LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[legalalien]

I actually agree re the resident permit point.

I understand the theoretical difference between ?two schemes? but the reality is that the council pushed through its existing scheme in experimental form in order to get the TfL funding. As the councillor said at the time: ? ?In a sizable consultation response, 55 per cent of local residents supported the council?s Our Healthy Streets: Dulwich proposals which include this closure.

?The right way forward is the one the council is taking: to introduce this as an experimental measure to see if it works.

?Going back to the drawing board at this stage would just mean months of delays in putting in place measures to clean up our air and to make walking and cycling safer in Dulwich.? Nothing there about COVID.

[DulwichCentral]

march46 Wrote:

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

> I see Dulwich Alliance are no longer listing the

> Dulwich Picture Gallery as one of their

> supporters. Were they not aware they'd be included

> I wonder?

Yes I noticed this. Very odd. Does make one wonder how genuine the whole thing is.

[@Woodwarde]

@Legalalien - did you mean pages 14-15? Under the Transport section

[legalalien]

I did (I was using the PDF page numbering rather than the hard copy page numbering - hence the confusion!

@Woodwarde Wrote:

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

> @Legalalien - did you mean pages 14-15? Under the

> Transport section

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> march46 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I see Dulwich Alliance are no longer listing

> the

> > Dulwich Picture Gallery as one of their

> > supporters. Were they not aware they'd be

> included

> > I wonder?

>

> Yes I noticed this. Very odd. Does make one wonder

> how genuine the whole thing is.

Not sure how you question how genuine the Dulwich Alliance is on the basis of that...or is it you are just grasping at anything to deposition any organised opposition?

Meanwhile it appears the council may have stopped responding to FOI requests...far, far more concerning if true.

[slarti b]

exdulwicher Wrote:

>They were different schemes - the originally proposed OHS was put on hold and a similar set of options (although not an identical scheme) was put in place through the emergency funding granted by Government.

Seems like the council wants it both ways. On the one hand they say the temporary Covid schemes are separate from OHS; on the other hand they use the highly flawed OHS phase 3 consultation to justify support for the Covid measures.

On the cameras, whether you like them or not, the point is that in the OHS scheme, the council included ANPR cameras with permit based passes for residents. The council now say they will not provide permit based access because it contravenes the council's policy on discouraging short journeys. Have they changed their policy in the last year?

It certainly means that people who supported the OHS scheme in the consultation may have done so so under false pretences and the (unpublished) result should not be used as justification to support a differrent scheme.

On the distinction between OHS and Covid measures the council is on dodgy ground. There are a lot of similarities, timed camera access at Burbage, Dulwich Village, Turney and Townley, closure of Calton Ave and COurt Lane. Indeed local Labor MP Helen Hayes stated that "The intervention at Calton Avenue, Court Lane and Dulwich Village is also included within the proposals that Southwark Council has been consulting on under the banner ?Our Healthy Streets Dulwich'"

I think there is a strong case that the council used the Covid emergency to get the majority of the controversial OHS measures through without consultation and using Government funding. Following the recent court case this could well be challenged.

[exdulwicher]

Meanwhile it appears the council may have stopped responding to FOI requests...far, far more concerning if true.

I'm no legal expert so it might be one for someone like @legalalien to answer but you can't NOT respond to an FOI.

https://www.foi.directory/freedom-information-request-responded-20-working-days/

And I don't think Covid (and the associated Working From Home etc) has given any leeway in those timeframes.

The council can however request extensions if they need to gather more information so long as they still respond within the original 20-day time frame to explain this. And there are exceptions - they can for example refuse to disclose information on certain grounds:

https://www.foi.directory/exemptions-freedom-information-act/

But they still have to explain to the person requesting the information why it's being withheld and give the details of how they can appeal this decision, they can't simply not respond.

[Rockets]

This might explain why many of the cheerleading councillors are doing nothing on their social feeds. Many of them, who were frequent retweeters of content from the pro-closure lobbyists, seem to have stopped.

Perhaps they know they are in trouble and are backpedaling quickly to try and distance themselves from them.

Cheerleading and grandstanding is easy, being accountable less so.

[Spartacus]

It's local elections outside of London in May (assuming they can go ahead) plus the London mayoral election.

If local councils where an LTN have been implemented suffer defeats, I wonder if London councilors will sit up and take note lest they suffer the same.

Equally if there is a change of London mayor ...

[legalalien]

Exdulwicher I think the point is that they have an obligation to comply with FoI they?re just not doing so within statutory timeframes in all cases at the moment. I put in a very simple request in mid November and apart from the automated response initially (which had some wording about being busy due to COVID) have heard nothing (have now escalated to the internal Southwark address, if still no response then I guess ICO). If you look at the whatdotheyknow site there are some being responded to, some overdue etc. Interestingly someone?s managed to get the minutes of the council?s meeting with the emergency services in mid July,

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/704145/response/1687329/attach/html/3/Emergency%20Services%20feedback%2016072020.pdf.html

[slarti b]

legalalien Wrote:

>Interestingly someone?s managed to get the minutes of the council?s meeting with the emergency services in mid July,

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/704145/response/1687329/attach/html/3/Emergency%20Services%20feedback%2016072020.pdf.html

Interesting stuff in those minutes confirming that these road closures are causing delays.

London Ambulance Service: "The measures are creating delays responding to calls. Not against principles of scheme just conscious of how it may cause slower response times. ANPR cameras are the best measures and these work for us....

We advocate the use of ANPR cameras. Demountable bollards do not work and keys are not universal across boroughs."

London Fire Brigade (Old Kent Road): "Agree, we need to move towards ANPR cameras"

[legalalien]

Not to mention the fire brigade?s comment that ?traffic is also being

pushed on to main roads which holds us up further.?

[Rockets]

But weren't the council and councillors telling us the delays to emergency services weren't happening and the emergency services supported the measures..?

It's also very clear from those minutes that there was no, or woefully inadequate consultation, with wemegency services over these closures. Time and time again councillors told us the opposite, that emergency services had been consulted. It's clear these measures put people's lives at risk and the emergency services were telly the council so for a long time and the council seems to.in the main, ignored it and that cannot be tolerated.

I know they replaced the planters with removable bollards in at Melbourne Grove but the DV junction is still immovable planters.

This council is trying to hide things. They have created a monster for themselves..an informed public who are tired of being lied to and are now emboldened to dig deeper and push for proper answers and expose their lies.The council cannot bury things under the cover of constituent apathy anymore.

It makes you wonder what else has been happening over the years...

[legalalien]

There's also this follow up to the meeting..

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/704144/response/1702264/attach/html/6/FOIA5466.1%20LTN%20Redacted.pdf.html

[Rockets]

...response to Covid-19....the High Court may bring this house of cards tumbling down....

[holymoly]

Does this mean that Helen Hayes and Councillors has taken a side on this matter? I presume that there is some risk to Council and others if this method does not pass legal and equality challenges

[holymoly]

@Legalalien. FOI info very interesting, txs. I see there are quite a few requests to Southwark that are a year old and not answered? How can Southwark avoid responding. One year and no reply?

[northernmonkey]

I'd imagine requests like this aren't helping.

There's a pandemic. Some information may only be found by asking the council, but its probably incumbent on each and every one of us to make sure that requests are the type of thing that could be answered under the FOI remit and that requests submitted make sense!

Dear Southwark Borough Council,

Using an FOI request I would like to see any email communications, records of phone calls or online complaints about businesses and customers to businesses located on Melbourne Grove and Grove Vale SE22 to and from Goose Green ward councillors, Southwark Council Health and Safety departments officials, Southwark Council traffic and parking enforcement officers or Southwark Community Wardens for period Jan 2018 to 5 Nov 2020.

I am aware some names/details of complainants may need to be obscurred/redacted but I would still like to request to see the number and nature of the complaints themselves.

Yours faithfully,

Mr B Round

[Bicknell]

people put in FOIs when they cant get ansers. If its a reasenable reqest, the council must anwswer in 20 days. Not a year.

[northernmonkey]

I agree this is how they should work. But the team working on them is a finite resource. I was interested to see how many were outstanding - but ones like the one quoted still have to be reviewed, responded to, deal with any follow ups. They can?t just say, you haven?t asked a coherent question. So it will take time away that could have been more usefully employed.

[legalalien]

Also worth bearing in mind that the ones shown on that website are only a proportion of the requests actually made - I have no feel for the numbers of requests that Southwark get.

.

TfL publish all their resolved requests on their own webpage and estimate they get about 3000 a year - although if the most recent ones are anything to go by I think they?ll have had a lot more this year as many are LTN related. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information

. They?ve adopted a strategy of publishing lots online to reduce the number of requests. When I sent one in they were particularly efficient and helpful - I was quite impressed.

Edited to add- a particular shout out to the TFL lady who took the time to help with a request about A level geography homework. I suspect that made her day... https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1819-2021

[slarti b]

legalalien Wrote:

TfL publish all their resolved requests on their own webpage ...They?ve adopted a strategy of publishing lots

online to reduce the number of requests.

This is surely the best approach, firstly in terms of openness and transparency and secondly in terms of reducing the number of FoI requests. Unfortunately, from my experience of trying to get hold of traffic data, Southwark seem to make it as difficult as possible. I guess they don't like providing data that might highlight errors or misinformation in their presentations and "evidence"packs.

[Rockets]

Also I would hope that the council are reviewing the number of FOI requests they get and determining how they can communicate better - the two are inexorably linked. The catalyst for a lot of these FOIs is their utter lack of transparency and professional communication on this whole programme - they are acting like they have something to hide so people go looking for what they are hiding (and finding it if those emergency services communications are anything to go by).

[legalalien]

The most recent petition is due to be considered at the Cabinet meeting on 2 Feb, the deadline for public questions is Weds 27 January.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6666&x=1

Perhaps worth asking what the sources of evidence / scope of the review will be - or at least ask whether / how these will be made transparent to the public in a timely fashion... Or maybe a question about FoI requests...

[Metallic]

Covid is a great excuse for virtually everything being delayed. And yet, it is not.