LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Earl Aelfheah]

One Dulwich are campaigning to have things returned to how they were. This is a fact.

@Rockets - do you think One Dulwich are being prevented from articulating an alternative? That they would prefer timed closures, but are being forced, unwillingly, to campaign for a return to the previous state.

[ab29]

Rockets, I really admire your patience.

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - you do realise don't you that the review is deliberately flawed to give the council what they want? I would have loved it if the council had listened to us in the local community and put another option to "vote" for but they didn't but they said you can have this, something else, or nothing - and they never clarified what the something else was so how could anyone vote for it?

We're not stupid. We know how this goes....you all voted for something else, says the council...here is that something else, they continued.....but we don't like what you are suggesting as something else, say the people....well, it's something else and that's what you voted for, the council responded.

Would you be happy to back a party that didn't share their manifesto?

To deposition your narrative a little more below is the guidance from One Dulwich in an email to supporters and for people like me it is clear that the only way this council will engage in any sort of sensible dialogue with all members of the Dulwich community is by forcing them back to the table by pressing the nuclear option. Maybe if the majority of people vote for returning the measures to their previous state then the council will be forced to replace some of the people leading this flawed programme with council members who are more willing to involve everyone and run a fair and balanced consultation.....

3. In this crucial part of the survey, you will be asked to express your preference for each measure. We recommend you choose option ?a. Return it to the original state? for all the measures. This is because options b, c and d are just different ways of retaining the current flawed schemes, which are all inter-connected. See the Dulwich Alliance FAQs, which we support.

And here is the link to the Dulwich Alliance FAQs which make the position very clear: https://dulwichalliance.org/surveyfaqs/

Pasted below are the first two FAQs which make their position quite clear. It's pretty clear - but I am sure it won't sway you from your position that all of the campaigning prior to the review about timed closures was all bluster and front as all along they wanted everything to return to normal......

Why is the Dulwich Alliance recommending respondents vote in this way?

Southwark?s consultation isn?t designed to be fair and transparent. It doesn?t allow respondents to comment on the measures as a whole; it asks a series of overlapping and ill-defined questions, and is clearly designed to fragment the responses to allow the results to be manipulated. We think this is intentional, so in order to send a clear and unequivocal message to Southwark that this isn?t acceptable, we recommend voting ?Return it to the original state?, for all the measures. We believe this is the only way that the community and the council can come together to co-design a socially and environmentally just scheme that works for everyone.

Does this mean the Dulwich Alliance just wants to go back to how things were?

No. We have made numerous proposals to Southwark as to how the individual measures could be adapted and improved, and how the overall scheme could be rethought, so that it can fairly achieve our shared goals of reducing traffic on all our roads, improving air quality and promoting active travel. Southwark have failed to include any of these proposals in the consultation, even though they said they would. It has become clear to us that they simply want to shut roads, and have become fixated with the idea of a ?Dulwich Square?, leaving themselves with very little room for manoeuvre. It?s hard to see how a compromise can be reached at this stage, and so we think the only route forward is to emphatically vote down Southwark?s plans, in the only way allowed by their consultation, by voting ?Return it to the original state?.

[Earl Aelfheah]

"We have made numerous proposals to Southwark as to how the individual measures could be adapted and improved, and how the overall scheme could be rethought, so that it can fairly achieve our shared goals of reducing traffic on all our roads, improving air quality and promoting active travel."

Can we see the alternative proposal that "reduces traffic, improves air quality and promotes active travel"? Have they* published it?

"Would you be happy to back a party that didn't share their manifesto?" - No I wouldn't. This is my problem with One Dulwich.

*Who does fund and run the multiple 'One' groups.

[Penguin68]

One Dulwich are campaigning to have things returned to how they were. This is a fact.

Considering the very limited options set out in the survey - the least worst for those who think that the whole set of actions (based on which streets were granted traffic immunity) was ill thought out, went against declared council policy and was broadly 'wrong' is to wind the clock back (and perhaps start again with a better thought out and more policy consistent set of proposals) - the One Dulwich campaign (based on what's available) is the 'best' option for the time being.

I would support a 'put it back and start again' approach - but that second element isn't actually on offer.

Indeed, it may not ever be on offer until and if the current council is voted out and one which shows some sympathy towards its electorate and local funders (business rate and community tax payers) is allowed in. And not one dancing to a policy which disregards entirely local opinion, but is happy to dance to the tune of groups not actually living in the borough (inter alia).

Most (I suspect) people subscribe to a view that there is room for improvement as regards e.g. air quality. But just because the current position is prayed-in-aid on that altar doesn't mean it is either the only, or even an effective, policy to attain that end. Across the borough as a whole (or even the Dulwiches), rather than just in some privileged streets in Dulwich and East Dulwich.

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - deary me....

You might have failed to notice that the One groups are funded by people - mainly local people who are either directly impacted by the closures, care about the negative impact created by them or don't like the way the council is managing the process. So sorry to disappoint you but there isn't a shady petrolhead cabal trying to manipulate the process - the only manipulation is being orchestrated by the people who organised the closures in the first place - manipulating the review so they can try and validate their ludicrous initial decision-making process!

Maybe the council should have put another option in to the review to really gauge the feeling of the local community, but they didn't and you have to ask why they didn't - I think you will find that it is because they know that they would have then had to admit defeat and implement that other option - and admitting they were wrong is something this council struggles to do.

[heartblock]

The photographing of people?s homes calling neighbours hypocrites and worse by CAD followers was highly unpleasant by the way. I see a CAD follower then went around Dulwich Village photographing private family houses and posting it on Twitter with equally unpleasant text.

Please stop!

[ab29]

As I said here on many occasions, I'm negatively impacted by the LTNs. Have been in my current place for about 7 yrs (and about 15 in ED) so long enough to compare the 'before' and 'after'. I feel completely abandoned and ignored by the council and local councillors: Andy Simmons and Catherine Rose. Patronising tone of many of the pro-LTN supporters shown on this forum is infuriating and frankly, disrespectful. I'm grateful to One Dulwich and I contribute every month.

[dougiefreeman]

@rahrahrah

"Can we see the alternative proposal that "reduces traffic, improves air quality and promotes active travel"? Have they* published it?"

Their proposals were published - easily obtainable by visiting their website.

If you're arguing that their proposals don't actually encourage a reduction in travel, improvement of air quality and promoting active travel, then I would argue straight back that the councils proposals are exactly the same. They may claim they are, but their measures are ill-thought through, divisive and I don't believe they are doing anything to improve air quality, reduce traffic or promote active travel.

So really, it's a moot point.

If the council aren't willing to listen to all residents openly (i.e. a full proper consultation from scratch) then unfortuantely the only way forward is to force their hand. Returning to the original state appears to be the only way to do this, unless you have another suggestion?

[Earl Aelfheah]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> Patronising tone of many of the pro-LTN

> supporters shown on this forum is infuriating and

> frankly, disrespectful.

Hi Ab29 - I am sorry you feel abandoned. But it's a bit rich to talk about others being disrespectful when you've repeatedly resorted to name calling on this thread.

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> The photographing of people?s homes calling

> neighbours hypocrites and worse by CAD followers

> was highly unpleasant by the way. I see a CAD

> follower then went around Dulwich Village

> photographing private family houses and posting it

> on Twitter with equally unpleasant text.

> Please stop!

Yeah, I do agree this isn't on.

[northernmonkey]

There have been some options put forward - in terms of things like the double roundabout plan or something vague on timed restrictions, but when its down to questions like 'who would be eligible for a permit' One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance (same same) are keeping tight lipped. Asking for permits but not specifying for whom really doesn't help anyone assess the impact.

To Rocket's comments of 'its like voting for a party without knowing their manifesto' - I think that this also applies to One Dulwich, although its worse as its like voting for a party without knowing who you're voting for. Lots of people claim to support One Dulwich's aim's but whenever you ask the most vocal they claim not to be behind it! Who actually is 'One Dulwich'? I'm less interested in their funding as don't think its 'shady' - it clearly came from their fundraiser, but who One Dulwich is and how do they make decisions / ensure that they reflect the views of supporters is unclear!

On the flyer point - its a stretch to conflate criticism of an organisation for using tone deaf messaging on promotional materials, with a tweet showing a flyer, a tiny part of a car (no numberplate) and a bit of a window (no door)ie no personal information and largely not readily identifiable. In case there is any confusion - when I criticised the flyers produced by One Dulwich on here, it was in the vein of its not appropriate to equate your concerns about road changes to the oppression raised in the BLM movement.

dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> @rahrahrah

>

> "Can we see the alternative proposal that "reduces

> traffic, improves air quality and promotes active

> travel"? Have they* published it?"

>

> Their proposals were published - easily obtainable

> by visiting their website.

> If you're arguing that their proposals don't

> actually encourage a reduction in travel,

> improvement of air quality and promoting active

> travel, then I would argue straight back that the

> councils proposals are exactly the same. They may

> claim they are, but their measures are ill-thought

> through, divisive and I don't believe they are

> doing anything to improve air quality, reduce

> traffic or promote active travel.

>

> So really, it's a moot point.

>

> If the council aren't willing to listen to all

> residents openly (i.e. a full proper consultation

> from scratch) then unfortuantely the only way

> forward is to force their hand. Returning to the

> original state appears to be the only way to do

> this, unless you have another suggestion?

[Rockets]

OneDuwlich and the Dulwich Alliance have both made numerous efforts to get the council to discuss other options but the council have steadfastly refused to entertain the discussion - one has to question why that might be the case.

Why is it that the council don't want to hear representations from a group with over 2,000 local people signed yup as member 60% of whom live within areas that are perceived to be benefitting most from the closures (Dulwich Village and Goose Green).

And on flyers etc there has been equal amounts of tone deaf messaging from a lot of the pro-LTN groups who are happy to present the Trumpton like state of parts of Dulwich Village yet wilfully fail to acknowledge that East Dulwich and Croxted areas live with the displacement.

I actually think taking pictures of people's homes displaying anti-LTN posters (even if they happen to have a Chieftain tank parked on the driveway) is taking things way too far and it has clearly been a catalyst for some of the more fanatical elements of the LTN supporting brigade to follow Clean Air Dulwich's lead.

You're banging on about who is behind OD and DA but does anyone have a contact for whomever is behind Clean Air Dulwich? At least with One Dulwich and the DA they have a contact email address on their website and don't hide behind a suppressed and controlled twitter feed that allows no-one, beyond the people they follow, the right of reply!

[ab29]

Rahrahrah.

I did not 'resorted to name calling' - would've been kicked out or reprimanded (at least) by the Admin if I did.

Name calling: "the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts" (Merriam-Webster dictionary).

I did not use offensive names - if you think I did, when and what was it?. I said you are/seem arrogant and know-it-all - it is an impression I get from reading your comments on this forum in relation to the road closure subject.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> ab29 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Patronising tone of many of the pro-LTN

> > supporters shown on this forum is infuriating

> and

> > frankly, disrespectful.

>

> Hi Ab29 - I am sorry you feel abandoned. But it's

> a bit rich to talk about others being

> disrespectful when you've repeatedly resorted to

> name calling on this thread.

[northernmonkey]

I know that this won't change your narrative Rockets, but One Dulwich use email to push out their information thus quashing any discussion or scrutiny at all.

The point still stands, that they claim legitimacy yet are completely mute on who they are or how they engage / represent / canvas the views of the 2000 supporters they claim to represent.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> OneDuwlich and the Dulwich Alliance have both made

> numerous efforts to get the council to discuss

> other options but the council have steadfastly

> refused to entertain the discussion - one has to

> question why that might be the case.

>

> Why is it that the council don't want to hear

> representations from a group with over 2,000 local

> people signed yup as member 60% of whom live

> within areas that are perceived to be benefitting

> most from the closures (Dulwich Village and Goose

> Green).

>

> And on flyers etc there has been equal amounts of

> tone deaf messaging from a lot of the pro-LTN

> groups who are happy to present the Trumpton like

> state of parts of Dulwich Village yet wilfully

> fail to acknowledge that East Dulwich and Croxted

> areas live with the displacement.

>

> I actually think taking pictures of people's homes

> displaying anti-LTN posters (even if they happen

> to have a Chieftain tank parked on the driveway)

> is taking things way too far and it has clearly

> been a catalyst for some of the more fanatical

> elements of the LTN supporting brigade to follow

> Clean Air Dulwich's lead.

>

> You're banging on about who is behind OD and DA

> but does anyone have a contact for whomever is

> behind Clean Air Dulwich? At least with One

> Dulwich and the DA they have a contact email

> address on their website and don't hide behind a

> suppressed and controlled twitter feed that allows

> no-one, beyond the people they follow, the right

> of reply!

[ab29]

@NorthernMonkey: "The point still stands, that they claim legitimacy yet are completely mute on who they are or how they engage / represent / canvas the views of the 2000 supporters they claim to represent"

I support them. Send me a private message if in any doubts. Happy to meet in person.

An ordinary citizen, ignored by the council, who has to bear the brunt of this ridiculous experiment (=LTN).

[Rockets]

Northern - I am not sure what point you are trying to make. To receive the email from One Dulwich I have to register and subscribe - they don't just send the email to me unsolicited. When I have had a question for them I have emailed a different email address that they provide on their contacts page.

When you register you are presented with a number of options on how your data will be used. Each person that registers, their postcode is used to display the number of supporters in each part of Dulwich.

Does Clean Air Dulwich do anything similar - can I email them if I have a question? Who are they claiming to represent? I follow them but cannot contact them because they don't follow me.

The bigger point you seem to be missing and the crux of the issue and why the reason why the council are trying to manipulate the review is that those 2,000 people (the majority of whom are local) represent a much bigger number of people than the council got to support their measures on the OHS consultation that was the basis for these closures (and that number is even bigger when you strip out the people from Islington, Hammersmith and further afield who decided to register their support for the OHS measures - which accounted for about 25% of the total votes in the consultation).

So if we presume those 2,000 people are registering their objections via the review then the council and the LTNs are in big trouble and they know that - which is why they are trying to manage/manipulate a more positive outcome for themselves.

[northernmonkey]

You talked about the right of reply - so the point 'I'm trying to make' is that One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance either send emails to registered supporters via email (so thats fine), or they publish things on their website. They specifically don't publish anything anywhere where it could be questioned publicly.

I'd imagine you could contact Clean Air Dulwich via social media accounts if you're a follower?

[ab29]

"They specifically don't publish anything anywhere where it could be questioned publicly". Eh?

Type in "One Dulwich" or "Dulwich Alliance" and you will see lots of info.

What is is that you cannot find on their websites?

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> You talked about the right of reply - so the point

> 'I'm trying to make' is that One Dulwich / Dulwich

> Alliance either send emails to registered

> supporters via email (so thats fine), or they

> publish things on their website. They

> specifically don't publish anything anywhere where

> it could be questioned publicly.

>

> I'd imagine you could contact Clean Air Dulwich

> via social media accounts if you're a follower?

[Rockets]

Northern - you're wrong I am afraid. OneDulwich has a twitter feed but unlike Clean Air Dulwich it's not locked/restricted to only those that they follow. Anyone can go on @realonedulwich and comment freely - whether they agree or disagree with what is being said.

Unfortunately you can't contact CAD via their twitter page and they have this habit that if you challenge them on something they block you - they were doing this routinely until they made the comment feature only open to people they follow. Also their main website only has a sign-up page and no contact info.

Clean Air Dulwich are pretty elusive and much less open to public questioning than OneDulwich - so maybe your super sleuth skills would be better deployed on trying to determine who is behind Clean Air Dulwich! ;-)

[redpost]

Sorry to interject with a few facts:

One dulwich email goes to an anonymous gmail address

One dulwich website registered anonymously (see whois lookup)

No contact details, contact address, legal details or any name on the website at all

All blog posts are anonymous, no name presented

ab29 Wrote:

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

> "They specifically don't publish anything anywhere

> where it could be questioned publicly". Eh?

>

> Type in "One Dulwich" or "Dulwich Alliance" and

> you will see lots of info.

>

> What is is that you cannot find on their

> websites?

>

>

> northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > You talked about the right of reply - so the

> point

> > 'I'm trying to make' is that One Dulwich /

> Dulwich

> > Alliance either send emails to registered

> > supporters via email (so thats fine), or they

> > publish things on their website. They

> > specifically don't publish anything anywhere

> where

> > it could be questioned publicly.

> >

> > I'd imagine you could contact Clean Air Dulwich

> > via social media accounts if you're a follower?

[ab29]

And what happens when you try to contact 'Clean Air Dulwich'?

redpost Wrote:

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

> Sorry to interject with a few facts:

>

> One dulwich email goes to an anonymous gmail

> address

>

> One dulwich website registered anonymously (see

> whois lookup)

>

> No contact details, contact address, legal details

> or any name on the website at all

>

> All blog posts are anonymous, no name presented

>

>

> ab29 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "They specifically don't publish anything

> anywhere

> > where it could be questioned publicly". Eh?

> >

> > Type in "One Dulwich" or "Dulwich Alliance" and

> > you will see lots of info.

> >

> > What is is that you cannot find on their

> > websites?

> >

> >

> > northernmonkey Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > You talked about the right of reply - so the

> > point

> > > 'I'm trying to make' is that One Dulwich /

> > Dulwich

> > > Alliance either send emails to registered

> > > supporters via email (so thats fine), or they

> > > publish things on their website. They

> > > specifically don't publish anything anywhere

> > where

> > > it could be questioned publicly.

> > >

> > > I'd imagine you could contact Clean Air

> Dulwich

> > > via social media accounts if you're a

> follower?

[alice]

They block you.

[northernmonkey]

Without wishing this to get insanely tedious, they do have a twitter feed but they don't use it for any of their comments/ suggestions on policy etc - they use their website for that.

Also - one group is supporting overall concepts - cleaner air / active travel, the other is trying to set council policy and was set up specifically to be against the road changes.

No idea about the twitter message function - not sure exactly how that works anyway, but pretty sure that when I've received flyers from Clean Air Dulwich that there has been an email address on them.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Northern - you're wrong I am afraid. OneDulwich

> has a twitter feed but unlike Clean Air Dulwich

> it's not locked/restricted to only those that they

> follow. Anyone can go on @realonedulwich and

> comment freely - whether they agree or disagree

> with what is being said.

>

> Unfortunately you can't contact CAD via their

> twitter page and they have this habit that if you

> challenge them on something they block you - they

> were doing this routinely until they made the

> comment feature only open to people they follow.

> Also their main website only has a sign-up page

> and no contact info.

>

> Clean Air Dulwich are pretty elusive and much less

> open to public questioning than OneDulwich - so

> maybe your super sleuth skills would be better

> deployed on trying to determine who is behind

> Clean Air Dulwich! ;-)

[ab29]

"Also - one group is supporting overall concepts - cleaner air / active travel, the other is trying to set council policy and was set up specifically to be against the road changes." - so you are happy with the fact that thousands of people (I am one of them) are being treated as second class citizens and have the extra traffic (= more pollution and noise) dumped on their roads?

Never owned a car, walk where I can and I am being punished for that.

Why?

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> Without wishing this to get insanely tedious, they

> do have a twitter feed but they don't use it for

> any of their comments/ suggestions on policy etc -

> they use their website for that.

>

> Also - one group is supporting overall concepts -

> cleaner air / active travel, the other is trying

> to set council policy and was set up specifically

> to be against the road changes.

>

> No idea about the twitter message function - not

> sure exactly how that works anyway, but pretty

> sure that when I've received flyers from Clean Air

> Dulwich that there has been an email address on

> them.

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Northern - you're wrong I am afraid. OneDulwich

> > has a twitter feed but unlike Clean Air Dulwich

> > it's not locked/restricted to only those that

> they

> > follow. Anyone can go on @realonedulwich and

> > comment freely - whether they agree or disagree

> > with what is being said.

> >

> > Unfortunately you can't contact CAD via their

> > twitter page and they have this habit that if

> you

> > challenge them on something they block you -

> they

> > were doing this routinely until they made the

> > comment feature only open to people they

> follow.

> > Also their main website only has a sign-up page

> > and no contact info.

> >

> > Clean Air Dulwich are pretty elusive and much

> less

> > open to public questioning than OneDulwich - so

> > maybe your super sleuth skills would be better

> > deployed on trying to determine who is behind

> > Clean Air Dulwich! ;-)