LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[dulwichfolk]

Be interesting to know what the result of the review would have been if it hadn?t been extended by a week

[Rockets]

Latest update from One Dulwich:

Two-thirds reject the Dulwich LTNs | 20 Sep

On Friday evening, Southwark published its report on the Dulwich Streetspace measures with 19 supporting documents. You may also have received an 8-page newsletter through your door.

The results of the consultation are hidden, but they are very clear. Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by two out of three people living and working in the three Dulwich LTNs, who opted for ?return it to the original state?.

(This doesn?t mean, incidentally, that a third of respondents agreed with them. Only one in five ? around 20% ? of those who answered were in favour. The rest wanted different measures or modifications.)

Despite this huge opposition from those who took part in the consultation, Southwark is going ahead with the scheme, with a few minor changes. The closures still displace traffic and pollution on to residential streets with schools and health centres. They still discriminate against those who are more vulnerable, including older people and people with disabilities, and they still damage the viability of our local shops and businesses. With our colleagues in the Dulwich Alliance, we have drafted an initial statement, which you can read here.

Now the work begins. We have all been given ten days to respond (via [email protected], deadline Monday 27 September). Our initial assessment is that the standard of reporting in the documents is extremely poor and that we have strong and valid criticisms. We will update you next weekend with our findings so that you can draw on our analysis for your own objections.

The final decision will be in November, according to Southwark?s newsletter. So the next few weeks are crucial. Our legal team is assessing our options. We are also planning more immediate action. In the meantime, please contribute to our fighting fund.

It is time for our elected councillors ? and our local MP Helen Hayes ? to listen to the majority. In other constituencies, local MPs have spoken out when councils tried to ride roughshod over the results of public consultations. Two-thirds of local people have rejected the Dulwich Streetspace scheme. We deserve a better and fairer solution.

Thank you for your support.

[Abe_froeman]

I'd like to see One Dulwich stand some candidates against the councillors across Dulwich for the May elections.

The East Dulwich councillors who have been silent on this issue for months each only have a wafer thin majority.

OD should go after their seats.

[Spartacus]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

>

> OD should go after their seats.

One Direction ?

They're good, but maybe not that good 😂

[DuncanW]

I may be mistaken, but I didn't think that East Dulwich Ward existed any more since the last election.

Which councillors are you referring to?

[Abe_froeman]

The councillors for East Dulwich. All of them.

[ed_pete]

Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by two out of three people living and working in the three Dulwich LTNs, who opted for ?return it to the original state?.

Look I'm no apologist for the council who I know have heavily spun their presentation of the data but surely this is factually incorrect.

Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by two out of three people, who responded to a survey, living and working in the three Dulwich LTNs, who opted for ?return it to the original state?.

We don't know how many people are classified as living and working in the three Dulwich LTNs but we do know that the consultation newsletter was posted to 19,729 addresses and of the survey respondents 5,538 classified themselves as living and working in the three Dulwich LTNs.

Source: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101517/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultation%20Report.pdf

[heartblock]

Probably best not to tell people that Southwark will listen to THEIR consultation that THEY designed then ignore the results when they don?t fit in with the policy. Yes it is responders, but also protected groups that THEY consulted. If you disagree with the consultation design then that?s another thing.

Maybe Southwark should release the raw data. It should also re-published the data that they have removed ..as it shows that LTNs do not significantly reduce traffic overall when compared to before.

It?s a bit embarrassing when the only reduction that they can publish is 10% overall (with 25% increase on at least one residential road) compared to London overall during the lockdown over the same period, which actually had a larger reduction of traffic, including areas with no LTNs.

Seems LTNs do not reduce car use, just makes journeys longer and increases idling, polluting traffic.

The era of idiocy is upon us.

[Rockets]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by

> two out of three people living and working in the

> three Dulwich LTNs, who opted for ?return it to

> the original state?.

>

> Look I'm no apologist for the council who I know

> have heavily spun their presentation of the data

> but surely this is factually incorrect.

>

> Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by

> two out of three people, who responded to a

> survey, living and working in the three Dulwich

> LTNs, who opted for ?return it to the original

> state?.

>

> We don't know how many people are classified as

> living and working in the three Dulwich LTNs but

> we do know that the consultation newsletter was

> posted to 19,729 addresses and of the survey

> respondents 5,538 classified themselves as living

> and working in the three Dulwich LTNs.

>

> Source:

> https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1015

> 17/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultat

> ion%20Report.pdf

You're right but isn't that a bit like saying the result of a general election is not the will of the people but the will of the people who bothered to vote?

The review was the bar the council set to determine local resident sentiment to the closures. Two-thirds of people said they don't want it and they should be removed - that's pretty compelling and certainly bucks the council-led narrative that it was just a "small local minority" who were opposing the measures. And that resounding vote against the council and their measures came despite all the efforts the council and councillors went to to try and rally support for them.

In fact, the "turnout" was higher than the turnout for council elections - which if I was one of the councillors would worry me no-end given their tiny majorities.

To Heartblock's point I very much suspect that the council would have listened if 65% had voted to keep them and they would be telling us what a resounding vote of confidence there was from residents for the measures.

And Heartblock - we all need to take that 10% reduction with a very large pinch of salt as no monitoring data has been shared or included for Underhill Road, which has become a major displacement route for traffic trying to avoid the chaos at the Lordship Lane/A205 junction.

[Spartacus]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by

> two out of three people living and working in the

> three Dulwich LTNs, who opted for ?return it to

> the original state?.

>

> Look I'm no apologist for the council who I know

> have heavily spun their presentation of the data

> but surely this is factually incorrect.

>

> Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by

> two out of three people, who responded to a

> survey, living and working in the three Dulwich

> LTNs, who opted for ?return it to the original

> state?.

>

> We don't know how many people are classified as

> living and working in the three Dulwich LTNs but

> we do know that the consultation newsletter was

> posted to 19,729 addresses and of the survey

> respondents 5,538 classified themselves as living

> and working in the three Dulwich LTNs.

>

> Source:

> https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1015

> 17/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultat

> ion%20Report.pdf

That's democracy in action for you

Bit like saying after an election, "but not everyone voted for 'the monster raving loony party*' !" doesn't matter as those that did bother to vote are only the ones who count.

If others didn't respond to the survey then their voices are lost and you can't try to retrospectively say but they do / don't agree.

Of those that 'bothered' to respond 65% said remove the LTNs and as in life regarding those who didn't respond we can't make assumptions for them but we can say their views don't add to the argument as they didn't say anything.

*other political parties are also available

[dulwichrunners]

I agree - we should target the councillors up for re-election. If not fielding candidates, then at the very least running a leafleting campaign naming and shaming those involved.

[ed_pete]

Hmm. Feel free to continue to think you were voting for or against LTNs but you weren't. You were being consulted.

You've been consulted. They've spun the results. You don't like the outcome and by all means protest. But just like the *whispers* CPZ, this wasn't a vote with a binary outcome.

[DulvilleRes]

I seem to recall that the One Dulwich advice/ recommendation at the time of the consultation to people with any kind of objection to the LTN's was to tick the box on the consultation 'return to original state'.

This being the case, the question remains - how many of the people who ticked that box - 65% - would now consider themselves satisfied by the council's proposed sensible adjustments? A lot of the anti-LTN lobbying focused on emergency service response times, and the position of Blue Badge Holders, and these issues have been addressed. It would be misleading, in the light of this, to say that 65% of people have rejected the LTN's in their entirety. In my view that 65% would by definition have a spectrum of views on what they want changing.

I also don't think a pile on the current councillors, as some are suggesting, is going to change much. I can't see any of the major parties embracing a state where little is done about reducing car use and encouraging active travel. Returning things to fully as they were is not a great look when so many people are concerned about climate change.

[Rockets]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> Hmm. Feel free to continue to think you were

> voting for or against LTNs but you weren't. You

> were being consulted.

> You've been consulted. They've spun the results.

> You don't like the outcome and by all means

> protest. But just like the *whispers* CPZ, this

> wasn't a vote with a binary outcome.

So where we are now then is council's ask us "tell us what you think and what you want us to do" (which at the end of the day is what a consultation is) and when they offer residents the option to say they would like the measures removed and when 65% respond saying that's what they want, they then say, nah...we, the elected officials, don't want that so we will continue on the path we want to follow. There are elections going on in Russia at the moment that are following a similar path....be careful what you wish for.

If you think what is happening now with the LTNs is some sort of balanced and fair democratic process you are wrong.

It is funny how people are coming on now and questioning the results of the consultation and putting a load of ifs, buts and maybes. The facts speak for themselves - 65% of residents who live within the consultation area replied saying they want the LTNs removed. Immediately. No ifs, buts or maybes.

I think what is actually happening here is that many who wouldn't listen to people saying "most people don't want/like this" and refused to acknowledge the weight of public opinion now realise the small vocal minority are, in fact, those supporting the LTNs.

[slarti b2]

DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

I seem to recall that the One Dulwich advice recommendation at the time of the consultation to> people with any kind of objection to the LTN's was to tick the box on the consultation 'return to> original state'.

But can you recall why they advised that? The problem was that if respondents ticked any other boxes, the council would use that to claim support for the measures. The advice was a direct result of the manipulation of previous consultations by Southwark council officers, supported by our mendacious ( or data ignorant) local councillors.

And the results, although ignored and concealed by Southwark officers in their report, are very clear; local residents wish, by an overwhelming majority, for the measures to be removed.

Sadly our local councillors Newens and Leeming, heavily in hoc to minority activists groups, have shown they cannot be trusted to represent the views of their constituents. But perhaps someone at the council is prepared to engage with local residents to see if there is some sort of compromise that can be reached. It would be nice if our local MP Helen Hayes could mediate in some way but it seems she is just a glove puppet for the local Labour party councillors.

[malumbu]

Jim1234 Wrote:

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

> Keen to get others' views: the redesign appears to be prioritising revenue generation via camera

controls. Eg. with the Melbourne North road blockers moved south, I assume most unfamiliar drivers looking to turn left from EDG would use Derwent instead.

I'm hugely against cars, however fooling people into penalty charges is unethical.>

At the worse I expect that it is cock up rather than conspiracy. Revenue from Fixed Penalty Notices is small compared to overall council spending and you could apply accusations to say parking fines too.

There is a bigger discussion about proportionality and leniency - I can get stopped by the police for speeding but let off with a warning, but there is no such thing for camera enforcement of any kind beyond speed awareness course.

I've fought a few FPNs in the past, many I thought were unjust or for relatively benign offences but in more recent years done my damned hardest to avoid them. This thread of course is very helpful for knowing about new restrictions. There are other threads about people receiving fines and challenging them.

It's also good to get alternative views, I think most of us who support the principle of measures to discourage driving are no longer posting as this thread is dominated by those vehemently objecting to them.

[Bicknell]

results of consultation show that tiny vocal minority is now big vocal majority

[heartblock]

I support measures that encourage the use of public transport, walking and cycling and discourage car use, that is why I oppose LTNs as there is no proof that they discourage driving (10% reduction is the best stat that Southwark can come up with - in a pandemic when driving has reduced across London by around 16% due to lockdown and home working, and by excluding South Circular and Underhill road from the calculation).

Cycling and walking were already on the rise before LTNs and Covid 19 -they peaked briefly Summer 20/21 and are now returning to pre-Covid and lockdown levels.

Buses in London in non-LTN areas have faster transit times during lockdown, buses have been slowed by LTNs on ED Grove, Croxted.

Amazingly the roads that are shut - have reduced traffic - who knew?

I fully support any policy that encourages the use of other types of transport rather than cars and reduces idling traffic and pollution on residential roads with high density populations - LTNs in Dulwich and ED do not achieve this according even to the bodged data of the Consultation, which is why 65% of the responders want them removed.

[first mate]

There are two issues at play here. The first is perceptions about whether LTNs have achieved stated aims- the overwhelming view is no, they haven't. The second is about the real purpose of council consultation- to genuinely listen and represent local residents or, instead, a box ticking tool to window-dress and facilitate councillor agendas?

[slarti b2]

The results of Southwark's huge consultation excercise, 65% want the LTN's removed vs 15% want them to stay, is overwhelming and comes as no surprise. It reflects the surveys carried out by local residents associations and the feedback on the councils own Commonplace map.

However, in the biased, manipulative and misleading report prepreared by the Highways department there is actually no mention of these results, they have been buried in an appendix and ignored. Disgraceful.

[Rockets]

It is shocking (perhaps it is not) that the council only referenced the fact that people are supportive of the strategic aims of Healthier Streets on the leaflet that dropped through our doors and completely omitted any reference to the fact that the significant majority want the LTNs removed.

A number of people I have spoken to had received the document and had assumed (on the basis of the stats the council published below) that people had voted for the measures not against them - when you tell them the truth their responses are usually unrepeatable on a forum such as this! It is a shocking, deceitful and an utterly manipulative, omission.

The majority of respondents (55%) were supportive of the overall aims of Streets for People as set out as priorities in the survey.

In particular, a majority of respondents (77%) agreed that improving air quality and road safety on the street where they lived was an important priority.

The largest level of support in the survey (82%) was for improving air quality and road safety for local schools.

Was the omission deliberate or another unfortunate "oversight"?

[slarti b2]

Rockets Wrote:

> Was the omission deliberate or another unfortunate "oversight"?

Clearly this is deliberate. Yet another item to add to the long list of errors, bias and deliberately misleading information by Southwark Council. Are these grounds for calling the decision in to the Scrutiny Commitee? Presumably, even if that happens our one-party Labour councillors will rubber stamp it rather than having the guts to do their job.

Looks like the only way forward is a legal challeng.

[legalalien]

I suspect we?re in for another uptick in fines as I?ve come across two people so far who have been forwarded the map associated with the decision making process and were under the impression that the revised time restrictions would come into force this coming Monday. Chinese whispers! If you?re speaking to anyone maybe emphasise to them that nothing has changed yet.

[bels123]

It wasn?t a vote.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> A number of people I have spoken to had received

> the document and had assumed (on the basis of the

> stats the council published below) that people had

> voted for the measures not against them - when you

> tell them the truth their responses are usually

> unrepeatable on a forum such as this!,

> omission.

[Rockets]

People were given a choice to register their support for option a, b or c. They voted (as in the verb), whether it was a vote (as in the noun) is a subject of continued conjecture.

If people were not registering their vote for which option they support then it begs the question what was the point of the consultation/review and does it now make any future consultations completely meaningless and worthless - the consultation was touted by the council as a way for people to "have their say"?

Also you need to remember that the council has, seemingly, made a decision to continue with the DV closures on the basis of the votes of those on Court Lane and Calton.

So they can't have it both ways - but as we saw from the CPZ consultation they do like to have their cake and eat (regardless of what the majority being impacted think).