LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[march46]

Instead of turning my question around please can you simply answer my question? Do One Dulwich support the current timed restrictions on Townley Road, Dulwich Village, Turney and Burbage Road?

It seems likely that they do given their overall aims, even more so now the hours of operation will be reducing.

[legalalien]

I don't think anyone could sensibly support a part of the existing scheme without knowing what the rest of the scheme would look like, tbh.

What the OneDulwich website says is "One Dulwich supports area-wide timed restrictions (after consultation with the local community on hours of restriction, access, and location of entry/exit points) as a more proportionate, and more socially just, solution." - so implicitly One Dulwich recognise that it's not up to them to choose the solution. If some of the people involved remain of the view that their original proposal is the "best" outcome, then that's fine - there will be other, newer OneDulwich supporters who support the part of their campaign that seeks more transparency from the council and who oppose one or more aspects of the current council proposal. As OD isn't a political party, and doesn't have a formal mandate to represent its supporters as regards an alternative proposal, I don't see an issue. If OneDulwich were to come out and represent to the Council that all of its 2000 supporters were in favour of its original proposal with the residents' permits, or whatever, that would be something different - but to my knowledge that hasn't happened.

[Rockets]

March - on the basis of their mandate being pushing for timed restrictions then I would say yes but you would really need to address that question to them as you're splitting hairs a little bit - the crux of the issue and the main catalyst for the traffic displacement all across Dulwich is the DV closure so unless the council addresses that one then the problems will continue.

Now, I have answered your question perhaps you would now answer mine - why do you think the council refused to put an option of area-wide timed restrictions in to the review?

[slarti b]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

@Artemis - my point is that of the 2000 people signed up to One Dulwich it is unlikely they are all fully aware what One Dulwich actually want ie timed restrictions with permits **for those living in Dulwich Village**.

One Dulwich want an end to the 24\7 road closure at the DV Junction and its replacement by timed closures. It was the council, support by our local councillors, who originally proposed residents permits (not just for "Dulwich Village" as you suggest) in the OHS scheme so stop demonising and smearing OneDulwich for suggesting the same solution for DV junction.

Presumably @rockets supports the 'One Dulwich> alternative scheme' which the council have rejected as dangerous and confusing and doesn't mind that a large proportion of the 2000 supporters are unwittingly signed up to still being fined.

I believe the scheme you are referring to was actually proposed by DVRA but is supported by OneDulwich. This was based on timed restrictions and I think suggested permits for all Soutwark residents (similar to Hammersmith and Fulham?) but that was a point for discussion.

Can you provide evidence of the council rejecting the DVRA scheme as "dangerous and confusing" with a proper analysis of their reasons ? My understanding is that the head of Highways thought the scheme "had merit", though of course he has subequently had to fall into line with what his politicial masters want him to say.

And after 30,000 plus fines for motorists who have been confused by the current signs, I don't think Southwark council are in a position to make judgements on clarity.

Finally, your posts just seem to continue the campaign of misinformation, untruths, errors, smears and bias by councillors and Southwark council which has characterised the whole OHS and Streetspace process. It is unfortunate that councillors did not talk to their constituents and are ignoring the huge response to the Streetspace review; if they did a reasonable compromise might be arrived at.

[march46]

Legalalien says they don?t have a mandate, Rockets says they do... it?s all very confusing.

It sounds as though what they say they want (?reopen the roads?) is very different to what they actually want (timed restrictions). Perhaps they think they can get more public support for the former whilst behind closed doors lobbying the council for the latter? Clever if it works.

[legalalien]

I think you're confusing the issue a bit. The OD website says that they are pushing for timed restrictions, details to be determined by a fair and transparent consultation process. So yes, I'd say they have a mandate to push for timed restrictions, and a fair and transparent consultation process. No, they don't have a mandate to enter into some backroom deal with the council on the details of the closures on the basis of some dubious claim that their supporters support residents' permits. If there's evidence that OD are doing this, I'd be interested to see it. Given their biggest gripe seems to be the council's refusal to engage and lack of transparency, that would seem to be conspiracy theory territory.

(Also, surely the council have no truck with groups seeking to lobby behind closed doors. Or maybe they do.)

[Rockets]

March - mandate verb not mandate noun.....jeez.....

You are deliberately conflating One Dulwich's timed restrictions lobbying versus the only reasonable option they were presented by the council in their flawed review process. It's not that difficult to understand - you seem awfully confused and I think you're just trying desperately to create some FUD and try to deposition an organisation that has garnered a lot of local public support to stand up to the council.

Anyway, are you going to answer my question about why you think Southwark didn't put an area-wide timed closure into the review as an option - I answered your question when you challenged me?

[march46]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I think you're confusing the issue a bit. The OD

> website says that they are pushing for timed

> restrictions, details to be determined by a fair

> and transparent consultation process. So yes, I'd

> say they have a mandate to push for timed

> restrictions, and a fair and transparent

> consultation process. No, they don't have a

> mandate to enter into some backroom deal with the

> council on the details of the closures on the

> basis of some dubious claim that their supporters

> support residents' permits. If there's evidence

> that OD are doing this, I'd be interested to see

> it. Given their biggest gripe seems to be the

> council's refusal to engage and lack of

> transparency, that would seem to be conspiracy

> theory territory.

>

> (Also, surely the council have no truck with

> groups seeking to lobby behind closed doors. Or

> maybe they do.)

SlartiB confirmed above that the Dulwich Village RA (part of the infamous 'Dulwich Alliance') submitted a proposal to the council during the consultation which One Dulwich supports. This includes keeping the current timed restrictions and changing Dulwich Square. See option 5 https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101520/Appendix%20F2%20-%20Options%20review%20Report.pdf.

The assessment and low score given compared to other options can't be easy reading for those who support. This answers your question as to why timed restrictions aren't a realistic alternative for Dulwich Square @Rockets.

I repeat my point - if One Dulwich support timed restrictions why are they calling for all roads to be 're-opened'?

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> You are deliberately conflating One Dulwich's

> timed restrictions lobbying versus the only

> reasonable option they were presented by the

> council in their flawed review process.

There was an option to select 'modify existing measures' and a box to fill in suggestions for modifications. But One Dulwich told their supporters to select 'remove all measures' because they're prepared to jeopardise the whole scheme just to get what they want.

[goldilocks]

Looking at the discussion on Dulwich Alliance / One Dulwich (if there's a difference between these two groups I'm yet to work it out) then it seems that they are trying to walk a very fine line to maximise their support.

Actually saying what they do want - which has on numerous occasions seemed to be a system of permits for certain residents is tricky as it would seem obvious that such permits wouldn't apply for everyone in the 'local area'. Eg the likelihood is that anyone Lordship Lane or further East would not be included.

It seems likely that being clear on this would inevitably reduce supporters once people realised that their scheme would result in the same issues they have complained about except that people living in a very small area would have permits to drive. Hence we have a continued and deliberate lack of clarity as to what is being asked for.

[legalalien]

You made me look at a document that.... . I'll just comment that the scoring system seems very subjective and assumes that all the items on the list of criteria should get equal weighting - which is a pretty big assumption to make.

The document states the proposal you mention was made by three specific RAs(not One Dulwich - and then weirdly it's headed Dulwich Alliance proposal). I guess this might be due to cross over of personnel between the three groups?

On a positive note, I found something to agree with Friends of Dulwich Square on - if we are to have a big public realm thing, then I would be very much in favour of segregating cyclists from it. As a regular pedestrian I'm confident that segregation won't have a potentially harmful effect on "pedestrian comfort and permeability across the space". Safety over permeability, I say.

[Rockets]

But that wasn't my question was it March? You're pontificating. The question was why wasn't that an option on the review. I tell you why (as you seem reluctant to answer) because the council had already decided what the outcome of the consultation was going to be before they started it.

And the document you share goes to further validate that point.

The council claim the review wasn't a ballot yet there seems to have been some sort of voting scheme initiated by the council. You refer to an assessment and within that assessment the mysterious assessors (do you have any idea who they were by the way?) gave "nil points" to the option to remove the closures. Funny that. Look, they even give 0 points to the ability of that proposal to improve bus journey times....well that doesn't make any sense does it because one of the things being impacted most by the closure is bus journey times so surely removing the closures would give some positive impact to that? But no it gets a 0.

Oh and look they even gave a 0 to the feasibility/buildability of the removal suggestion. That doesn't make any sense either does it because that would be the easiest fix of all of the suggestions? But again, it got a 0.

The council has rejected it and basically struck it off as an option yet presented it as an option to constituents within the consultation. So what Cllr Rose meant to say was not "this was not a ballot" but "we offered everyone three options, one of which we had zero intention of honouring even if 100% of people voted for it".

But look, the assessment throws up some other interesting points:

the Friends of Dulwich Square have suggested almost a carbon copy of the council's favoured option.....what a surprise....

And the Southwark Cyclist proposals get one point more than a lot of the others. The others are rejected outright yet the Southwark Cyclists one gets a feasibility study.....come on....really....

I know you'll probably shout, well these are independent assessors. But Southwark's brand takes more prominence than the "independent" company Southwark paid to do the assessing....I'll leave you to fill in the gaps there and come to your own conclusions as to why that might be....

Please keep linking those types of documents though because it just goes to show how crocked this whole process has been from the outset and how Southwark have, shamefully, manipulated this whole process from start to finish. All of them should hang their heads in shame and this is the most un-socialist thing I have seen in years.

[Artemis]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > You are deliberately conflating One Dulwich's

> > timed restrictions lobbying versus the only

> > reasonable option they were presented by the

> > council in their flawed review process.

>

> There was an option to select 'modify existing

> measures' and a box to fill in suggestions for

> modifications. But One Dulwich told their

> supporters to select 'remove all measures' because

> they're prepared to jeopardise the whole scheme

> just to get what they want.

But it?s what the majority of all those voting wanted, isn?t it? If the scheme isn?t working for most people, SHOULDN?T it be ?jeopardised?? Possibly they asked supporters to ask for measures to be removed because they were concerned that Southwark would manipulate the situation to say that there were so many different measures suggested that there was no majority vote so no alternative should apply. I cannot speak for One Dulwich or Dulwich Alliance, but I would guess that the plan was to have a rational, mature and considered discussion with Southwark and key stakeholders after the majority vote stated that all measures should be removed to decide what should be introduced that would work for the majority. Back in the day when they had the audacity to think that Southwark would actually listen to the majority.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > You are deliberately conflating One Dulwich's

> > timed restrictions lobbying versus the only

> > reasonable option they were presented by the

> > council in their flawed review process.

>

> There was an option to select 'modify existing

> measures' and a box to fill in suggestions for

> modifications. But One Dulwich told their

> supporters to select 'remove all measures' because

> they're prepared to jeopardise the whole scheme

> just to get what they want.

DC, come on.....do you really think, given the track-record of Southwark in this whole sorry saga that they could be trusted to react professionally and appropriately if everyone selected that? Nope. Nor do I.

If you rewind the clock and get the 68% of people to vote for the modify the measures option rather than remove the measures here's what I can guarantee the council would say......."Hey, we have listened...we are modifying the measures" and then told us exactly what they said they are now going to do......

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas....that's why so many people voted to have the measures removed - it was the only way for us to try and have our voices heard. It's a sign that people no longer trust the council....understandably so.

[legalalien]

Rockets, they're not really independent assessors at all - as I understand it Southwark has outsourced its highways design stuff to Metis and NRP, so they're effectively part of Southwark's operation and I wouldn't be surprised if there were dedicated staff embedded at Southwark. I vaguely recall seeing the contract decision being not too long ago, and having googled the OJEU notice it's here: https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2020/W53/741802073. There's nothing sinister about that,just need to understand that the report authors are probably a bit more akin to Southwark staff than third party auditors.

[Rockets]

Ah, that makes sense - weren't Southwark promising some sort of independent / 3rd party assessment - or was that on the "monitoring" aspect of this debacle?

Thanks for clarifying as it does very much put that "assessment" into context.

[slarti b]

@March24

I hadn't seen that report before but, from a quick read it looks highly subjective (indeed the authors admit that) with a dodgy methodology.

It also provides no explanation or detils of many of their opinion such as why timed restrictions at DV junction would confuse motortists but timed restrictions at, eg junction of EDG and Townley are fine.

I wonder whether the bias is explained by the fact that the authors, Metis\NRP, have recently received a 5 year contract from Southwark? CLearly they wouldn't want to bit the hand that feeds them, especially with the carrot of a 2 year extension...

https://www.nrpltd.com/metis-nrp-win-southwark-highways-professional-services-contract-lots/

"It is with great pleasure that we can announce that Metis-NRP have won the Highways and Drainage/SuDS lots of the Southwark Highways Professional Services Contract.

Metis and NRP have been working in partnership to deliver exceptional services to public sector clients for some years, and it is with great satisfaction that our formal partnership bid has been successful. Metis-NRP is the sole provider on the lots, which run for 5 years, with the opportunity to extend for a further 2 years.

[Rockets]

I do love how many of the pro-LTN supporters post things on here in the defence of LTNs and when we read them it merely amplifies and validates the anti-LTN/council manipulation narrative! ;-)

[legalalien]

Two new disabled bays going on on Eynella Road near the park. There was one objection, reviewed and rejected.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50027629

[Rockets]

Interesting that Eynella (which has limited off-street parking) gets the two bays and that Court Lane (where almost every house has off-street parking around the park) was determine to have too many drop-kerbs for the new bays.

I wonder if that is why someone objected. Whilst I understand and support the need for disabled bays around the park it's nice to see that the council is being consistent in ignoring any objections from local residents and moving forward regardless....

I hope they get used as the council does like throwing in loads of disabled bays (which seem to be the size of small tanks) that tend to sit there never being used whilst, conveniently, putting pressure on parking for homeowners (Crystal Palace Road outside the gym being the best example).

[legalalien]

Meanwhile in Bermondsey, objections to a CPZ extension are bing overruled. No idea of the rights and wrongs but yet again the EquiA, climate change and socioeconomic analysis seems pretty flimsy.

Link would help of course. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102335/Report.pdf

[ab29]

Reminder about the anti-LTN demo this Saturday at 12pm near the illegally closed junction in Dulwich Village.

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I really hope this is not true.

>

> https://twitter.com/DulwichCleanAir/status/1446775

> 368346652673?t=IIOKFSDic7Gmimj__5Ti1g&s=19

>

>

> Do any traders on Melbourne Grove have any info?

It is true alright. Heard it from a trader down in the Vale who was wondering if they were going to be next for a visit.

[malumbu]

I'm really trying to make this my last post on the subject.

Ab29 - if it is illegal then write to your local MP, write to the Secretary of State for Transport, complain to the Local Government Ombudsman, Judicially Review Southwark. On the latter I was involved in the Crystal Palace Campaign opposing the development of the top site with retail and a cinema. I love this article's title: Crystal Palace nimbys in court https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/archive/in-brief-crystal-palace-nimbys-in-court It's behind a paywall but essentially the Campaign was unsuccessful in the JR, but a single mother on legal aid (I expect that this couldn't happen anymore) was, and the developers pulled out.

Final comment - a consultation is not a referendum (can you imagine a referendum say on bringing back hanging, or leaving the EU - surely not). It is a measure of the more extreme views, pro and anti.

[Metallic]

"Final comment - a consultation is not a referendum (can you imagine a referendum say on bringing back hanging, or leaving the EU - surely not). It is a measure of the more extreme views, pro and anti."

I saw that on Twitter, attributed to Cllr.Leeming.

I must say the two councillors for the ward have not shown themselves in the best light to their WHOLE electorate. Only to the FEW people we all know from Calton Ave, Court Lane and Gilkes Crescent.