LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[malumbu]

You will probably find that the typical member of LCC has much more interest in the environment than the typical non-cycling motorist, so I commend that group for supporting such brave measures. Perhaps some of the non-cycling motorists would like to infiltrate the LCC but you will may go native.

[snowy]

Concerned2021 Wrote:

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

> I found the minutes for the Lewisham Healthy

> Streets schemes. Unbelievable that a scheme that

> has such a massive impact on our lives and

> infrastructure was decided by a few cyclists and

> council officials. The Feb minutes indicate that

> the consultation in Lewisham will only include

> those inside the LTN. Basically it?s a stitch up.

>

>

> https://lewishamcyclists.org.uk/wp-content/uploads

> /2021/02/Meeting-Record-20210217.pdf

Unless I?m reading them incorrectly, those are the minutes of Lewisham Cycling which mentions he Healthy Streets scheme

[slarti b]

@NorthernMonkey

The fact that there was a very small number of respondents to that Phase 2 consulation is public knowledge. It is astonishing the council should use that minority feedback to claim strong support for radical measures such as closing Calton\DV junction. It will also be interesting to see if we find out how many of the respondents actually live in teh consultation area.

Re the the detailed map data data, the OneDulwich web site says is based on an FoI request, perhaps you could do one yourself? Personally I think the council should be much more open about publishing the data backing up their conclusions but I can see why they try and hide it.

[Rockets]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> Until they release the underlying data you'll have

> to excuse me if i don't take their 'analysis' at

> face value.

>

> The 'report' they produced on the commonplace

> certainly stretched the limits of some of the

> words used, so would like to see the data they're

> basing this analysis on.

>

> Can't see that they've shared the underlying data

> though?

The irony is of course that the underlying data is data that the council had to be forced to share via FOI as they refused to share it. So I am sure that One Dulwich will be sharing all of it in due course - their note says they are doing their analysis with a fuller report to come but for those of you who haven't been able to click through this is what it says.

It's well worth a look to scratch a little beneath the surface on how few people actually influenced the decision-making process - less than 100 people, many of whom are spread all over the Dulwich area - yet we have to fight the council to instigate an area-wide review.

https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-village-junction

Who Close Dulwich Village junction?

Southwark Council has always claimed the closure of Dulwich Village junction was led by local demand, and that the current Experimental Traffic Orders were based on earlier consultation and engagement.

You can see this on the website of ?Our Healthy Streets Dulwich Phase 3? (which ran in early 2020) under the title ?What you have told us so far?. Talking about Phase 2 in autumn 2019 , the website says, ?You told us you favoured radical action at the Calton Avenue/Court Lane junction, including a permeable road closure that stops motor traffic but allows access for pedestrians and cyclists.?

One Dulwich has been asking the Council for a long time to release the results of Phase 2. We could see from the summary of feedback that the numbers were tiny, suggesting that few had heard about the consultation, or had felt sufficiently engaged to respond. So who were the people who persuaded the Council that the 24/7 closure of Dulwich Village junction had the backing of the local community?

A recent FOI (Freedom of Information) request has finally revealed the truth. We are giving just a snapshot here, as we?re still working our way through the data. But we can confidently present two interim conclusions.

Firstly, the assertions about the Phase 2 results made by the Council during the Phase 3 consultation are misleading and not backed up by the data. This is important, because it will have influenced the way people responded to the consultation ? and is still likely to be influencing the way people think and feel in the run-up to the review in May this year.

Secondly, an analysis of the postcodes of those who responded to the online survey (which was more reliable, Southwark claimed, than the paper responses) shows that those in favour of the closure of the junction fall into two groups:

A tight cluster on Calton Avenue or very close to the junction; and

A group spread very thinly across and outside the borough, many some distance from the local area.

We have mapped the locations so that you can see this more clearly.

Is there a pattern emerging here? What might these far-flung respondents have had in common?

We will publish the full report shortly.

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> You will probably find that the typical member of

> LCC has much more interest in the environment than

> the typical non-cycling motorist, so I commend

> that group for supporting such brave measures.

> Perhaps some of the non-cycling motorists would

> like to infiltrate the LCC but you will may go

> native.

Maybe - but then again, the LCC could just have the interests of cyclists at heart.

[northernmonkey]

Agreed - the council should be much more transparent - this should also include having an FOI log so that once data is released via this mechanism it is publicly available. However, given they don't - and to avoid multiple FOIs of the same data (and associated cost) it would be useful if One Dulwich shared the data they have.

[slarti b]

@Northernmonkey

"the council should be much more transparent - this should also include having an FOI log so that once data is released via this mechanism it is publicly available"

I completely agree with you. Perhaps you can write to teh councillors and the cabinet to suggest this?

[alice]

Malumbo- your use of a certain phrase above shows you have a lot in common with certain LCC members.

[northernmonkey]

Perfectly happy to- but won?t help in this scenario. So in the interests of the transparency that One Dulwich is so fond of claiming they?re trying to uphold, perhaps they could share the underlying data they?ve received. Also will stop any further FOIs being made and basing comment on different data!

slarti b Wrote:

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

> @Northernmonkey

> "the council should be much more transparent -

> this should also include having an FOI log so that

> once data is released via this mechanism it is

> publicly available"

>

> I completely agree with you. Perhaps you can

> write to teh councillors and the cabinet to

> suggest this?

[slarti b]

@Northernmonkey. OneDulwich may share it in dure course. In the meantime what do you think of the results they show, essentially the closure of Calton Avenue and displacement of traffic onto EDG and Lordship Lane was largely driven by ... Calton Avenue?

[northernmonkey]

I think that one dulwich have had an interesting view of ?facts? to date so I?m keen to see the data!

[slarti b]

@Northern, Seems like you don't want to accept that the consultation was rigged by Calton Avenue residents? It would certainly make sense from their point of view.

Anyway, if you disagree with OneDulwich's analysis of the public remarks in the commonplace map you are free to carry out your own. :-)

[malumbu]

Alice, there are 11000 members of LCC, most I have met including Southwark LCC have been lovely. When rides resume I suggest you join one of them - more sociable and less speed/lycra than Dulwich Paragon. We rarely talk politics, which is nice.

Here's also a link to Dulwich Paragon's chat on LTNs, sound like a group of eco fascists to me. https://dulwichparagon.proboards.com/thread/13547/dulwich-traffic-neighbourhood-review-consultation?page=1&scrollTo=89842

[northernmonkey]

Yes - that's exactly it! I don't want to accept what One Dulwich say at face value - I want to see the underlying data to understand the conclusions reached and see whether I agree. One Dulwich have a certain view and agenda that it suits to present information in a particular way.

I do disagree with the 'analysis' conclusions reached by One Dulwich in their report on the commonplace map - but maybe we can shortcut all of this and in answer to the 'who closed Dulwich Village junction' question, then the answer is clearly Southwark Council as they are the only ones with any power to do so!

[slarti b]

@Northernmonley, So if the raw data agrees with the analysis that The largest online response in favour of closing the junction by far was from Calton Aveneue, would you agree that is not a fair representation of the local residents, ie those in area B&C?

Anyway, in terms of presenting data in a certain way, it looks like Southwark Council are the biggest culprits. Thank goodness we have FoI to help get at the real numbers.

And from the viewpoint of the forthcoming area review, I hope Southwark make sure it is independent,unbiased and open.

[Rockets]

Slarti - I think the council are being forced, by the increasing awareness by residents of how things have been handled previously, to be more open, transparent and accountable for their actions. Looks at the review pull-down menu saga - I suspect more residents have complained to councillors in the past few days about their road not being included in the pulldown menus than all of those who were used by the council to mandate the DV/Calton Road closures.

The FOI by OneDulwich has exposed another potential manipulation by the council to force their agenda on residents across Dulwich. The evidence of wrong-doing (or oversight) by the council is growing by the day and they are really being exposed - their rap-sheet is quite impressive.

No longer can the council rely on resident apathy (and local and non-local sympathisers) to get things through - their constituents are watching their every move and demanding openness and transparency.

[KidKruger]

Biggest laugh today was the ?1.85m being asked for a semi on Elsie Road. 🤣

Must be trying it on because of the new ?quiet street? status.

Well my street is noisier as a result matey.

Elsie Road, East Dulwich, London, SE22

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-90057820.html

[legalalien]

Some kind of table of schools which have identified as feasible for /perhaps don?t want school street closures locally

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s94700/School%20Streets%20Schemes%20-%20Feb%202021.pdf

Given DCPS (assume they mean DPL) and Kingsdale have been identified, is a school street for Alleyn Park on the cards?

[malumbu]

And far more schools have said that they do want measures. What is your point? It feels that many of you want to jump on any bit of evidence that supports your claims.

It was a nice infographic by the way.

[legalalien]

Wasn?t trying to make a point actually just thought people might be interested. I?m quite a fan of school streets as it happens.

[Abe_froeman]

Interesting that the timed closures for Alleyn's (presumably meaning the fixed penalty traffic cameras) are now school street closures rather than "our healthy streets" / covid-19 closures

[northernmonkey]

The timed closures for Alleyns were always a school street. Its the closure on Hillsboro that is being referred to. it isn't camera controlled - the school has staff who put moveable barriers across the road and move them back if anyone needs access who lives on the street.

[heartblock]

This looks good

and I do love a tram.

[legalalien]

Agree it looks interesting. Amusing to see that the tweet indicates Southwark Labour are supporting a motion about trams - it?s true, but fails to flag that it was an opposition motion brought by the LD councillors :) Did anyone watch the meeting / did the ED businesses get to speak?

[Spartacus]

It's a real shame that the cross river partnership failed in their bid to bring trams back to Peckham town centre and up to north of the river via Holborn ten plus years ago.

My impression at the time was that local vocals both at this end of the route (mainly objecting to the depot being in the town centre) and at various points along the route caused it to lose support.

Cross river were considering extending it to meet up with the Croydon tram if it was implemented

How short sighted were people in objecting to it as it would have been a clean green transport method helping to reduce our reliance on cars.