LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Spartacus]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> The petition with 3000 signatures accepted

> signatures from outside Southwark though didn't

> it? So ex dulwicher is being generous with 1%.

The pro lobby also use the same tactic and as it represents a distinct area it's not 1% of the borough but 26% of the area

Your use of stats is terrible

[DulwichCentral]

Not just me, Rockets too: '..it may be 1% of the overall Southwark population..'

And ex dulwicher: 'Southwark is home to more than 314,000 people so a 3000 signature petition is a little under 1%'

That's assuming the signatories were all from Southwark - if not then it's even less than 1% and therefore less in Dulwich.

Seems a bit flakey to me.

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The petition with 3000 signatures accepted

> > signatures from outside Southwark though didn't

> > it? So ex dulwicher is being generous with 1%.

>

> The pro lobby also use the same tactic and as it

> represents a distinct area it's not 1% of the

> borough but 26% of the area

>

> Your use of stats is terrible

[Spartacus]

Dulwich central

Can you show us a petition that represents more than 3000 people in an area of 11,255 residents in favour ?

And rockets also pointed out that the use of 1% is flawed, they weren't agreeing with you.

It's not uncommon for both sides to use outside signatures and the cycling lobby often puts the message out London wide so I am afraid your argument that not everyone lives locally is negated plus how many of the people who signed live just outside the boundary but need to come into the area ?

As said , and there is no denying it, a formal consultation fairly run is required.

[DulwichCentral]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Dulwich central

>

> Can you show us a petition that represents more

> than 3000 people in an area of 11,255 residents in

> favour ?

>

No I can't. But with respect, neither can you.

A neighbour told me that petition didn't have postcode verification - so it could have been signed by people outside London even. Like the one in Kensington and Chelsea to get the cycle lane removed there - it was signed by people Africa. :)

[Spartacus]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Spartacus Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Dulwich central

> >

> > Can you show us a petition that represents more

> > than 3000 people in an area of 11,255 residents

> in

> > favour ?

> >

> No I can't. But with respect, neither can you.

> A neighbour told me that petition didn't have

> postcode verification - so it could have been

> signed by people outside London even. Like the one

> in Kensington and Chelsea to get the cycle lane

> removed there - it was signed by people Africa. :)

So based on hearsay and speculation you are dismissing the petition as a "vocal minority" without providing anything to support your argument

You are obviously clutching at straws to dismiss it because it doesn't support your belief that cycling is the only way forward.

Maybe if you have belief in your convictions you should also be pushing for a formal and fairly presented consultation on the future of the measures and as you are so paranoid about outside influence, everyone will need to verify their address so neither side can get external support from outside the area (and I say area as the roads effected by the local dissipated traffic need to be include )

Or are you scared that if such a consultation happens you will realise that maybe you are in a vocal minority ? I'm not scared to find our and if I'm wrong so be it.

Time to put your money where your convictions are.

[legalalien]

I think one reason people support One Dulwich/ Dulwich Alliance, is that in the absence of proper transparency / engagement by the council with the public at large, it looks and feels like (and is?) the only vehicle for registering opposition to the ETOs in a meaningful way. The petition is not focused on residents' permits. There will be some people who would, for example, like permits for local traders and their suppliers, for those who live in or reasonably need to access the area but are unable to walk or cycle, for people working in the LTN (eg staff at the schools within the LTN); some people who would support a reduction in the hours of closure for various reasons (eg access to sports grounds); some who would like all or some of the closures removed to reduce traffic on surrounding roads (with consequent air and noise pollution) and to reduce the adverse effect on bus routes on those roads and some residents who want a residents' permit scheme.

Really what people want is proper engagement: as I've said before, I don't think the Southwark processes work very well in terms of genuine public engagement. That's partly due to process flaws (having spent some time in the last few months reading a fair few council documents, all too often papers in a range of different policy areas say that there has been communication to the public through "usual Council channels" or "stakeholder groups". Council channels seems to mean a combination of social media channels (which Joe public seldom follows), Southwark Life (which I've received two or maybe three copies of during the last decade - although I have sometimes received two or even three copies of identical Southwark COVID flyers on the same day in recent weeks), and emails to known council stakeholder groups and email addresses, whose identity is shrouded in secrecy (two months after my FoI request I'm still awaiting a response to my query about who is involved in the Climate Emergency planning group). The commonplace thing is, imho, an epic fail as a tool to gauge local public opinion - since lockdown at least, only small / well-connected groups have been aware of the consultations / have digital access, and there's no way of knowing where the comments are coming from). The fact that local councillors have been such strong cheerleaders for the LTNs on social media leads many people to think that there is little chance of their giving fair consideration to alternative viewpoints.

I think it's also the case that there is a degree of variation in the level of engagement that ward councillors have with their constituents. Looking at the Southwark calendar some wards seem to have more public meetings than others, and some wards have much more info on facebook than others as well.

All that said - northernmonkey, I do agree that residents' permits wouldn't fix the displaced traffic on its own.

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> By this logic people are supporting One Dulwich

> because they are concerned about displacement onto

> other roads. If the One Dulwich /Dulwich Alliance

> plans are put in place to allow for timed

> restrictions with a permit system for local

> residents this will mean that residents can can

> pass through filters but no one else.

>

> How will this help? .

>

> For the permit system to address the concerns it

> must either mean that

> a) all the traffic people have concerns about

> relates to local residents from SE21 driving

> around the local area.

> or

> b) a much wider group of SE London residents

> believe that they would be eligible for permits

> too.

>

>

> legalalien Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I suspect that many of those supporting One

> > Dulwich and opposing the closures are doing so

> in

> > response to the traffic problems caused on

> > surrounding roads, rather than because they want

> /

> > need to drive through the LTN area - so their

> > personal entitlement (or otherwise) to a permit

> is

> > neither here nor there.

> >

> >

> > northernmonkey Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > It was heard at the last council meeting -

> > there

> > > was a thread on it somewhere.

> > >

> > > I'd imagine there is a lot of overlap between

> > the

> > > signatories and one Dulwich membership - and

> > > looking at the map of addresses, I do wonder

> > how

> > > many of them would get a permit under the One

> > > Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance plans? My initial

> > > sense is not many!

[northernmonkey]

I agree that the support for Dulwich Alliance comes from a wide number of people who think that they want something different - and that the key to the success of the Alliance is because they haven't actually suggested with any clarity what they are asking for. The official line is that this would be done in consultation with the community, but the reality is that there has been a constant theme through the One Dulwich proposals to introduce a permit scheme or other measures to retain local driving.

It is easy to vaguely suggest that 'something else should be done' and to have widespread support. In much the same way that its easy to get support for 'we really should do something about the pollution and congestion in Dulwich' - this is unlikely to be something people wouldn't get on board with. However, the issues arise when its clear that the 'something' will result in restricting a previously held freedom or inconveniencing people from the status quo.

In terms of the lack of community engagement point, i recall going to community meetings way back when the Dulwich OHS proposals were being discussed and they were so busy I couldn't get in the room - so I'm not sure its the case that there hasn't been consultation. I do think that there is always room to do more and that during covid obviously there has needed to be a shift in comms to switch to better quality online offering and that this hasn't been an easy or well travelled path, especially given what I assume has been reduced staffing at the council.

[Nigello]

I agree that the onus is on any council to communicate well but it also behoves any citizen to involve himself with local politics, even if it is just reading a local paper every week and knowing who his councillor is, let alone how to contact him. PLU (people like us) are already involved and others don't know or don't care. Would civics lessons in schools help? Would councillors going into schools help?

[legalalien]

I agree Nigello and I plead guilty myself - one of the other posters here said similar and spurred me to pay attention a while ago. I think that the decline in local newspapers has caused quite a bit of this (I?ve never bought one and until recently had never looked at one online - and that?s probably true for lots of people.) I do think civics at school should be a thing - but I guess one of the issues in this area is that a lot of people have moved here from a range of different places / backgrounds. Not sure of the solution. Maybe some sort of basic sheet that gets sent out with the council tax bill saying what the council does, what you can expect from your local councillors / who they are, where to find information (including local news sites)... ? Am conscious that moaning without thinking of practical things isn?t particularly constructive. Worth reflecting on.

[exdulwicher]

Oh dear

So you are dismissing out of hand a petition that's equivalent to 26% of the population of the area it represents which incidentally is a lot more people than the council say wanted schemes like this.

Actually I made no comment either way:

for or against LTNs

for or against any group campaigning either way on LTNs

for or against any aspect of the that particular petition

There's a DfT report here (November 2020) showing overall public attitudes towards traffic and road use in England, including attitudes towards government action in local neighbourhoods, views on reduction of traffic and reallocation of road space and perceptions of traffic and road problems in local neighbourhoods. It doesn't really back up the petition much...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/934617/DfT-Public-Opinion-Survey-on-Traffic-and-Road-Use-Phase-1-Report.pdf

Councils actually aren't really obliged to do much with petitions. Unless they're done through verified petition-management websites or by an independent agency, they're very easy to game - multiple signatures, fake names/addresses, circulation via known "friendly agencies" (so for example posting links to it on social media specifically aimed at that particular cause where it'll get more traction that usual).

The most high-profile example recently was the anti-lockdown one from supposed medical practitioners:

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-dr-johnny-bananas-and-dr-person-fakename-among-medical-signatories-on-herd-immunity-open-letter-12099947

And please note that the remark about petitions being easy to game is not made to directly to any one petition or cause, for or against anything, it's a general comment about petitions - they're not consultations! And yes, both "sides" in most debates will know how to play them. But that's why councils might note them at a meeting but then refer directly to the formal consultations; especially if they do some basic stats and say that at best it's 1 in 4 of the population of Dulwich Ward.

I agree with Nigello's comment above, it's way past time that "civic duties" lessons were had in schools including subjects like how the Government works (at every level from local to National and even up to International like European Court)

[Spartacus]

Interesting

You are advocating using a national report to trump local opinion

If that is repeated across the whole of the country, and if the local opinion everywhere is contra to the national report will councils still say "but national... so local opinion isn't important" ?

Regardless, my point is that the council needs to do proper, structured and validated consultations on the LTN or alternative options and work with the demographics not against them.

[Pugwash]

In the days of the Community Councils which in ED were usually very well attended, there would have been good debates/discussions etc.With the change to ward based meetings - I found that attendance by local residents was poor one meeting I went to for Dulwich Hill only had about 8/10 people. Of course Covid has stopped all meetings - not everyone has a computer or able to go on zoom yet Southwark Council has decreed that they will only communicate on line. Are our Councillors hiding behind Covid to pass contentious policies?

[Nigello]

When I see someone here complaining about X or Y aspect of the environment or the council's work, etc., I post the link to the site that gives you your councillor and MP's name and contact, etc.

https://www.writetothem.com/

At least then there is the chance the writer will look and act, rather than shout into the wind. (I know that helps in some way - venting spleen, alerting others, etc. but it needs to be done alongside a formal complaint and/or personal action, such as picking up litter and then writing to the councillor that more bins are needed, etc.)

[exdulwicher]

Interesting

You are advocating using a national report to trump local opinion

Err - YES! Running council policy based on local opinion and petitions is not democracy!

I'm advocating using both National (DfT) and London (TfL) reports plus the council's own local consultation based on things called statistics and facts over ONE petition from an anti-LTN group. I'd say the same for any petition on any subject, for or against, and so will the council!

You said it yourself, the word opinion.

A 3000-signature petition (for or against almost anything) sounds quite impressive.

Break it down into what it actually represents, cross-reference it against peer-reviewed and statistically valid reports and it doesn't stand up as anything other than a bit of a "temperature gauge" of local opinion. That word opinion again. Which is why it's useful for councillors to note them, acknowledge that "the following petitions have been received" but then move onto their formal consultation.

That should be the same for any petition on any subject, for or against it.

[Spartacus]

The trumpeters are surrounded the walls of Jericho

https://www.cityam.com/high-court-rules-tfls-streetspace-plan-unlawful/

[Spartacus]

Ex

Are you saying that you are against a fair consultation on the subject ?

It feels very much like you are to me from the way you try and dismiss one (of two) petitions against the LTNs (and that's just Dulwich) yet pro petitions don't generate such high numbers of signatures.

Look at what happened in Crystal Palace with their petition.

The local sentiment in areas where LTNs are implemented without consultation (as in the case of Southwark) is normally against them hence why there is reluctance by the council and the pro lobby to hold a formal and fair consultation.

After all that's all people are really asking for, the council to hold a formal and fair consultation and agree to act accordingly based on the results.

[Bicknell]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> there has been

> a constant theme through the One Dulwich proposals

> to introduce a permit scheme or other measures to

> retain local driving.

>

> See https://www.onedulwich.uk/fact-checker 'is it reasnoble to ask for timed restirictions?' 20 June 2020

[legalalien]

Haven?t read it yet but here?s the link to the judgment.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/72.html

Edited to add: quite a bit of taxi - specific stuff, but worth looking at paragraphs 142, 179-186, 191-193, 255 and 266-274 for some comments of more general relevance (criticism of the failure to do an adequate Equality Impact Assessment, and on the rationality (in a technical legal sense) of TfL's guidance). As with all judgments this is specific to the issue before the court, but it will raise questions about the adequacy of councils' equality impact assessments and decisionmaking based on the "flawed" TfL guidance, no doubt...

A quote:

"In my judgment, the flaws identified were symptomatic of an ill-considered response which sought to take advantage of the pandemic to push through, on an emergency basis without consultation, ?radical changes?, ?plans to transform parts of central London into one of the largest car-free zones in any capital city in the world?, and to ?rapidly repurpose London?s streets to serve an unprecedented demand for walking and cycling in a major new strategic shift? (Mayor?s statements on 6 and 15 May 2020). This approach was consistent with the additional guidance from the Secretary of State for Transport dated 9 May 2020 where he advocated a shift to walking and cycling and said:

?We recognise this moment for what it is: a once in a generation opportunity to deliver a lasting transformation in how we make short journeys in our towns and cities??

267. The scale and ambition of the proposals, and the manner in which they were described, strongly suggest that the Mayor and TfL intended that these schemes would become permanent, once the temporary orders expired. However, there is no evidence to suggest that there will be a permanent pandemic requiring continuation of the extreme measures introduced by the Government in 2020.

268. The Guidance advised that, pursuant to the Plan:

?We need to urgently reconsider use of street space to provide safe and appealing spaces to walk and cycle as an alternative to car use in the context of reduced capacity on the public transport network. Suppressing motorised traffic while allowing essential journeys to take place is key to ensuring we manage our road and public transport network to maximise our ability to keep people moving safely.?

269. The stated justification for the restrictions on vehicle access, namely, that after lockdown, because of the limited public transport capacity, there would be a major increase in pedestrians and cyclists, and excessive traffic with consequent risks to safety and public health, was not evidence-based. It was mere conjecture, which was not a rational basis upon which to transform London?s roads. It must have been apparent to the Mayor and TfL that people were responding to the pandemic by staying at home, especially office workers, and so it was possible that they would continue to do after lockdown, to avoid infection. Central London was deserted during lockdown. Even once the lockdown was relaxed, and the government exhorted people to return to work to boost the city centre economies, people chose to remain at home where possible. There was no evidence to indicate that the predicted five-fold increase in the number of pedestrians and ten-fold increase in the number of cyclists in central London occurred. "

...

"273. If the Mayor and TfL had proceeded more cautiously, monitoring the situation and acting upon evidence rather than conjecture, their proposals would have been proportionate to the difficulties which needed to be addressed. As it was, the measures proposed in the Plan and the Guidance, and implemented in the A10 order, far exceeded what was reasonably required to meet the temporary challenges created by the pandemic. It was possible to widen pavements to allow for social distancing, and to allocate more road space to cater for an increase in the number of cyclists, without seeking to ?transform? parts of central London into predominantly car-free zones.

274. In my judgment, it was both unfair and irrational to introduce such extreme measures, if it was not necessary to do so, when they impacted so adversely on certain sections of the public. The impact on the elderly and disabled who rely heavily on the door-to-door service provided by taxis is described at paragraphs 130 - 136 above. See also the adverse impacts identified in the EqIA (paragraphs 189-192 above). Taxis are a form of public transport. Travellers may wish to travel by taxi for legitimate reasons. Taxis have been valued by the NHS and vulnerable groups during the pandemic because they are safer than trains, buses and private hire vehicles. The detriment suffered by taxi drivers and the potential impact on their A1P1 rights, is set out in Ms Proctor?s first witness statement, paragraphs 26 - 30, and Mr Da Costa?s first witness statement at paragraphs 10 - 11. These impacts were either not considered, or automatically discounted because they were considered to be in conflict with the objectives of the Plan.

275. I conclude that the decision-making processes for the Plan, Guidance and A10 Order were seriously flawed, and the decisions were not a rational response to the issues which arose as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. "

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> The trumpeters are surrounded the walls of Jericho

>

>

> https://www.cityam.com/high-court-rules-tfls-stree

> tspace-plan-unlawful/

[Abe_froeman]

Even if only 10% of the 3,000 people who signed that petition live near EFG and Lordship Lane, that's still more people against these ridiculous road closures than were for them in the local consultation targeted at residents living in the gated communities.

[exdulwicher]

Ex

Are you saying that you are against a fair consultation on the subject ?

Absolutely not. Fair, transparent, open, balanced consultation is a critical part of local Government.

Petitions (done properly) can be a valid part of that in terms of showing a council the topics / areas that generate strong feelings for and against. A council will receive dozens, sometimes hundreds, of petitions a year on all sorts of stuff and obviously something with 3000 signatures (assuming of course they're all genuine) shows the council that there is a lot of support for / opposition against [the thing] (be that LTNs or a plans for a new supermarket or whatever).

That should then act as a bit of a stick to the council to be extra careful with their consultations. Extend them, publicise them more, do more modelling, hold some open evenings, engage.

But the petition itself should not be driving council policy as they're a flawed measure of pro/anti - by very definition the people signing a petition sit on one side of the fence.

[malumbu]

Ex - keep up your rational posts, hope others take notice.

Abe - all your posts come across as angry/bitter - that's not trolling but fact. Not gone far enough back in the recent thread to see how Rocks is doing.

Right, I'll clear off now as probably not helping to calm things down.

PS don't live in a gated community and shocked that we have them here, only a mile or so away from the Village. That's for another thread.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Even if only 10% of the 3,000 people who signed

> that petition live near EFG and Lordship Lane,

> that's still more people against these ridiculous

> road closures than were for them in the local

> consultation targeted at residents living in the

> gated communities.

?Gated communities??! 😂

[heartblock]

Yes...gated communities and car parks as seen in this very revealing news report

[Wil72]

So what happens now- after yesterdays ruling in Court?

What do we need to do to keep the momentum up and what do Southwark have to do now?...

Lets focus on getting these LTNs removed and not bickering over stats (!)

[exdulwicher]

So what happens now- after yesterdays ruling in Court?

There's a stay of execution on all existing schemes while TfL appeals. What happens after that will depend on the ruling and any further appeals.

The stay of execution means that everything done to date should stay in place but that new schemes are not progressed any further (unless they're in such a state that to leave them in that state would endanger the public. So for example if a junction is mid-way through having some works done on it they can progress or be reversed - and again that will depend on the works in question if they're intended to be permanent involving concrete or if it's just some planters/wands).

Edit: should add actually, it depends on the exact scheme. Remember that some of this was specifically ordered by the Government and some of it was put in place by the council under their own steam and some of it was done by TfL so there's a need to separate out who is overall responsible for what. But all that will happen after the appeal.