LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

>

> OneDulwich are a group of 1,800 local

> (predominantly) local residents (check out their

> website if you want to see where the members live)

> who have concerns about the way the council has

> implemented these schemes and the way the council

> repeatedly puts the interests of pro-closure

> lobbyists and groups ahead of the wider community.

> I suspect the majority of OneDulwich members are

> dismayed at the utter disregard shown by the

> council and the pro-closure lobbyists for the

> negative impact these closures are having on the

> wider Dulwich community.

>

I was speaking to someone the other day who has signed up for One Dulwich - they want the council to install *more* measures not less, so keeping the current measures but do more to address surrounding areas. Maybe they aren't clear what One Dulwich want. Do people sign up to One Dulwich thinking they'll get a permit?

Signing up for 'news' flashes from One Dulwich doesn't necessarily mean you agree with or fully understand their proposals.

As pointed out above by @March46 the commonplace feedback is open to corruption, as was the petition against the closures which didn't request postcode verification. Interestingly the petition that did require verificaton received a lot less signatures. Hmmmm, I wonder why.

One Dulwich would not have access to data to detect multiple entries on the commonplace map.

I expect replies to this will be 'well its the council's fault for using unreliable tech to gather info' - but that's just shifting the goal post to avoid the point I'm making, which tends to happen a lot here.

Either you're against the methods or not. But total hypocrisy to use the methods (you claim to be against) in order to support your own agenda.

[Spartacus]

DC

I've asked a similar question before but didn't get an answer

If the analysis from one Dulwich showed an overwhelming positive response for the scheme would you be crowing about it or still be saying that the site is open to abuse and the results should be disregarded ?

What's your answer DulwichCentral ?

[heartblock]

So nice to be called a ?hypocrite? really delightful language. Actually no, just someone worried about excess pollution on my road. What a very rude and aggressive comment. Please remove.

[exdulwicher]

That's something you need to take up with the council as the site was created, maintained and promoted by the council

The one Dulwich report just used the same data that the council would have access to.

No it didn't, it used the public view of the site. Anyone can log into Commonplace, zoom into any area of Southwark and read/add comments and also agree/disagree with existing comments. To do anything other than reading comments, you have to submit your email address and verify it (they send a link to the email address, you click on it).

Commonplace can link email addresses and other info like IP address to comments to ensure that they're genuine and to check if it's one person posting 500 comments or 500 people posting one comment each. What the council get is an anonymised version of the report; it never links a comment to an individual but it will show how many people responded, average number of comments per person and so on. Commonplace's privacy policy is here if you want to see what they can derive from the data: https://www.commonplace.is/privacy-policy

The One Dulwich "report" was simply a bunch of comments collated from the public view of the page and a slant put on it. No idea of where those comments came from, how many individual people made them, where they live, in what capacity they are commentating (visitor, resident etc). You can guess some of that from comments - there are plenty on there saying "I work on [road]" or "I live in [area]" but equally, that's unverifiable as well.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> >

> > OneDulwich are a group of 1,800 local

> > (predominantly) local residents (check out

> their

> > website if you want to see where the members

> live)

> > who have concerns about the way the council has

> > implemented these schemes and the way the

> council

> > repeatedly puts the interests of pro-closure

> > lobbyists and groups ahead of the wider

> community.

> > I suspect the majority of OneDulwich members

> are

> > dismayed at the utter disregard shown by the

> > council and the pro-closure lobbyists for the

> > negative impact these closures are having on

> the

> > wider Dulwich community.

> >

>

> I was speaking to someone the other day who has

> signed up for One Dulwich - they want the council

> to install *more* measures not less, so keeping

> the current measures but do more to address

> surrounding areas. Maybe they aren't clear what

> One Dulwich want. Do people sign up to One Dulwich

> thinking they'll get a permit?

>

> Signing up for 'news' flashes from One Dulwich

> doesn't necessarily mean you agree with or fully

> understand their proposals.

>

> As pointed out above by @March46 the commonplace

> feedback is open to corruption, as was the

> petition against the closures which didn't request

> postcode verification. Interestingly the petition

> that did require verificaton received a lot less

> signatures. Hmmmm, I wonder why.

>

> One Dulwich would not have access to data to

> detect multiple entries on the commonplace map.

>

> I expect replies to this will be 'well its the

> council's fault for using unreliable tech to

> gather info' - but that's just shifting the goal

> post to avoid the point I'm making, which tends to

> happen a lot here.

>

> Either you're against the methods or not. But

> total hypocrisy to use the methods (you claim to

> be against) in order to support your own agenda.

What point are you trying to make exactly?

It seems you have an issue that people are using the only means the council gives to them to voice their concerns and then when they do you default to "we don't know where they are from". And then when we point you to independent groups trying to galvanise support you say: "Do they know what they are signing up for".

It's endless pointless de-positioning - I am sure you would find fault whatever dynamic was used to present data that opposes your view.

So the second petition which required verification has received 729 signatures - that is very impressive considering it is a second petition and the log-in process was not working for many.

So bottom-line can we agree that there are a lot of people in the Dulwich area who are not happy with the way the council has implemented these closures and the impact they are having on the whole community? Or are you going to tell us it's just a small, vocal minority......

[Spartacus]

Ex and DC

You sound like children caught with their arms deep in the cookie jar and trying to blame everyone else when a grown up finds out the truth

As rockets said, it's not a vocal minority and as a minimum it demonstrates the need for a fair, unbiased and accountable consultation to occur

Do you deny the need for said consultation to get an accurate picture or are you still grabbing at crumbs at the bottom of that jar ?

[Metallic]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Did anyone catch Ella?s mum and Little Ninja on

> TalkRadio last night (think they were discussing

> LTNs and the Simon Still/ LCC Twitter thing? I

> missed it. Can?t seem to find it online, just

> wondered how it went.

Yes I heard it all. Mostly the campaigners we all know, and Ella's mother, and the pro lobby supported by that great Extinction Rebellion activist, Donnachad McMarthy. Still it really aired the issues, exposed the racism and the snobbery that comes from 'the middle class know best- paternalism of the Mums for Lungs types'. Take over an area, price out real people, and gentrify with some twee plans to let your kids scoot about - who cares about those people on East Dulwich Grove or Croxted Road? Their houses go up in value, they are living in quiet enclaves, whilst the rest on the main roads put up with pollution and traffic jams.

[alice]

It?s all so transparent.

[legalalien]

Funny you should mention gentrification, as the more council things you read or watch the more this comes up as an issue. I was reflecting yesterday on the contrast between the council?s proposals to take away community green space to put more houses on the Priory Court Estate (the one involved in the recent Cabinet member Twitter scandal), and its enthusiasm to create more community space in a wealthy area already well-endowed with parks, sports fields and gardens.

Perhaps some infill housing on ?Dulwich Square? might be appropriate if the closure stays in? I doubt that has crossed anyone?s mind.

[Raeburn]

The good news is that there's bigger plans to reduce car/vehicle dependancy - ULEZ extension later this year, TFL's Healthy Streets plans, Gvmt strategy for 'half of urban journeys walking or bike by 2030', tax initiatives to encourage cycling/active transport.

All fantastic initiatives to get behind to improve air quality for all - and part of the government target to reduce carbon emissions by 68%(!) by 2030.

Anyone really interested could help lobby for more traffic calming/LTN's in the streets that you're concerned about - Heartblock, I agree - Underhill Rd and Wood Vale would benefit massively from some of these measures.

[legalalien]

Interesting that you mention Underhill, Raeburn.

I was reading about the Southwark Cycling / Will Norman meeting last March that someone had posted on Twitter- the map from his slide deck shows that area of East Dulwich as being some sort of ?liveable neighbourhood? ie up for traffic calming or road closures etc. But I?m not sure I?ve seen anything from Southwark about proposals / the idea of that?

https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/the-dr-will-norman-talk/

Am I reading the map correctly?

[Abe_froeman]

The commonplace site isn't a southwark site, it's owned by a private equity company.

And if the comments are all bots then the consultation needs to start all over again, going door to door and the council need to get back the money they have spent on it.

[Spartacus]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> The commonplace site isn't a southwark site, it's

> owned by a private equity company.

>

> And if the comments are all bots then the

> consultation needs to start all over again, going

> door to door and the council need to get back the

> money they have spent on it.

Most sites like this are built and maintained by third parties including some of the tools on southwarks own website

However the key is that the council told people to use it as a comment gathering service.

Do you have any evidence of bot activity or are you just speculating?

[malumbu]

This can be a toxic threa. Aligning yourself to anything and everything that supports your beliefs, does not help further the debate; the article by Paul Wheeler MP made me sad. (although since I started to write this I've been cheered up by Raeburn's positive comments) There are analogies on this thread to some Brexiteers, who not only wanted the UK to leave Europe, but the whole thing to collapse - it?s far easier to complain about something that is in place, than champion it.

Many posting here consider Southwark to be corrupt, incompetent and subservient to the wealthier residents. Something that I do not agree with; it seems wrong for MPs to wade in due to the rise of populism. MPs should allow local government to get on with it, and concentrate on the big picture. Climate change is not a niche issue, and as such reducing the emissions from cars needs to be seen as the same. The article rightly points out the dichotomy of a Tory prime minister being a champion of the environment and taking a very Tory unlike interventionist approach (as he did as Mayor, being the architect of the ULEZ, not Khan), yet Tory boroughs are generally not at all receptive. Tory (outer) boroughs being the ones that overturned Fare?s Fair policy of the GLC in subsidising public transport in the 1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fares_Fair (take note those who complain about public transport fares, this was the Thatcher culture of me first, low taxation).

The government has the environmental high ground and Labour is playing catch up. Paul Wheeler?s comments are unhelpful to the cause (both Labour and the environment), perhaps he should concentrate on reopening the pits and building new fossil fuel power stations ??.

[legalalien]

"MPs should allow local government to get on with it, and concentrate on the big picture." Is part of the problem that Councils are also taking it upon themselves to concentrate on the "big picture" rather than focus on the wants and needs of their constituents, and the "populism" you describe is a reaction to that i.e. people expect local councillors to listen to and represent their views in a way that they understand MPs generally cannot - and this expectation is not being met?

From what I've seen, some of the councillors in Southwark (i) don't seem to be doing a great job of listening/representing; and/or (ii) might be doing so, but are effectively being whipped/ told to toe the party line; or (iii) because they are so focused on the big picture, are engaging more with policy bodies/ lobby groups than they are with their own residents. And frankly, when you have the cabinet member for housing trolling a local residents' association under a pseudonym (and then, when he is removed from his position, other councillors going on twitter straight away to say what a great guy he is), it doesn't give a very favourable impression.

MPs also represent their constituents and I applaud those who are prepared to step in and say something when they feel that local government is not working for them, particularly when they are challenging those in their own party (who else is going to stand up for residents if something is going wrong?). In fact I think all democratically elected politicians should put genuine representation of constituents above loyalty to any cause, party political or otherwise. Perhaps I am a bit populist at heart.

[Rockets]

Raeburn - throwing in more LTNs doesn't solve the problem - it moves it on and it was interesting on the Dulwich Hill ward meeting that when someone mentioned Underhill one of the councillors jumped in to say - let's look at ways to reduce traffic in that area.

Maybe I am a little more community minded than others but it's domino displacement theory at work. Throw something in somewhere that makes life so unpleasant somewhere else that those people in somewhere else ask for measures like somewhere. Unfortunately it's a glorified Ponzi scheme as none of it is real - it just passes the onus onto someone else to sort/live with the mess - and that is not at all equitable or right.

Legal - I agree with your comments on the councillors. I think a lot of them are completely out of their depth and bit off far more than they can chew when they decided to roll out the LTNs. I think they got a bit ahead of themselves and completely misjudged local public opinion towards them and have dug themselves a hole so deep they are struggling to find a way out.

Perhaps one of them is trolling us on this forum - come on Malumbu let us know who you really are! ;-)

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> What point are you trying to make exactly?

> It seems you have an issue that people are using

> the only means the council gives to them to voice

> their concerns

If you mean the commonplace map I didn't say I have an issue with people using this as means for the council to gauge views. I have an issue with people attempting to distort that process to suit their agenda. Sorry - I thought that was clear? As ExDulwicher says, it's simply impossible for anyone (except the council) to know whether there are multiple posts from single users. So on that basis the One Dulwich analysis is questionable.

My point is you can't have it both ways - accuse the council of 'not listening' then attempt to distort their attempt to listen. IMHO that's hypocritical. Whether or not the commonplace is a valuable tool is another discussion.

> and then when they do you default

> to "we don't know where they are from".

You refer to petitions here right? Yes I do question the signatories on a petition that doesn't verify postcode.

Don't you?

And then

> when we point you to independent groups trying to

> galvanise support you say: "Do they know what they

> are signing up for".

The example I gave was of a person who clearly doesn't appear to know what they have signed up for.

Surely my point here was obvious?

> It's endless pointless de-positioning - I am sure

> you would find fault whatever dynamic was used to

> present data that opposes your view.

What data?

> So the second petition which required verification

> has received 729 signatures - that is very

> impressive considering it is a second petition and

> the log-in process was not working for many.

Dulwich Village has an estimated population of 11K, ED 12K and Goose Green 14K. So 729, whilst possibly more reliable than the first petition which was unverified, it still isn't anywhere near a large representation of the local population. Some would call that a minority.

> So bottom-line can we agree that there are a lot

> of people in the Dulwich area who are not happy

> with the way the council has implemented these

> closures and the impact they are having on the

> whole community? Or are you going to tell us it's

> just a small, vocal minority......

Depends what you mean by 'a lot'.

[Spartacus]

And if the 729 were in favour of the LTN would you will be discussing it as unrepresentative ?

That's democracy in action, whomever gets the majority vote (regardless of whom voted) wins

[alice]

DC. at the dulwich hill meeting the chair said that the legally required Equalities Impact Assessment was not done as they had to act quickly because of the covid related need to create safer spaces.

Until this EIA is completed your comments are irrelevant.

[Rockets]

DC you might convince yourself that those 729 are a small number but do you realise that is a big number in local politics, pretty much about 50% of the numbers who voted for the councillors representing us? Most of them get elected on around 1400/2000 votes.

And those 729 were unaided i.e. people had to go to the effort to register and vote on the petition.

So you are only fooling yourself if you think that is not significant.

Why do you think the council is desperately trying to restrict the LTN review area? They know what happens if the majority of residents in the area get their say.

[alice]

Is there a YouTube of that dulwich hill meeting? I remember the chair saying the review area would be increased.

[legalalien]

Article in today's Times about a pilot scheme where drivers who scrap their cars receive a "transport credit" in return.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/drivers-to-receive-3-000-credit-for-taking-their-cars-off-the-road-zzzwpj6gb?shareToken=0493214e28adc0456941779825c2147c

[malumbu]

Rewarding people for 'good' behaviour doesn't seem to have had any traction, the concept has been around for some time and could/should be supported. I think generally that many see this as a hippy academic concept. Perhaps it is back on the agenda. Carbon credits were also mooted in the recent past, after you'd breached a limit you'd pay exponentially more for further carbon emissions. Aimed at flying - but maybe budget flights/weekends abroad will be a thing of the past. Road user charging is a sort of reward scheme as you'd pay less at quieter times, areas of less pollution etc than you would at the moment. It wouldn't be seen that way I expect by many motorists.

Thanks for broadening the debate.

[Rockets]

DC - it's pretty clear the council needs to do a better job to gauge the level of support, or otherwise, for the closures amongst all Dulwich residents.

Whilst you question the validity of the responders to petitions that challenge your view of the world one of your cohorts (Julie Greer) is providing feedback and encouraging others to do so on a consultation in Camden.....perhaps she has a home there too....or maybe she is part of a network of people within the pro-closure camp who like nothing more than to meddle in consultations in other areas...

https://twitter.com/JulieAGreer/status/1363198718925807623?s=19

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

>

> Whilst you question the validity of the responders

> to petitions that challenge your view of the world

> one of your cohorts (Julie Greer) is providing

> feedback and encouraging others to do so on a

> consultation in Camden.....perhaps she has a home

> there too....or maybe she is part of a network of

> people within the pro-closure camp who like

> nothing more than to meddle in consultations in other areas

Or perhaps there's a much simpler explanation Rockets, if you look at question 5 on that survey it asks the following questions:

5. How are you connected to the proposed, trial walking, cycling and road safety changes on Haverstock Hill and Rosslyn Hill? (You can choose more than one)

(Required)

I live in the area

I don't live in the area, but live in Camden

I work in the area

I'm a parent/carer of a child at school here

I own/manage a business in this area

I am a not a Camden resident

I represent a local group or organisation

In other words perfectly transparent. Unlike One Dulwich pretending their 1000+ signatories were all local.

> other areas...

>

>

> 25807623?s=19