have, rightly, reacted angrily to.?

He explains how he had ordered his staff to ?engage? with those councils where he had ?concerns?, because badly thought out road closures and cycle lanes had been introduced.

?Since then, numerous schemes have been scaled back and revised,? he wrote. ?I am pleased with this, but the work will continue where local residents continue to have concerns.?

He warns the second round of funding in the scheme could see some town halls receiving ?considerably less? money if they fail to ?embrace good design? or ?consult their local communities?.

He adds: ?We all want to see the benefits that active travel brings to be realised, but poorly implemented schemes will make no friends for the policy or more broadly for active travel?

?The crucial test is, does it deliver for the community it serves, and has it been done with their consultation.

?Schemes must balance the needs of cyclists and pedestrians with the needs of other road users, including motorists and local businesses.

?Only authorities which have passed these key tests will receive the funding they have asked for.

?I want to be absolutely clear: we are not prepared to tolerate hastily introduced schemes which will create sweeping changes to communities without consultation, and ones where the benefits to cycling and walking do not outweigh the dis-benefits for other road users.?

The letter comes after thousands of people have held demonstrations and signed petitions forcing some town hall bosses into a series of humiliating U-turns after they introduced schemes with little or no public consultation.

Last week, the Telegraph revealed how some councils were making hundreds of thousands of pounds in fines from motorists driving on newly closed roads.

Projects in some parts of London have proven so divisive that planters have been daubed with graffiti and bollards ripped from the concrete. In one West London borough, opposition has been so vehement that police have had to attend to support council workers as they installed planters and bollards to close roads.

So far, a total of ?42,102,454 has been secured by 111 councils in England, including many London boroughs where opposition has been most vocal.

[Rockets]

It is interesting that the council is now putting flyers through people's doors in the Peckham Rye area to alert them to the Phase 4 closures. I wonder if they realise now that a survey posted by a councillor (a la Goose Green) is not sufficient to be considered legal notice or a consultation.

Incidentally there seems to be a lot of local resident opposition to the plans in that part do the area as no resident is not impacted negatively. It looks like the council may get a lot more opposition as they can't count on those who get closed roads in front of their houses to support the plans like in other areas.

[sally buying]

I have just been sent a message that a petition has been put up on change.org against the proposed closures re Peckham Rye.

https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.change.org%2Fp%2Fto-stop-the-road-closure-taking-place-peckham-rye-covid-19-experimental-travel-measures-to-stop-the-road-closures-happening-in-peckham-rye-covid-19-experimental-travel-measures&data=04%7C01%7C%7C4c1777987e82431d2b1508d872ea58ed%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637385698116748350%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Ecbcp%2BAUpXMf%2BnCfWhPejWnG5bVvWfw9NEU1oL28WP4%3D&reserved=0

Not sure if people are aware of this.

[FairTgirl]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Describes the LL portion of EDG, ?It can no longer

> be acceptable for any transport schemes to be

> developed which cause increases in traffic volumes

> on other roads, particularly where there are

> vulnerable populations like schools and hospitals,

> and when we know those living in poverty, BAME

> populations and residents in areas of existing

> poor air quality are least able to cope with the

> effects of diseases like COVID-19? So time to

> rethink the gated community barriers and consider

> some positive changes for all - protected cycle

> lanes, easy to use cycle stores, public hire

> bikes, better wider paving, better more accessible

> local public transport, cleaner larger bus

> shelters.

Hey Heartblock and legalalien - I have looked at the agenda and downloaded the Environment Scrutiny Committee and Cllr Rose Response to Reports and can't find the sections you quote. I may be being blind, but would quite like to find them asap - can you let me know which report they are in or download it and attach?

[legalalien]

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89830/Scutiny%20report%20air%20quality%20FINAL.pdf - from July. I believe these are the recommendations that the councillor is responding to...

[legalalien]

Pages 20 and 36

[FairTgirl]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Pages 20 and 36

Just about to say, I had found it all! Thank you - this is extremely helpful.

[slarti b]

Our councillors are claiming that the traffic chaos we have been encountering locally since the road closures and other restictions were implemented are nothing to do with the closures. They claim that congestion is instead the result of an increase in traffic compared to pre-lockdown. However, The data I have seen from DfT (covering UK) and TfL ( for London) suggests that traffic volumes are actually still below pre-lock down levels. If so, this undermines the councillors claims.

Can anyone give me a link to any hard data (not opinion articles) on traffic volumes pre and post lockdown? In particular the source of the COuncillor's claims?

[legalalien]

Not sure this is useful as it doesn?t cover London, but in case... https://www.ttf.uk.net/

[FairTgirl]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> Our councillors are claiming that the traffic

> chaos we have been encountering locally since the

> road closures and other restictions were

> implemented are nothing to do with the closures.

> They claim that congestion is instead the result

> of an increase in traffic compared to

> pre-lockdown. However, The data I have seen from

> DfT (covering UK) and TfL ( for London) suggests

> that traffic volumes are actually still below

> pre-lock down levels. If so, this undermines the

> councillors claims.

>

> Can anyone give me a link to any hard data (not

> opinion articles) on traffic volumes pre and post

> lockdown? In particular the source of the

> COuncillor's claims?

Cllr McAsh used a survey in the Guardian - for London as a whole. Not specific to here. They did all quote first week September which was obviously going to show an uptick as schools went back and people who had not been able to work with kids at home may have been able to return. It is possible that would drop back as people got back into routines.

[dulwichfolk]

Amazing how in Dulwich Village at least when the state schools are still open but the private schools have half term there is no/limited issues.....

But lets continue and bring in more changes so that it can feel even more privledged...

[Rockets]

FairTgirl Wrote:

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

> slarti b Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Our councillors are claiming that the traffic

> > chaos we have been encountering locally since

> the

> > road closures and other restictions were

> > implemented are nothing to do with the closures.

>

> > They claim that congestion is instead the

> result

> > of an increase in traffic compared to

> > pre-lockdown. However, The data I have seen

> from

> > DfT (covering UK) and TfL ( for London)

> suggests

> > that traffic volumes are actually still below

> > pre-lock down levels. If so, this undermines

> the

> > councillors claims.

> >

> > Can anyone give me a link to any hard data (not

> > opinion articles) on traffic volumes pre and

> post

> > lockdown? In particular the source of the

> > COuncillor's claims?

>

>

> Cllr McAsh used a survey in the Guardian - for

> London as a whole. Not specific to here. They did

> all quote first week September which was obviously

> going to show an uptick as schools went back and

> people who had not been able to work with kids at

> home may have been able to return. It is possible

> that would drop back as people got back into

> routines.

To be fair to Cllr McAsh he is only following what the likes of TFL do - all of the stats bandied around regarding car use only ever look at London as a whole.

It is very interesting that in the council's own figures when they were monitoring the DV junction for OHS that year-on-year there had been a reduction in car use through the junction - which could be suggesting that car use was declining. Yet the pro-clousre narrative is that car-use if growing exponentially. The problem is that beyond the scary headlines the truth is often a lot different and because the likes of TFL and councils don't do the proper analysis we never know what the true picture actually is.

It could well be that private car ownership and use is declining but it is being replaced by more Ubers and home deliveries but TFL and the council don't know this. If you don't know what the problem is you can't possibly know how to fix it and measures to thwart private car use can lead to bigger problems if the problem is actually home deliveries etc.