LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[legalalien]

I guess they?re aiming to address everything in one review, and don?t want to spend money on ANPR until after that?s done, but you?d think that with feedback like that from emergency services, they?d replace the planters with something more moveable in the meantime, to be on the safe side.

Just been reading this report on LTNs and the local authority consultation process by a disability group - see here https://www.transportforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Pave-The-Way-full-report.pdf . It?s a small study of 84 participants (many in Lambeth) - there are some figures that people could seize on but I think it?s more useful in the way it presents the perspectives of different people and how they are (and feel) affected, positively and negatively, and how unhelpful a polarised debate is. Interesting that only about half the respondents with disabilities were blue badge holders - so let?s stop referring lazily to access for blue badge holders... and lots of other food for thought - reinforcing my personal view that when it comes to these schemes the devil is really in the detail, and generalised arguments don?t help.

From what I can gather from news reports, allegations of failure to comply with equality legislation will feature in the various judicial review proceedings down for hearing shortly (Friday I think), which could set an interesting precedent).

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> The East Dulwich meeting I was on wasn't only

> residents at all. I seem to recall that there was

> a process of one person from the streets with

> measures, then one person from the streets without

> measures for quite a large section of it - there

> was someone from Hansler Road who spoke at length

> and that woman who stood out by virtue of

> repeatedly referring to her address by the 'A road

> number' designation (which turned out to be

> neither on a directly affected street, nor one

> that would be remotely impacted by the ED changes,

> nor even in East Dulwich!

Well I watched the ED access meeting led by Cllr Rose and I remember distinctly the morning meeting being crammed out with people who I know don't live in the area being discussed. And as she had the host lead she managed to get in many people praising the scheme without a mention for a long time of people living on these clogged up roads.

Northernmonkey tell us which road you live on, or the postcode, to authenticate all your comments. Oh go on! No one will be able to work out who you are from just that.

[Nigello]

Re the camera issues - I had the same response when I asked for more controls on stopping massive lorries routinely using their GPS, etc. to squeeze down an already narrowed section of Goodrich Road, right next to the school. An LTN was planned for Dunstan's and Goodrich - right next to a 900+ pupil school - but some people's objections to LTNs in places with no such safety concern made the council rethink this location. I asked for cameras to be installed to stop the lorries on pain of fine, or a proper narrowing chicane but was told the cameras were expensive and it was not mentioned further. I am still pursuing it and hope to see a reversal of the LTN plan (ie. for it to be put in, as orignally suggeted) or some other method to stop 8-axel vehicles bombing down this stretch of road that was already narrowed because of safety concerns. So, yes, the cameras = too dear thing is not just a one off excuse.

[FairTgirl]

The A road in question on this was A2216 which is Grove Vale/Lordship Lane, I think the lady lives on it and mentioned her child walks down it and down EDG to school, so relevant as both are boundary roads.

It is possible that some people were afraid to say exactly where they lived for recriminations, some local pro-LTNers have been pretty nasty online, creating multiple fake accounts with fake names pretending to be real people who live on closed roads to troll residents and businesses, so can't say I blame her and others for being cautious.

[northernmonkey]

There were 2 meetings though -so its possible people have different views depending on which they attended!

Metallic Wrote:

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

> northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The East Dulwich meeting I was on wasn't only

> > residents at all. I seem to recall that there

> was

> > a process of one person from the streets with

> > measures, then one person from the streets

> without

> > measures for quite a large section of it -

> there

> > was someone from Hansler Road who spoke at

> length

> > and that woman who stood out by virtue of

> > repeatedly referring to her address by the 'A

> road

> > number' designation (which turned out to be

> > neither on a directly affected street, nor one

> > that would be remotely impacted by the ED

> changes,

> > nor even in East Dulwich!

>

> Well I watched the ED access meeting led by Cllr

> Rose and I remember distinctly the morning meeting

> being crammed out with people who I know don't

> live in the area being discussed. And as she had

> the host lead she managed to get in many people

> praising the scheme without a mention for a long

> time of people living on these clogged up roads.

> Northernmonkey tell us which road you live on, or

> the postcode, to authenticate all your comments.

> Oh go on! No one will be able to work out who you

> are from just that.

[Hamletter]

Metallic Wrote:

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

>

> Well I watched the ED access meeting led by Cllr

> Rose and I remember distinctly the morning meeting

> being crammed out with people who I know don't

> live in the area being discussed. And as she had

> the host lead she managed to get in many people

> praising the scheme without a mention for a long

> time of people living on these clogged up roads.

Just think, it might have to be like the Southwark Recycling Facility whereby you don't get access unless you produce an official document with your address on it.

[northernmonkey]

Also - just on the comments of 'working out who people were' - it was a meeting where many people had cameras on and people had their names on the zoom link.

Perhaps the council learnt from the first meeting in terms of managing the process?

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> There were 2 meetings though -so its possible

> people have different views depending on which

> they attended!

>

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > northernmonkey Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > The East Dulwich meeting I was on wasn't only

> > > residents at all. I seem to recall that there

> > was

> > > a process of one person from the streets with

> > > measures, then one person from the streets

> > without

> > > measures for quite a large section of it -

> > there

> > > was someone from Hansler Road who spoke at

> > length

> > > and that woman who stood out by virtue of

> > > repeatedly referring to her address by the 'A

> > road

> > > number' designation (which turned out to be

> > > neither on a directly affected street, nor

> one

> > > that would be remotely impacted by the ED

> > changes,

> > > nor even in East Dulwich!

> >

> > Well I watched the ED access meeting led by

> Cllr

> > Rose and I remember distinctly the morning

> meeting

> > being crammed out with people who I know don't

> > live in the area being discussed. And as she

> had

> > the host lead she managed to get in many people

> > praising the scheme without a mention for a

> long

> > time of people living on these clogged up

> roads.

> > Northernmonkey tell us which road you live on,

> or

> > the postcode, to authenticate all your

> comments.

> > Oh go on! No one will be able to work out who

> you

> > are from just that.

[Metallic]

I didn't watch the second meeting but I was told informally there was a more fair choice of speakers, not just one side.

[legalalien]

I think everyone attending should call themselves Britney Spears in honour of Jackie Weaver.

[northernmonkey]

I only watched the second meeting, which probably explains why we have different views!

Metallic Wrote:

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

> I didn't watch the second meeting but I was told

> informally there was a more fair choice of

> speakers, not just one side.

[malumbu]

On the broader impacts - those opposing controls on drivers' freedoms often cite delays to blue light services due to congestion. You can look at this the other way round in that getting people out of their cars has significant health benefits and hence reduces pressures on the health system and the need for acute care. I'm not going to attempt a comparison between lives saved due to increased physical activity vs deaths due to ambulance delays and and pollution hot spots. Apart from that physical inactivity and obesity are a much bigger issue.

According to the British Heart Foundation: More than 20million UK adults are classified as physically inactive increasing their risk of heart disease and costing the UK health service as much as ?1.2billion each year according to our new report. https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bhf/news-archive/2017/april/new-report-assesses-impact-of-physical-inactivity-on-uk-heart-health-and-economy#:~:text=More%20than%205%20million%20deaths,one%20in%20six%20deaths%20overall.

[ed_pete]

@malumbu re: blue lights, this is from last Sunday's Telegraph

One report submitted to Southwark Council highlights how paramedics responding to 999 calls repeatedly encountered bollards and planters, often after discovering satellite navigation systems were not keeping up to date with new road closures.

A London Ambulance Service emergency planning officer told how there were five incidents in as many days around just a few newly closed streets in Dulwich when paramedics were held up while responding to 999 calls.

On Aug 29 last year there was a ?seven-minute delay reaching a cyclist laying on the road in the pouring rain due to [a] closure on Calton Avenue, and needed to divert around the closure?, the officer wrote.

The following day, a crew was delayed 10 minutes due to the creation of another ?low traffic neighbourhood?.

On Sept 3, there were three separate incidents also around Calton Avenue. The first was a 10-minute delay in reaching a patient due to road ?closures plus traffic congestion locally?, another resulted in a ?significant delay?.

However, one caused a ?long detour? because of barriers on Calton Road which meant a six-minute hold-up in reaching a CAT 1 ? or critically ill ? patient.?

Councillor Catherine Rose, Southwark?s cabinet member for roads, said fortnightly meetings with emergency services meant they had ?developed the right local solutions? to road closures, including introducing automatic number plate recognition cameras to allow ambulances access but fine motorists who ignore road closed signs.

She added: ?The Ambulance Service has raised Calton Avenue with us and we are actively working with them and TfL, to identify a solution.?

[malumbu]

I think you are missing my point. If there were no other vehicles on the road then time taken for ambulances to get to and from hospital would be slashed. But there will always be vehicles on the road and at times there will always be congestion. There, sadly, will always be those that suffer because of this. If there was unlimited funding there would be more hospitals, more care staff, and faster response times. You could spend zillions on helicopters should a government of the day wish to do this.

If we invest in preventing chronic disease, such as obesity and inactivity, then you reduce the need for health care, and ultimately acute health issues, earlier in life. Making driving a bit more inconvenient or expensive will encourage some to walk and cycle more. 'Social prescribing' is where you do not prescribe drugs but activities and other non-clinical interventions that can help improve health and well being. https://www.england.nhs.uk/personalisedcare/social-prescribing/ One intervention is active travel https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/social_prescribing_active_travel_toolkit.pdf

There is a bigger picture here. I am sure LTNs can and will be designed to reduce impact on essential journeys and users.

[legalalien]

Just finished a different meeting and went to see whether the dulwich Hill meeting was on YouTube (it wasn?t). Instead caught the tail end of the overview and scrutiny committee meeting with lots of subdued councillors, sounded as though someone had complained about being excluded from council

Comms - hard to tell. Followed by a q from

Lib Dem councillor Victor about when committee would look at ltns (apparently some sort of delay due to papers not being in order - think they said late Feb)? But also mentioned that Cllr Rose would be before the committee for an interview shortly. Sorry to be vague - was multitasking - will watch video back when available.

[Rockets]

Cllr Rose was on the Dulwich Hill meeting and said she was going to leave early to attend another meeting (wonder if it was the other one you mention) but stayed for the duration.

The Dulwich Hill meeting was interesting. As I suspected there were far more voices challenging the council on the impact of the displacement, especially on roads like Underhill.

Most interestingly, Cllr Rose shared the area covered by the much heralded "review" and the area is focussed on the closed roads and those neighbouring them - I believe it also stretches up to Champion Hill (I suspect so they can take in the Dulwich Village, Melbourne Grove and Champion Hill closures). I tried to take a photo but didn't get my phone out quickly enough so we will have to wait until the replay is available but what concerned me was that the area for the review is not nearly wide enough to take input from, say the residents in the Dulwich Hill ward living with the displacement, as the area does not cover any area east of Lordship Lane.

We saw a similar move made by the council during the CPZ consultation (input gathered from any resident in the area but only those in the review area taken into consideration and used to make decisions). I very much suspect they are trying to keep the review area as small as possible to ensure the supporting voices are not drowned out by the wider community who may be feeling the negative elements of the displacement. The council defended this by saying that they don't want people from outside the area commenting (which is fair) but I believe anyone with an SE22 postcode (or those in Dulwich Village if they are not SE22) should be given equal weighting in the review - the council cannot be allowed to shrink the review area in the hope that they can rely on those on the closed roads outweighing the broader community. It is clear to me what they are trying to do to manipulate the figures and when you see the review map you will see it too.

The meeting had a couple of "I love the measures, I love to be able to cycle down the closed roads etc" but quickly moved to the majority of those who spoke who were clearly against them. Everyone was asked to say where they live and it was clear that those who spoke and lived in the ward were against it (I might be wrong but it seems the only supportive voices came from someone who lives near Melbourne Grove and another from in the village).

There was some incredibly moving testimony from one lady in particular who lives on the Lordship Lane estate who has a son suffering from severe asthma and how his condition has worsened since the traffic queues at the Grove Tavern junction and how they feel trapped. Her testimony was incredibly moving and it really demonstrated that whilst a few who live in the wealthiest part of our area have been prioritised everyone else is living with the fallout.

The meeting was less combative than the Melbourne Grove meetings but there still isn't anything to suggest to me that the council is doing anything other than paying lip service to listening to the broader community but with each meeting they are seeing that there are plenty of dissenting voices and that it is very much more than "a small, vocal minority".

[legalalien]

Thanks Rockets. Would be interesting to see whether Croxted Road is included.

Champion Hill is interesting as it seems the Council put in an experimental order extending the original 18 month order. I have some doubts about that approach as it makes a mockery of the 18 month maximum on experimental orders set by legislation. Not sure what happened there.

ETA: have now watched last night's Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. It was really interesting, especially the secnd half, from about on hour onward, where a community campaigner named Eileen Conn gave evidence on the subject of regeneration, quite a bit of which related to the issue of council/ community engagement - on the specific issue of planning but I think the same principles apply to road network management. Link here

if anyone is interested in watching - starts about an hour in. There's a related article here: https://www.grosvenor.com/our-businesses/grosvenor-britain-ireland/positive-space-our-community-charter/inside-out-development

Dates mentioned at the end: LTNs were said to be on the agenda for the Environment Scrutiny Committee meeting on 11 March (delayed because officers papers weren't in order). That meeting is showing as 9 March in the council calendar at present. And they also agreed that they should ask Cllr Rose to attend the second Overview and Scrutiny Commission meeting in March to update them on LTNs and other environmental issues - looks like that is 22 March.

[rupert james]

Perhaps ex Cllr Barber would like to answer as he is a resident on Champion Hill I believe and is in full support of this closure.

When I enquired why Champion Hill was still closed I was told because of the LTN they had to extend the closure for another 18 months to take in new traffic flows.?

As people have said they will not open this road again.

It is a con.

[Metallic]

Sadiq Khan wastes tax payer money on an appeal to the High Court. Sounds about right. Wouldn't think of using the hundreds of thousands of pounds in fees he will pay to barristers, on air quality monitoring over his whole fiefdom so that he could see for himself these rubbish policies affecting the health of Londoners he is supposed to be looking after.

[malumbu]

Prey tell more Metallic - couldn't find anything on line https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england/london

And a plea to you and others to avoid your posts appearing reactionary or rabid. Clearly you are not happy with the Mayor but you may get further if you try to avoid coming over as angry.

Not a facetious comment, but some genuine advice about how to get your point across and influence the debate.

[Spartacus]

Malumbu

I found this online just now https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/transport-for-london-file-appeal-against-unlawful-streetspace-scheme-ruling-won-by-taxi-groups

Which is a possible source of information

Some of the text from the article reads

"According to a taxi driver representative group, United Trade Action Group (UTAG), the capital?s transport authority has appealed against the High Court decision. In a tweet released this morning, Wednesday 10 February, UTAG said: ?TfL have appealed and we now await a decision from the Appeals Court to see if permission is granted."

[Bicknell]

malumbu

can you remind me where you live? East Dulwich?

thanks

[legalalien]

The appeal was inevitable - leaving the judgment as it stands allows a precedent that would cause many schemes to fall - not to mention raising question marks over the release of the funding by DfT. With more court cases in train, it?s important for scheme supporters to try and get a Court of Appeal judgment that overturns the HCcase and will then be binding on judges making HC decisions in future cases.

City am article here:

As I understand it (not a litigator), there?s an initial hurdle in getting permission to appeal - CA decides whether appeal has any chance of success- and then if/ when that?s given there?s the appeal itself. Important to remember that these judicial review proceedings are all about whether the proper process has been followed, rather than the merits of the underlying scheme.

[legalalien]

Looks as though Sutton Council (which is controlled by the Lib Dem party)

plan to take out their temporary LTNs and do a proper consultation - meeting to decide / confirm that decision today. Interesting statement saying that they (not sure whether ?they? means Sutton or the Lib Dem party more generally in this context) raised concerns about the ?no consultation? approach at the time but were effectively banned from consulting by the DfT/ TfL terms: https://www.suttonlibdems.org.uk/low_traffic_neighbourhoods_update. They believe they have no choice to take the steps they propose because of the HC judgment.

Additional article here: https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/19080195.controversial-sutton-ltn-barriers-removed/

Given it was one of the LD councillors on the Overview and Scrutiny Commission who reminded the committee of the need to discuss LTNs at the end of their recent meeting, perhaps we might see a push from them for a more ?listening? approach...

[malumbu]

Oh we are talking about the cabbies. They've opposed everything on roads and the environment. And measures to open up their sector which is considered sacrosanct. I remember the opposition to closing the road in front of the National Gallery. They are hardly a barometer of a progressive modern country. Hadn't realised that politics had lurched this way in SE22, thought this was more an outer borough sort of thing. Perhaps another good reason to move to Bexley or West Wickham for those of you so angry about LTNs - you will have plenty of good company, but don't mention foreigners or immigrants (or Uber).

[Rockets]

Malumbu - really? Is that the best you can do? Do you have anything to say that actually adds value to the debate or are you just here to vent your "everyone who opposes LTNs is a right-wing, Daily Mail reading facist" trope?

You must be getting close to getting a warning from admin by now.