LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[legalalien]

Hmm. Sounds like my (ii) or (iii) above then?

[Metallic]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> rupert james Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Probably for those that have adopted a polar

> bear.

>

>

> Rather than scoff about climate change and the

> impact it is having, perhaps you can do something

> about it.

>

> Bicknell - no, I didn't find it funny.

>

> 40 years time "granddad/grandma what did you do

> during the great climate crisis of the mid 20th

> century" - "Oh sunny Jim/Jan, I made facetious

> remarks"

>

> Anyway, laid down the gauntlet - would be

> interested to hear what you are both doing to

> reduce your CO2 emissions including your transport

> carbon footprint.

You don't have any idea what anyone is doing, neither does anyone know what you are doing, so my suggestion is you don't insult posters, just keep to the brief.

[ab29]

Metallic - spot on.

[malumbu]

Do you think that the posts I referred to stuck to the brief (ie the thread)? Have a think about it. Happy to hear your arguments that they did rather than turn your attention to me. My reading was yet another opportunity to have a cheap snipe at your councilors.

And just agreeing with a previous post..... Please show a bit more independent thought.

This is why I try not to post on this thread as it is difficult to have rational debate. I see you ganging up on others that don't agree with your views, so it is not just me.

[hpsaucey]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Do you think that the posts I referred to stuck to

> the brief (ie the thread)? Have a think about it.

> Happy to hear your arguments that they did rather

> than turn your attention to me. My reading was yet

> another opportunity to have a cheap snipe at your

> councilors.

>

> And just agreeing with a previous post.....

> Please show a bit more independent thought.

>

> This is why I try not to post on this thread as it

> is difficult to have rational debate. I see you

> ganging up on others that don't agree with your

> views, so it is not just me.

👍👍👍

[Rockets]

Interesting walking around Soho last night to see all of the road closures had been taken out there (which I don't thinks makes any sense as it was much better with them) but I read the council has taken them out pending the result of consultations. It seems they are taking a very different approach to Southwark as the expectation is locals will support the measures and they will return as a permanent fixture.

[Rockets]

Dulwich Street Space Review update dropped through our door today. It should probably be re-titled the Reasons We Aren't Listening to you document.

Well worth a read - it's very entertaining reading how they justify their position on the Dulwich LTNs.

Interesting to read that no-one can object to the Melbourne Grove north moving of the closure.

[legalalien]

Looks like the residents in Rotherhithe are not so keen on the Southwark Highways Dept either

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7466

Not sure what to think about this kind of attitude to comments made during consultation on the Rotherhithe CPZ proposals.

"The extent of the CPZ is considered to be correct having due regard to the extent that parking

dispersion occurs when space is at a premium. It would be very difficult for residents to have

knowledge of how additional developments in Southwark can directly affect them, until after the

changes occur of course. They then see changes associated from the new development as time

passes, and how the advantages of the CPZ will provide them with parking spaces. The layout and

extent of the area was given extensive thought by officers and members, prior to any engagement

occurring and the zone area being developed." ie basically residents know nothing about their area, we are right, they will see. What's the point of consultation then?

[n dulwich northerner]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Not sure what to think about this kind of attitude

> to comments made during consultation on the

> Rotherhithe CPZ proposals.

>

> "The extent of the CPZ is considered to be correct

> having due regard to the extent that parking

> dispersion occurs when space is at a premium. It

> would be very difficult for residents to have

> knowledge of how additional developments in

> Southwark can directly affect them, until after

> the

> changes occur of course. They then see changes

> associated from the new development as time

> passes, and how the advantages of the CPZ will

> provide them with parking spaces. The layout and

> extent of the area was given extensive thought by

> officers and members, prior to any engagement

> occurring and the zone area being developed." ie

> basically residents know nothing about their area,

> we are right, they will see. What's the point of

> consultation then?

Maybe you know this passage:

"A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one?s real and one?s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink." George Orwell - Politics and the English Language

[ianr]

legalalien, which of the seven documents downloadable from https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7466 is the one that contains the bit you've quoted? Why expect us to search through them all?

[legalalien]

I thought the quote stood OK on its own, but to see it in context it?s in Appendix 1 where officers respond to various resident objections.

The Rotherhithe CPZ thing actually seems to encapsulate all my gripes about SC:

- an initially poorly publicised consultation with a 2% response rate

- questions structured to elicit desired responses (eg asked to choose from a range of controlled parking times, ?no zone? not offered as an option (you could only click ?other? and add ?no zone)

- a lengthy delay, and then the three week statutory consultation done in the middle of the summer holiday

- report contains mixed explanations for the introduction of the CPZ. Initially says ?The main objective of the Rotherhithe and Surrey Docks CPZ is to enable people to lead more active lives. This is achieved by providing better cycling and walking environments, while maintaining and improving their current quality of life through mitigating the effect any future developments will have on parking.? Then ?The aim of this project is to mitigate against future increases in parking stress due to upcoming developments and not against current parking stress.? And then ?The implementation of a new parking zone will benefit the local community by removing commuter parking and parking displaced from other nearby parking zones resulting in an overall increase in the number of parking spaces available to residents. Then later there?s a suggestion that the aim is to reduce parking and free up kerb space for other uses. (Some objections are to the fact that parking spaces are being out in places where there is no current parking)

Some residents (I think correctly) see this as a response to the fact that the Council has given planning permission for big new developments without parking attached to them (their climate change policy etc), with the CPZ a back door way of providing parking for those buying property in the new developments.

Residents identify gentrification occurring and predict that their young families will be forced out, which will cause schools to close.

Officers seem a bit hostile / discernible feeling of ?we?re experts, we?ve decided what to do, this consultation / listening to residents is a right pain.? (That?s not an actual quote needless to say. Shades of Leo Pollack.

Anyway, to bring things back to East Dulwich, given the council?s intention to roll out CPZs borough wide, keep an eye out for consultations when they come, read questions carefully - and if you are in a situation where you think you have an allocated park on an estate road / private road / shared area of some kind, dig out the paperwork for it sooner rather than later, I?d say.

Loved the Orwell quote.

[Spartacus]

It does feel like the tail is wagging the dog here

Council not listening to residents because they know best 😱

[Jenijenjen]

Reminder:

A consultation is about HOW a proposed action is carried out, not IF. By advising their followers to say they wanted all restrictions taken out, One Dulwich really shot themselves in the foot as their followers missed the opportunity to put forward more sensible solutions.

[AlexandHelenC]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> Reminder:

> A consultation is about HOW a proposed action is

> carried out, not IF. By advising their followers

> to say they wanted all restrictions taken out, One

> Dulwich really shot themselves in the foot as

> their followers missed the opportunity to put

> forward more sensible solutions.

What a strange comment. That?s not what a consultation is.

Reminder:

A very large majority of consultation respondents want all of the restrictions removed.

[Jenijenjen]

Please explain what you understand a consultation to be.

[AlexandHelenC]

There?s lots of information on the Local Government Association website. Here?s their definition:

?Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set.?

[Jenijenjen]

This is the process that Southwark Council has followed and tweaks have been made to incorporate residents views. Once again, there is confusion between a consultation and a referendum.

[Jenijenjen]

This is the definition of a referendum:

?a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision.?

This is not what the LTN consultation was about.

[Spartacus]

JeniJenJen, obviously the part where the council listen to local views occurred at the same time as their collective hearing aides ran out of batteries.

Very few people actually want the measures and most want the council to go back to square one and hold proper consultations on what is actually needed locally.

The way the council has operated may well see ramifications come local elections in a few months.

[Jenijenjen]

Listening is not the same as having to accept the respondents? views to remove all LTNs which, let?s remember, formed a very small percentage of those consulted within the area.

Once again, the anti LTN belligerence and threats of voting Labour out of office which is the aim and sub text of this entire thread. Well, we?ll see.

[Artemis]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> Listening is not the same as having to accept the

> respondents? views to remove all LTNs which, let?s

> remember, formed a very small percentage of those

> consulted within the area.

>

> Once again, the anti LTN belligerence and threats

> of voting Labour out of office which is the aim

> and sub text of this entire thread. Well, we?ll

> see.

Just one question to put this in context: if the outcome of the consultation had been different and stated that the majority of respondents had wanted the LTNs retained, and Southwark had ignored this and removed them, would you consider that constituents had been listened to?

[Jenijenjen]

Hahahah ? I?m not going to discuss an imaginary concept, real events are difficult enough to deal with.

[johnhinton]

Who is this belligerent Jenijenjen?

You're the one posting harsh and misleading posts: the council gave no option to present "sensible" solutions in the so-called consultation. As a respondent to that very "consultation" and directly affected by the divisive LTNs, I take grave exception to your "small percentage" - it was a badly carried out, mealy-mouthed CYA exercise, with a biased agenda. And where the "facts" promised by the council? - all I saw were unsupported assertions, founded on inadequate monitoring.

If you're a troll, please scuttle back under your bridge.

[Artemis]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> Hahahah ? I?m not going to discuss an imaginary

> concept, real events are difficult enough to deal

> with.

I think if you?re going to label anyone who is feeling disappointed and let down that Southwark Council has failed to reflect the wishes of the majority as ?belligerent?, it would be nice if you had a try at imagining how we might be feeling. It?s the failure to see anyone else?s point of view that has turned this debate so toxic.

[Metallic]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> Listening is not the same as having to accept the

> respondents? views to remove all LTNs which, let?s

> remember, formed a very small percentage of those

> consulted within the area.

>

> Once again, the anti LTN belligerence and threats

> of voting Labour out of office which is the aim

> and sub text of this entire thread. Well, we?ll

> see.

I would hardly call it belligerent. Seems to me that what local people want - and have said - is they want these arrangements removed and proper consultation with the residents to design a better system. I don't know where you live but if you lived in the old Area B and were cut off from getting out except via traffic jams at many times of the day, maybe you wouldn't be so judgemental at people who will basically have to put up with this system forever just for a few non-locals and Calton Avenue nimbies (and not all of them by any means by the way!) to enjoy traffic free life and good air quality compared to the rest of the area. By the way, Woodwarde Rd, Calton Ave and Court Lane are dead dark places, I don't like that at all when I'm walking home from somewhere after dark. I bret if you took a vote on that the council would not be able to reassure anyone.