LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

And your point is what exactly? The comments were recorded? The council hasn't acted on any of them have they?

Honestly this narrative of "you should have clicked the something else option" is so tiresome and non-sensical. If everyone had done that I guarantee the council would now be saying....we listened and now we are doing something else (despite that something else being exactly that the council had been planning for!)

[legalalien]

I think One Dulwich got it right tbh, as there was a real potential for the council to take a divide and conquer approach when interpreting the result. You may not appreciate it but there is a real lack of trust in council officers and councillors from those opposing the council?s plans, which I find completely rational on the evidence. It?s not faux outrage. I get that those in favour of the scheme may feel differently, there?s less incentive to analyse council processes with a fine tooth comb. Maybe we would have come to a better result by sitting around in a room without officers / councillors involved.

[Rockets]

Fron day one it has been nothing more than a tick-box "democratic" exercise.

[heartblock]

The decisions were made before the Consultation ended anyway....

[Metallic]

bonaome Wrote:

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

> I have searched the Southwark site and this thread

> and I cannot find the data and collection details

> supporting the decreased traffic counts, increase

> in cycling and reductions of pollution the council

> claims are the effect of the LTNs. Would someone

> share the direct links to the relevant

> report/data?

Good luck with that one - we are all still looking.

[AlexandHelenC]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> ?given that definition and given 68% of people

> responded saying remove the measures can you tell

> us how the council arrives at the conclusions they

> have? To me it looks clears the council has given

> a small minority of the community the opportunity

> to influence the decision......which is not what

> consultations are supposed to act upon.?

>

> I am unable to find the official figures but from

> memory just under 30,000 people were invited to

> participate in the consultation of which 7,000

> responded I.e. just over 25%. Of this 25% it?s

> been said that two thirds were against the LTNs

> which brings the percentage down to 17%. Can the

> opinions of this small minority be allowed to

> influence the decision? The council has listened

> and made sensible tweaks with the exception of the

> DV junction which they wish to remain closed which

> in my opinion is a mistake - the concept and

> execution of Dulwich Square is just tacky in so

> many ways. Now had this been a referendum, what

> this 17% wanted would have carried more weight.

> But it wasn?t a referendum, it was a consultation,

> they work differently.

>

> And to the person who accused me of being a troll,

> this is a very good example of the belligerence I

> was talking about. It might be a good idea for you

> to check the meaning of the word troll as well.

Following this thinking, only 8% of the community voted for the LTNs to stay.

?Can the opinions of this small minority be allowed to influence the decision?? Quite.

But clearly this is completely flawed logic - it would be like contesting the result of any election because you assume that those that didn?t turn out to vote would have been on your (losing) side.

[first mate]

Not only that, this council has demonstrated before that they are prepared to use minority support at consultation to justify actions...remember the CPZ consultation? The opinions of a small minority certainly counted then.

I think the only possible conclusion is what we thought all along, consultations are viewed as a necessary evil by councils but actually do not count for anything, unless the results can be shown to support council actions.

[Jenijenjen]

AlexandHelenC Wrote:

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

>

> Following this thinking, only 8% of the community

> voted for the LTNs to stay.

>

> ?Can the opinions of this small minority be

> allowed to influence the decision?? Quite.

>

> But clearly this is completely flawed logic - it

> would be like contesting the result of any

> election because you assume that those that didn?t

> turn out to vote would have been on your (losing)

> side.

Nobody ?voted? for anything on this consultation, this has been the point of my posts. If people responded to the consultation believing it to be a referendum, I can understand why they feel let down by the council.

Both percentages, for and against the LTNs, 8% and 17% respectively, are very small. Can the opinions of either of these small minorities be allowed to influence the decision? Would that be democratic? I make no assumptions about the views of those who did nor respond and there are probably a myriad of reasons why they didn?t. Lack of time, lack of interest, perhaps an acknowledgement that it is a very complex subject and are happy to leave it to councillors who have the mandate to deal with the matter.

Please explain your comment regarding flawed logic.

[Hitmyhat]

According to Southwark council?s figures the response rate to the consultation was in fact 37%, which is very similar to the usual turnout for a local election. (The last local election turnout was boosted by the fact it was held at the same time as the EU referendum). Whilst your argument is partly that a consultation is not a vote/referendum and does not therefore count, it seems rather spurious as the only mechanism by which people could make their views known was by the consultation. If the only way that the council will listen to the views of its residents is by holding a referendum, then that is what it should do. It strikes me however that this is just a question of semantics. You also claim that because such a small proportion of those eligible to express their views (in my view, vote,)did not do so, the Council is entitled to ignore their views but that argument would make local government, and some general elections, invalid. Is that really a sensible approach? It seems to me that such an argument undermines our democratic process. It also seems to me that these are rather desperate and unconvincing attempts to justify ignoring the will of the majority in order to force through an unpopular policy.

[Jenijenjen]

OK I have at long last refound the council consultation statistics and I see I misremembered how many had been invited to respond to the consultation. I agree that the response rate was about 37% though of the 7,333 responses received, only 5,538 identified as living or working within the consultation zone and it is unclear whether the difference of 1800 odd were included in the consultation results, and if not, would bring the percentage down lower.

However my argument, or rather statement, that a consultation is not a referendum is not spurious it is a fact, a legal fact so neither is it a question of semantics. There are plenty of ways of making views known to our councillors e.g. the demonstration that was held the other week, contacting councillors direct which has never been easier or even posting on this forum though I imagine councillors stopped reading it long ago.

James Barber once posted a very good description of the purpose of a consultation on this forum but this was many years ago and I have no idea where the post may be.

[Rockets]

So Jen, again, what is the point of a consultation? By your argument it is a pointless exercise that serves no purpose whatsoever.

It is clear that a consultation is a tool to gauge the constituents' sentiment towards something and then use that to make decisions and influence the decision making process. In that light you can see why the majority of residents are so upset by the council ignoring their input.

The whole process has been a fraud....

[Hitmyhat]

Although there are plenty of ways of making our views known to our councillors, they are not listening. You dismiss the results of the consultation saying it was not a referendum and yet talk about other ways we can make our views known. Why would those other ways be more valid and why would the councillors be any more likely to listen? (Which, by the way, they don?t!) If the standard you demand is a referendum then that is what the council should give us, although it does seem a dreadful waste after spending all that money on a consultation, which by your logic (and clearly in the council?s view) was pointless.

[malumbu]

This is all coming across as the groups that shout loudest should dictate how policy is developed and implemented. Now that would be undemocratic! I expect a retort that this is exactly what the militant cyclists are doing, in an unholy alliance with the militant Dulwich villagers living in their leafy/gated communities.

It reminds me of the coalition government, big society, and proposals that government policy could actively involve citizens through the cloud. I don't think that ever saw the light of day.

[Artemis]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> This is all coming across as the groups that shout

> loudest should dictate how policy is developed and

> implemented. Now that would be undemocratic! I

> expect a retort that this is exactly what the

> militant cyclists are doing, in an unholy alliance

> with the militant Dulwich villagers living in

> their leafy/gated communities.

>

> It reminds me of the coalition government, big

> society, and proposals that government policy

> could actively involve citizens through the cloud.

> I don't think that ever saw the light of day.

No - it?s coming across as questioning the point of a consultation when the wishes of the majority who responded (as everyone was entitled to do) have not had their views reflected in future plans. Not the same thing. If the majority wanted the roads to remain closed, I would have been disappointed, but would have accepted the result. Because that?s my view of how a democratic society should work. It?s not, as we have established, a referendum, but I?m still struggling with the effort and expense of going through a consultation where the wishes of the respondents and the Council?s plans are so divergent.

[heartblock]

Exactly, why have a consultation and then ignore the results? As it is they tried everything to try and make respondents outside of the area support the temporary changes and did everything to fudge the numbers by using varying baselines at varying times of the year.

Even with the dodgy numbers and utter contempt for residents points of view - it is clear the majority strongest view expressed is that the current road closures do not improve air quality or lessen traffic for the majority.

The only ?positive? is an exorbitant rise in equity for already very wealthy people living in very wealthy areas, watching their house price rise, while still being able to drive one of their many cars on my and others road.

Gilkes is the street of shame for this council, soon there will be a barrier and security guard on the ED Grove end to stop the rif-raf entering.

[Rockets]

Artemis Wrote:

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

> malumbu Wrote:

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

> -----

> > This is all coming across as the groups that

> shout

> > loudest should dictate how policy is developed

> and

> > implemented. Now that would be undemocratic!

> I

> > expect a retort that this is exactly what the

> > militant cyclists are doing, in an unholy

> alliance

> > with the militant Dulwich villagers living in

> > their leafy/gated communities.

> >

> > It reminds me of the coalition government, big

> > society, and proposals that government policy

> > could actively involve citizens through the

> cloud.

> > I don't think that ever saw the light of day.

>

> No - it?s coming across as questioning the point

> of a consultation when the wishes of the majority

> who responded (as everyone was entitled to do)

> have not had their views reflected in future

> plans. Not the same thing. If the majority

> wanted the roads to remain closed, I would have

> been disappointed, but would have accepted the

> result. Because that?s my view of how a

> democratic society should work. It?s not, as we

> have established, a referendum, but I?m still

> struggling with the effort and expense of going

> through a consultation where the wishes of the

> respondents and the Council?s plans are so

> divergent.

And you can absolutely guarantee that if the results of the consultation had said keep them as is the council would now be telling us that the people have spoken and how happy they are their is overwhelming support for their measures....but unfortunately despite their best efforts to manipulate and skew the results in their favour 68% said they wanted the measures removed.

I love how they constantly omit to reference the 68% in any of their literature they are putting out instead referencing how there is support for the strategic objectives of the measures. It's an age old tactic to try to convince the casual observer that may have voted against the measures that the fight is over, that there is overwhelming support for the measures...almost a please move along there is nothing to see here anymore.

I do also love how now they are talking about the success of Southwark-wide measures trying to mask the failure of the Dulwich measures by burying them in the wider borough initiatives. Cllr Williams started it on his radio interview and the latest propaganda document delivered through our doors continues the trend.

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> This is all coming across as the groups that shout

> loudest should dictate how policy is developed and

> implemented. Now that would be undemocratic! I

> expect a retort that this is exactly what the

> militant cyclists are doing, in an unholy alliance

> with the militant Dulwich villagers living in

> their leafy/gated communities.

>

> It reminds me of the coalition government, big

> society, and proposals that government policy

> could actively involve citizens through the cloud.

> I don't think that ever saw the light of day.

Mal - in a way you are spot on. It was the groups who shouted loudest first who influenced the councils decision making. But then when the wider local population were asked for their views they said, overwhelmingly, no thanks these measures are not working for us.

That is very democratic if it were not for the fact the council are ignoring that input from the Dulwich community and instead, listening to those who shouted loudest at the beginning. That 68% of local residents saying no thanks is going to haunt the council for a long time.

[sally buying]

I doubt that very much.

[Nigello]

Walking in and around DV and along E D Grove I again remarked that school holidays make for MUCH quieter roads, even after the times usually related to dropping kids off and picking them up. Only one school replied to my queries over their respective approach to and views on how staff and pupils get to work. If the council did more to get them to reduce the number of car trips made during term time a decent amount of congestion and pollution would be prevented.

[heartblock]

ED Grove is a school x 3 road, but Southwark have put timed measures and closed other roads that don?t have a school on them. So much for safe school roads. It?s all a big scam to keep mates of the current lot living in LTNs happy, Guardian journalists, road planners and bestie friends. Nothing to do with reducing air pollution or safe walking for children.

[alice]

You are absolutely right hb. The repercussions of the initial blocking of east west routes at court/dulwich village has led to the chaos of now.

[Kept thin]

To clarify Dulwich village junction and road with timings does have 2 primary schools on it on 3 sites.

[Nigello]

Elsie, Tintagel and Derwent do not have schools on them. Melbourne has a school entrance on part of it, not the full length. Heber has no restrictons (DYLs and zigzags aside) and Goodrich is likewise free of any intervention despite schools being right on those roads. I don't know how much the powers taht be use such location specifics in their plans for LTNs.

[alice]

Yes if they were based around school streets it would be fairer and more logical. Short closures work well for schools.

[goldilocks]

Tintagel has Goose Green school on it and given proximity to Elsie, the two together are viewed as the 'school street'. Melbourne / Jarvis are the same re Charter ED.