LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[legalalien]

Thanks. Don?t belong to any political party so will get on with googling. Seems there is a combined Lambeth/ Southwark constituency.

[Townleygreen]

Caroline Pidgeon doesn't represent an area - she is elected by voters from all over London. By PR.

There are also members elected by area - as you say, Southwark & Lambeth is one such. It's got a Labour member.

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> Petitions can be presented to cabinet assembly and

> it is the presenter of the petition who gets to

> speak. Follow up questions were addressed to

> Bridget - you can't just decide to speak over

> people because you feel you haven't been given a

> chance to present your views! The petition was

> given and follow up questions were asked. Bridget

> did get a chance to speak about the petition

> calculations - perhaps she shouldn't have been the

> one to present the petition if Clive didn't think

> she did a good enough job? Anyway - he was told

> to write in with details so its not actually like

> he wasn't heard - just more that interrupting in

> that way wasn't appropriate.

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > legalalien Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I completely agree with your comments on the

> > > inadequacy of commonplace as a measure (in

> fact

> > I

> > > filled in a feedback form to that effect) -

> but

> > if

> > > the council is going to hold it out as its

> > means

> > > of collecting data, and in the absence of

> > ?proper?

> > > data, you can hardly blame people for trying

> to

> > do

> > > something with it.

> > >

> > > I?m not quite sure what I think the role of

> > > residents? associations should be in all of

> this

> > -

> > > I?d say to be conduits for communication

> rather

> > > than any of them coming out ?for? or

> ?against?

> > > based on their (probably) unscientific

> > perception

> > > of their residents? views. Our local one

> forgot

> > to

> > > include us for many years after we moved in.

> > Out

> > > of interest do residents associations have

> any

> > > formal standing with the council?

> >

> > Am I imagining it but didn't the council say

> that

> > they will be using Commonplace to assess the

> local

> > sentiment towards LTNs? I interpreted Dulwich

> > Alliance's publishing of the stats as a very

> > clever move to put the council on the back

> foot.

> > By the looks of the council's response (or lack

> of

> > it) it looks like it has been successful.

> >

> > Just watched the YouTube video and I thought

> the

> > representation from Hazel and Bridget was very

> > well done. Cllr Rose really needs to stop

> turning

> > to her right, it looks like she is reading her

> > responses from a pre-prepared script! THe

> points

> > Cllr Rose's made about the use of Commonplace

> > don't really stand much scrutiny as the stats

> > speak for themselves.

> >

> > Why was Clive Rates shut down so quickly by

> Cllr

> > Williams

If you hear a person present something on behalf of over 700 people signing in their own free will, including me may I say, why on earth should three disparate people be allowed even longer for their discussion? When I watched it I could see that in fact there was not going to be any chance for the two presenters to answer the load of old cobblers from Ms Greer - she knew she wouldn't be able to be challenged so steamed ahead. It makes a travesty of the access.

If you are going to allow anyone to address a council meeting in response to something said immediately beforehand, surely those two presentations are interconnected? And therefore a come back should be allowable.

[@Woodwarde]

The scheduling of questions and presentations/deputations needs a little more scrutiny. I did put a question to the 2nd Feb Cabinet meeting and was advised that it would be put as an FOI ad that Cllr Kieran Williams had asked to be copied on the response. I am going to enquire about the questions and deputations that were accepted. I am interested to understand how the Julie Greer presentation came to be added as it was not on the published agenda and therefore not in the submission timeframe nor published at agenda item 8:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6666/Agenda%20frontsheet%20Tuesday%2002-Feb-2021%2011.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=0

6. MINUTES 1 - 17

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the open section of

the meeting held on 19 January 2021.

7. DEPUTATION REQUESTS

To consider any deputation requests. The deadline for the receipt of

a deputation request is midnight Wednesday 27 January 2021.

8. PETITION: END THE 24/7 CLOSURES AROUND DULWICH

VILLAGE JUNCTION AND MELBOURNE GROVE AND

IMPLEMENT AN AREA-WIDE, CAMERA-CONTROLLED PERMIT

SCHEME THAT ALLOWS FAIR AND REASONABLE ACCESS

18 - 23

To consider a petition from local residents in respect of road

closures in Dulwich.

9. LEDBURY ESTATE TOWERS - LEDBURY TOWERS

RESIDENTS' BALLOT

24 - 58

Surely our Cabinet process has not been discretionally applied to favour one position over another and different rules for some?

I will ask the question but hopefully others on EDF seeing this might also be motivated to do the same. Kieran Williams is new in post and has a lot to prove about his leadership of Council openness and transparency.

[Rockets]

The deputation part was an absolute joke and the questions from the councillors as predictable as they were weak and insipid. What struck me was the complete disregard for anyone outside of the Village and the impact to them and the pro-closure lobby diatribe regurgitated by Julie. She highlights Dulwich having the highest car ownership in the borough but omits the fact that Dulwich has some of the worst PTAL scores in Southwark.

Look how the council are trying to manipulate and control the process - no wonder Clive is getting frustrated. The same thing happened on the Melbourne Grove virtual meeting where the supporters of the closures were given disproportionately more air time then anyone opposing the closures. Apparently that was just coincidence. Yet on this last cabinet meeting we see the true colours of our council and I laughed at the irony of the painting of One Dulwich and the Dulwich Alliance as groups that are unwilling to engage in dialogue.

Honestly, it's all getting a bit Comical Ali from the council but you can tell from the desperate nature of the impassioned defence by the pro-lovby that you know the pressure refuses to diminish.

[FairTgirl]

The time has come if you have not already, and wish to object - to legally object to the East Dulwich Road Closures. TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich

(road closures on Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Melbourne Grove and Tintagel Crescent); and TMO2021-EXP02_LSP Dulwich?and?TMO2021-EXP16_LSP Dulwich 2?(Melbourne Grove South, and closures in Dulwich Village)

Deadline to do so is 19 Feb 2021.

You need to write to: [email protected]@southwark.gov.uk, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

Additional emails to cc in are listed below.

State in Subject line: Official Objection to TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich

This is the official objection that Cabinet Member for Roads, Cllr Catherine Rose must legally take into account as part of the review process of these closures.

*Please add your name and address of your home or business to your email.

Grounds for objections can include:

- Blocking 4 well-used and vital access to routes to Kings? College hospital - very worrying emails from London Ambulance Service to Southwark Council emerged yesterday, showing they were appealing to Southwark Council to re-open or amend these closures since September as they, and resultant congestion were risking lives. These emails were ignored. They had been appealing to Southwark Council around other local closures since July 2020.

- Increased congestion and pollution on surrounding boundary roads users, residents, businesses and schools, heavy pedestrian routes which many use for passage to school, bus stops, stations

- Impacts of increased pollution and loss of access and parking to local businesses

- Social injustice and discrimination of funnelling all local traffic onto roads with most social housing and BAME residents and lowest car ownership

- Increased environmental damage resulting from idling congested traffic, travelling more vehicle miles

- the lack of traffic and air pollution monitoring prior to and during the implementation, the absence of any conscientious assessment of the risk and extent of adverse impacts on those in protected groups, and the flawed implementation of existing Southwark policy.??

An expanded list of objections are here: https://www.onedulwich.uk/dv-objections

Feel free to copy these objections into your email.

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]@southwark.gov.uk, [email protected]

[email protected], [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

But do send an email if you have any objections.

You can also use this link https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp quoting reference ?TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich?.

Or write a letter here: Traffic Order consultations, Highways, Southwark Council, Environment and Leisure, P.O. Box 64529, London SE1P 5LX

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> The deputation part was an absolute joke and the

> questions from the councillors as predictable as

> they were weak and insipid. What struck me was the

> complete disregard for anyone outside of the

> Village and the impact to them and the pro-closure

> lobby diatribe regurgitated by Julie. She

> highlights Dulwich having the highest car

> ownership in the borough but omits the fact that

> Dulwich has some of the worst PTAL scores in

> Southwark.

>

> Look how the council are trying to manipulate and

> control the process - no wonder Clive is getting

> frustrated. The same thing happened on the

> Melbourne Grove virtual meeting where the

> supporters of the closures were given

> disproportionately more air time then anyone

> opposing the closures. Apparently that was just

> coincidence. Yet on this last cabinet meeting we

> see the true colours of our council and I laughed

> at the irony of the painting of One Dulwich and

> the Dulwich Alliance as groups that are unwilling

> to engage in dialogue.

>

> Honestly, it's all getting a bit Comical Ali from

> the council but you can tell from the desperate

> nature of the impassioned defence by the pro-lovby

> that you know the pressure refuses to diminish.

I reckon it was a set up pure and simple.

[northernmonkey]

I love how everyone has internet access to post a conspiracy theory, but apparently no one has access to google to easily find out the answers to their questions:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/uuCoverPage.aspx?bcr=1

Questions, petitions and deputations are different processes with the way they are done (eg individually or collectively) being described in the link above. Members of the public doing one option don?t get a ?come back? on the other sections of the others, otherwise it would be more chaotic than Handforth Parish Council!

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> I love how everyone has internet access to post a

> conspiracy theory, but apparently no one has

> access to google to easily find out the answers to

> their questions:

>

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/uuCoverPage.asp

> x?bcr=1

>

> Questions, petitions and deputations are different

> processes with the way they are done (eg

> individually or collectively) being described in

> the link above. Members of the public doing one

> option don?t get a ?come back? on the other

> sections of the others, otherwise it would be more

> chaotic than Handforth Parish Council!

Yeah that's true there is no come back. So the people allowed on after any other presentation by people they disagree with, can just spout untruths? Oh I get it now. The second group presenting can have a comeback on what was said and agreed by over 700 people, but three set-up women can run free with untruths and exaggerations.

[snowy]

That sounds a little bit Aled?s iPad

[Rockets]

Sensible suggestion from Dulwich Alliance. I believe independent arbitration is the only way forward, we cannot trust the council to deal with this in a fair and balanced way.

Open letters

An open letter to the Leader of Southwark Council (7 February 2021)

Dear Councillor Williams

At the end of the session of the Cabinet Meeting on 2 February that was devoted to the 700+ signature petition (to end the 24/7 closures around Dulwich and implement an area-wide, camera-controlled permit scheme), you highlighted that views are strongly held in Dulwich on both sides, and that there was a ?need to find a way of coming to a consensus view? through a review process that ?brings people together?. We agree. We suggest that there is, in fact, a lot more common ground than people realise, but it is not being allowed to surface at the moment because of the rancour this issue is causing.

The need to reach a consensus has always been the position of the Dulwich Alliance and One Dulwich. However, with opposing views so strongly held, the only way this can realistically be achieved is through an impartial and transparent resolution process. Unfortunately, the proposed ?Dulwich Area Community Forum? chaired by a Council-appointed ?Area Champion?, mentioned by Cllr Rose at the Cabinet meeting as being under consideration, would obviously not be impartial and so simply cannot achieve that. It would be extremely unhelpful both for the community and for the Council if another consultation simply repeated and further entrenched existing polarised positions.

Instead we propose that either the Council establishes a public inquiry, or that an independent, professionally qualified arbitration specialist, such as a chartered arbitrator or an accredited resolution specialist, be appointed to carry this out. For this to work, the arbitrator would obviously have to be subject neutral as well as impartial, and have the broad support of the community.

This would ensure that those affected (be that negatively or positively) by the Orders are allowed to make their representations and have their views heard. It would also provide the Council with impartial direction on how to proceed in a way that meets the Council?s objectives of reducing through traffic and pollution and encouraging walking and cycling (which everyone supports), but which also balances the different needs of the wider community. In fact, we believe that it is only by following an independent and transparent process that the Council can ensure acceptance of the outcome by all interested parties.

There appears to have been little by way of timely studies into traffic levels or air quality within the locality before the Orders were introduced. Added to this, the experiment is being undertaken during a time in which traffic conditions and pollution levels are not representative of what they were before the COVID-19 pandemic, or indeed are likely to be after the pandemic. This further underlines the need for an independent investigation, as clearly any evidence gleaned from this experiment will not be sufficient to underpin any future permanent measures.

We know that, as Leader of the Council, you put equality and fairness at the heart of all you do, and that you want to build a better future for everyone in the borough. We urge you to consider seriously this route of independent investigation. It provides a way forward that builds on common ground among people in Dulwich with different views, and a way out of the current community relations quagmire that we all find ourselves in.

Yours sincerely

The Dulwich Alliance

[Bicknell]

Seems a good idea to me...

[hopskip]

Great open letter - thanks for the genuine effort to get a dialogue going. Don't stop.

Petition still open I see, for anyone who may want to sign.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=500000057&RPID=774779172&HPID=774779172

Ping me if struggling to get past the sign in - there is a problem for some.

[malumbu]

Good idea, arbitration. We could bring that to all levels of the council's activities, no wait a second, all aspects of public service including policing and education. Criminals, as service users, would have their say and parents/carers could be on committees to agree lessons plans, grades and the like. We'd also be able to have referendums on everything. That will create lots of jobs, and as the country is already broke this wont make a lot of difference on the national debt.

Representative democracy, pah, who needs it.

[Rockets]

Malumbu - glad you agree with us that we need some representative democracy - I am sure you will agree that there is so little of it in evidence in the way the council is managing LTNs, no more aptly demonstrated by the cabinet meeting last week.......

You're lucky that you live far enough away from the LTNs to not be impacted by the displacement. Tuesday's council meeting for the Dulwich Hill ward is going to be very interesting as this is the first one where the council are going to be unable to rely on the local pro-closure lobby monotonising proceedings. It will be interesting to see how they run it and if they apply the same rules of engagement they applied during the Melbourne Grove LTN meetings.

[Abe_froeman]

"this is the first one where the council are going to be unable to rely on the local pro-closure lobby monotonising proceedings..."

I wouldn't count on that !

[Rockets]

Abe - the big issue for the council is that they cannot rely on those benefitting from living on a closed road to join and herald how "wonderful" the closures are. Also on the Melbourne Grove meeting they insisted everyone identified which road they lived on in the ward so they ensured the meeting was focussed on the comments of the most local residents (which is perfectly ok it just meant that it was dominated by those not living with the displacement and allowed the council to control the narrative).

I know of a lot of people who live in the Dulwich Hill ward who are being impacted by the displacement and are taking this as their opportunity to be heard as they feel they have been overlooked as the council tries to manipulate things.

[heartblock]

I have never at any time had any representative from Southwark Council ask me or my neighbours on EDG about how the LTNs have impacted on our road. They only speak to those inside LTNs. I can?t wait to vote in the local election. Please can we have independents standing.

[Abe_froeman]

I'm hoping there will a "One London" party that stands, made up of the various One groups like One Dulwich etc.

[FairTgirl]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Abe - the big issue for the council is that they

> cannot rely on those benefitting from living on a

> closed road to join and herald how "wonderful" the

> closures are. Also on the Melbourne Grove meeting

> they insisted everyone identified which road they

> lived on in the ward so they ensured the meeting

> was focussed on the comments of the most local

> residents (which is perfectly ok it just meant

> that it was dominated by those not living with the

> displacement and allowed the council to control

> the narrative).

>

> I know of a lot of people who live in the Dulwich

> Hill ward who are being impacted by the

> displacement and are taking this as their

> opportunity to be heard as they feel they have

> been overlooked as the council tries to manipulate

> things.

Afraid this was not the case, quite a few people who spoke in favour of the LTN, and took it an an opportunity to wang on about their lives, did so without identifiying where they lived to the Cllrs, people we all know who live quite some distance from the ED LTN in question. Sure they will also turn up at the Dulwich Hill meeting too although they do not live in that ward either.

[Bicknell]

Can anyone watch the Dulwich hill meeting, or do you have to get an invite? im wondering if the usual suspects will turn up

[legalalien]

Oddly the meeting is showing on the website as a south area multi ward meeting as well as a Dulwich Hill Ward meeting. Not sure why. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6945. I?ve already emailed to ask whether there are similar meetings to the Dulwich Hill one for other wards and unusually haven?t had a response.

Edited to add - think I?ve managed to find details elsewhere on the Southwark website:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/empowering-communities/empowering-communities-south?chapter=4 . Includes meeting ID and passcode. I don?t see why anyone shouldn?t attend to watch. Although if they allow public participation (that?s the stated purpose of ward meetings), seems only fair that those who live in the ward should be those to take the stage...

[legalalien]

Actually, looking at the most recent (December) update to the Empowering Communities Programme web page, seems as though the number of mandatory ward meetings has been reduced from 6 per year to 2 due to COVID. No idea why that should be the case due to the availability of Zoom, which is being used regularly for other council meetings?

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/empowering-communities/empowering-communities-programme. I need to check to see whether that means the Village Ward can now just count the 2 ?multi ward? meetings (where the public don?t get to speak), canning any stand alone ward meetings where the public do get to speak. I hope that?s not the case, but it?s noticeable that some wards are having more ward meetings than others.

I find it odd that the site says ?Ward Councillors have the responsibility for shaping the agenda and managing the meeting process, but for the time being, officers will be required to administer the online facility.? It sounds a bit as though officers are sick and tired of trying to chase councillors to sort meeting dates - there have been several arranged and cancelled.

I am not feeling very empowered.

[northernmonkey]

The East Dulwich meeting I was on wasn't only residents at all. I seem to recall that there was a process of one person from the streets with measures, then one person from the streets without measures for quite a large section of it - there was someone from Hansler Road who spoke at length and that woman who stood out by virtue of repeatedly referring to her address by the 'A road number' designation (which turned out to be neither on a directly affected street, nor one that would be remotely impacted by the ED changes, nor even in East Dulwich!

FairTgirl Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Abe - the big issue for the council is that

> they

> > cannot rely on those benefitting from living on

> a

> > closed road to join and herald how "wonderful"

> the

> > closures are. Also on the Melbourne Grove

> meeting

> > they insisted everyone identified which road

> they

> > lived on in the ward so they ensured the

> meeting

> > was focussed on the comments of the most local

> > residents (which is perfectly ok it just meant

> > that it was dominated by those not living with

> the

> > displacement and allowed the council to control

> > the narrative).

> >

> > I know of a lot of people who live in the

> Dulwich

> > Hill ward who are being impacted by the

> > displacement and are taking this as their

> > opportunity to be heard as they feel they have

> > been overlooked as the council tries to

> manipulate

> > things.

>

> Afraid this was not the case, quite a few people

> who spoke in favour of the LTN, and took it an an

> opportunity to wang on about their lives, did so

> without identifiying where they lived to the

> Cllrs, people we all know who live quite some

> distance from the ED LTN in question. Sure they

> will also turn up at the Dulwich Hill meeting too

> although they do not live in that ward either.

[Rockets]

Scary update from One Dulwich. Looks like the council are continuing risking lives for their failed project.

+ Ambulances routinely delayed by 24/7 road closures (8 February 2021)

Some of you may have seen the article in the Daily Telegraph on Friday about how the road closures in Dulwich Village and East Dulwich are causing long delays to ambulances on 999 calls, with life-threatening consequences. The article was based on a series of emails between the London Ambulance Service (LAS) and Southwark Highways Department (Southwark), obtained through a Freedom of Information request submitted last October.

These reveal that ambulances in Dulwich are routinely delayed by the current road closures. In September last year alone, the last month for which figures are available, ambulance crews reported 10 delays because of 24/7 closures in the Dulwich area, including responses to at least two Category 2 (life-threatening) 999 calls and three Category 1 (immediately life-threatening) 999 calls. Paramedics repeatedly highlight the hard closure at Calton Avenue as the cause of the problem in Dulwich Village, with delays ranging from between 5 and 10 minutes.

What is really concerning is that the documents also appear to show that repeated requests by the LAS to Southwark to replace the planters with cameras are being ignored. At a meeting on 16 July last year with Southwark transport project managers, all three Emergency Services asked for hard closures to be removed and ANPR cameras installed instead. ?We know ANPR cameras are expensive,? said the Metropolitan Police representative, ?but it?s about saving a life.?

One Dulwich has repeatedly asked our Councillors, and the decision-maker Cllr Rose, to introduce ANPR cameras at Dulwich Village junction instead of 24/7 closures. We know from your emails that many of you have done the same. We have raised the issue of access for the emergency services in our objections to the closures in both Dulwich Village and East Dulwich. But the Council is refusing to listen.

The problem has not gone away, as Cllr Rose implies in the Daily Telegraph article. In fact, the LAS continues to ask for ANPR cameras instead of hard closures that prevent access. Ambulances doing three-point turns at planters is still a regular occurrence, as are reports of ambulances getting stuck in traffic. As well as putting residents? lives at risk, it?s not fair on ambulance crews, whose lives are difficult and stressful enough as it is without having to do long detours and weave through congested traffic.

What will it take for Southwark to comply with the Emergency Services? requests? The death of a resident because an ambulance can?t reach them in time? Or a house or flat burning down because a fire engine gets stuck in displaced traffic? Refusing to make changes when lives are at stake is irresponsible and immoral.

We have now written yet again to MP Helen Hayes asking her to intervene. When former MP Kate Hoey intervened in the disastrous Loughborough Road traffic experiments in 2015, after the London Ambulance Service complained, Lambeth Council ended the experiment. We hope our MP and Southwark Council will now do the same