LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Jenijenjen]

AlexandHelenC Wrote:

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

> Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> -----

> > heartblock Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > East Dulwich Grove and the houses were built

> as

> > a

> > > residential road for workers on the trains,

> > nurses

> > > and soldiers circa 1880 - 1886, it is a

> narrow

> > > road with trees all along it and was not

> built

> > as

> > > a super-highway ?

> >

> > Take a look at this extract from an OS map

> > surveyed in 1863. You will see that most of

> what

> > is now called East Dulwich Grove is laid out

> and

> > there are very few houses. Perhaps the section

> > east of Green Lane (Greendale) was built in

> 1888

> > but most of the road had already been built as

> a

> > thoroughfare long before the houses. North

> Dulwich

> > Station is at the bottom left hand corner.

>

> Exactly. The argument that the (late 19th

> century)roads are ?taking the traffic that they

> were built for? is incomprehensibly stupid.

Nevertheless, it was not built primarily as a residential road as has been claimed but as a thoroughfare that may well have been widened since first laid out

[ab29]

Local elections May next year. And I would encourage everyone to also contact Grant Schapps. This is beyond parody.

tiddles Wrote:

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

> So she?s saying they weren?t going to take any

> notice anyway? So why the **** was all that money

> spent on a consultation?? There should be a vote

> of no confidence in this lot if it was possible?

[Bicknell]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/25/two-thirds-residents-oppose-low-traffic-neighborhoods/

this was never a ballot, says councillor rose

waht was it then?

a waste of time and money...

[slarti b2]

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> this was never a ballot, says councillor rose

Well, presumably Soutwark council carried out the consultation excercise so thery would fulfill the DfT guidance that "consultation should be undertaken wherever authorities propose to remove, mofiy or reduce existing scheme". HOwever, Southwark have completely ignored the results of the consultation, to the extent that they do not even mention the results of the key questions in the recommendations.

It seems to me we should be asking Grant Shapps if, in this situation, teh council should retain the funding they have recieved?

[Spartacus]

For those who can't get past the firewall

Two-thirds of residents oppose low-traffic neighborhoods

Transport Secretary urged to abolish controversial green schemes after council survey reveals strength of community backlash

By

Steve Bird

25 September 2021 ? 3:20pm

Grant Shapps is being urged to intervene to scrap a series of low-traffic neighbourhoods after a council survey found two out of three people wanted them abolished.

Between 64 and 69 per cent of people living in three areas of South London where roads have been closed to try to promote walking and cycling told a Southwark Council consultation they were against the schemes.

And, in a damning indictment of how low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) can hit local businesses, 58 per cent said they use nearby shops less because of transport problems.

Despite the research, town hall bosses want to keep the LTNs in Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill because they claim they have decreased traffic by 10 per cent while increasing ?overall? cycling by 66 per cent.

'Undemocratic and unfair'

Now residents and businesses fighting the schemes have written to the Transport Secretary urging him to withdraw ?770,000 LTN funding because the authority was being ?undemocratic and unfair?.

The council?s consultations between May and July saw more than 7,000 people respond, 5,538 of whom were residents living within the LTNs.

A council report says ?the majority of respondents, both within and outside the consultation zone, did not feel the schemes were achieving their aims? despite ?some evidence of a shift from car use to walking or cycling".

It adds how ?the majority of respondents? wanted the streets to ?return to their original state?.

Key issues raised include ?displacement of traffic and pollution onto other roads?, increased congestion and journey times, ?difficulties for older people and people with disabilities? and ?concern at loss of access for emergency services?.

Of those living within seven separate sections of Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill LTNs, more than 3,000 people (between 64 and 69 per cent) wanted the road closures scrapped, compared to about 800 (17 to 23 per cent) who wanted to keep them, around 400 were calling for a different scheme and 500 wanted the LTN modified.

Meanwhile, 4,087 people (58 per cent) disagree with the suggestion that road closures encouraged them to use local shops more, with only 2,080 (29 per cent) agreeing with the statement.

'Catastrophic downturn in sales'

The report says ?a significant proportion of business owners and [their] staff would favour a reduction in restrictions?, after 4,157 people (64 per cent) said one LTNs had created a bad ?trading environment? in the area, with just 1,403 (22 per cent) believing it had improved.

Hazel Broadfoot, chairwoman of the Dulwich Village Association which represents 30 local businesses, said 95 per cent tradespeople were against its LTN because they had caused a ?catastrophic downturn in sales?.

She says the area is like a ?ghost town? for five hours from 10am when tighter motoring restrictions are in place.

Councillor Catherine Rose, Southwark?s cabinet member for transport, said: ?This was never a ballot, and there are strong views on both sides of the argument.?

She added that while restricting traffic and parking is ?not popular? it was ?necessary?.

A Department for Transport spokesman said: ?Decisions on individual schemes are a matter for local authorities.?

[heartblock]

Wow - only 800 people wanted to keep them...it's not a vote of confidence is it!

[Spartacus]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Wow - only 800 people wanted to keep them...it's

> not a vote of confidence is it!

I can't verify it, but didn't the council extend the deadline for the consultation then go out lobbying for a supportive result and (this is the bit I can't verify) from groups representing interests outside the area ?

If so then they really did misjudge the mood of the masses 🤔

[4321]

Cllr Rose has said she?ll visit the Melbourne Grove South planters tomorrow at 6pm so we will be there to peacefully lodge objections in person.

[Rockets]

I also see Helen Hayes is due to be attending a ?Speak up for climate change? event on Saturday 9th October at Herne Hill Baptist church.

Might be worth attending to help draw her attention to the nonsense policy her councillors are pursuing in regard to LTNs. She has been unwilling to be drawn into it but this might be the chance to show the weight of local opinion.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Ltns reduce car use and increase active travel, so fit quite well with speaking up on climate change. But yes, why not go to the event and demand that we make it easier to drive locally. You could stand outside with a ?tackle climate change? banner and get drivers to hoot their horns in support.

[Otto2]

Ahahaha

[first mate]

Well apparently we live in a democracy, so if a democratically elected representative seems to be avoiding engagement with a majority of residents on a major local issue it seems likely residents will seek some more direct ways to access the rep and address them with their concerns.

It's the democracy bit that is important, you either support that or you don't. But if you do then you have to concede that something needs to be done about LTNs in the Dulwich and Peckham areas...the model is not working here and the majority do not support the way the measures have been imposed.

The weather has turned today. How I wish we could do a cyclist count over the next week.

[Rockets]

But Rahx3 - there is increasing evidence that LTNs don't work. Take a close look at the council's own Dulwich LTN review and it's clear they are not delivering as intended - in fact, it looks as if they are making the problem far worse rather than better.

We can't just hang on to these measures on the promise of what might happen - it isn't happening and it won't happen. We were told let them bed in, well we have and things haven't changed.

Our local councillors are continuing to wilfully ignore the majority of residents (and remember these are the people who should be benefitting the most) so we have to find someone who will listen.

[dougiefreeman]

rahrahrah you missed a bit..

?Ltns reduce car use and increase active travel for the select few streets that have been lucky enough to become an LTN but this has only been possible by increasing congestion and pollution and making active travel more dangerous on the roads immediately outside those LTNs.?

[Rockets]

If this letter was sent to every council from London Ambulance Service in July 2020, I wonder if Southwark will ever tell us why they ignored it - LAS makes it clear any immovable barriers need a 3.5 metre gap to allow emergency vehicle access at all times - Dulwich Village continues to have none?

Perhaps LAS's view and input was outweighed by the "strong views" on the other side of the argument (per Cllr Rose).

[Raeburn]

Rockets, the LTN was implemented in May/June 2020 - this letter was sent July 2020.

The layout is now being adjusted to improve emergency vehicular access. Positive news, right?

Please stop wilfully misrepresenting facts.

[Rockets]

Raeburn - how on earth am I mis-representing facts?

Maybe you should be asking yourself why the council has ignored numerous requests from emergency services to not have non-permeable barriers in place....that letter was sent to Southwark in July 2020 - why it has taken 14 months for them to act upon it? DV/Court Lane has been permanently closed to emergency services since the measures went it.

I also refer you to this from LAS to Southwark that Southwark posted as part of the review....LAS has been telling Southwark the measures have been causing delays in response times and reminded them when LAS reviewed the new changes Southwark is proposing.....

? The proposed scheme to create a cycle and emergency access lane would improve

the emergency vehicle access/egress into the area and will be an improvement on the current hard

physical closures that the ambulance service have been unable to access since the implementation

of the scheme last summer, that has resulted in a number of incidents of delayed ambulances being

reported to Southwark Council.

Additionally, look how LAS refer Southwark back to the letter they sent in July 2020.....a subtle reminder that the council chose to ignore the July 2020 letter. Why, despite numerous requests from the emergency services, has the council not allowed emergency vehicle access at the DV junction for 14 months? This has clearly endangered Dulwich residents' lives.

Increased permeability of the scheme is required as a number of hard physical closures still exist

within the scheme, the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust formally wrote to all local authorities

in London including Southwark in July 2020 to request the greater use of soft camera enforced

modal filters instead of hard physical closures to ensure emergency access/egress to areas is

unimpeded, although improvements have been proposed we would kindly request that further soft

closures are included as part of the overall review of the Dulwich scheme.

You can find it here if you think I am making it up or "wilfully misrepresenting facts" - https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101521/Appendix%20F3%20-%20Emergency%20Service%20response.pdf

[Raeburn]

You inferred Southwark actively ignored a letter (from the future), and/or have subsequently ignored it?

And changes are being made (presumably) in/after consultation with stakeholders like LAS. Great news, right?

[Rockets]

My point was they ignored it from the moment they received it - which was July 2020 - not sure where you interpreted my note as my suggesting they actively ignored a letter from the future...maybe it was wishful thinking on your part.

They ignored it for at least 14 months (and it will be more given the changes being suggested won't be in for some time)....that's horrendous and a complete dereliction of duty by our councillors and the council. Lives were being, and are still being, put at risk by their stubbornness and refusal to open the DV junction to emergency vehicles.

It's clear from all the comms sent by LAS recently that LAS (and MPS for that matter) are reminding Southwark that they have been telling them this since July 2020 - they are the type of comms that go in ahead of a public enquiry so everyone know where the responsibility lies.

Why did the council ignore the advice of the emergency services? Was it that they felt their strategic goals with LTNs were more important than the needs of the emergency services? Are they so disorganised that they didn't read it? Or was it another "oversight"?

[Rockets]

300 respondents to a consultation on the cash machine in DV and our councillors mobilise into action......

3612 of their constituents say remove the LTNs in another consultation and they...........ignore them....

[alice]

Isn?t there a deadline today re commenting on the dulwich review via streetspace.

[legalalien]

is the deadline midnight today or has it passed? was planning to respond but got busy.. could do it tonight if responses still open.

[Mrs D]

Still open. Just says to respond by 27th.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> is the deadline midnight today or has it passed?

> was planning to respond but got busy.. could do

> it tonight if responses still open.

[Raeburn]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> My point was they ignored it from the moment they

> received it - which was July 2020 - not sure where

> you interpreted my note as my suggesting they

> actively ignored a letter from the future...maybe

> it was wishful thinking on your part.

>

> They ignored it for at least 14 months (and it

> will be more given the changes being suggested

> won't be in for some time)....that's horrendous

> and a complete dereliction of duty by our

> councillors and the council. Lives were being, and

> are still being, put at risk by their stubbornness

> and refusal to open the DV junction to emergency

> vehicles.

>

> It's clear from all the comms sent by LAS recently

> that LAS (and MPS for that matter) are reminding

> Southwark that they have been telling them this

> since July 2020 - they are the type of comms that

> go in ahead of a public enquiry so everyone know

> where the responsibility lies.

>

> Why did the council ignore the advice of the

> emergency services? Was it that they felt their

> strategic goals with LTNs were more important than

> the needs of the emergency services? Are they so

> disorganised that they didn't read it? Or was it

> another "oversight"?

Rockets, this was in the FAQ of the Southwark LTN review - my emphasis;

6. Why are there no questions about access for emergency services?

People are free to comment and raise specific issues throughout the survey; this can include access for emergency services.

We address any issues directly with the emergency services themselves as part of the review process. They have a formal role as a statutory consultee in relation to traffic and highways schemes, which will also be taken fully into account when developing our future plans after the consultation. We have fortnightly meetings with the emergency services across the borough, and this has been in place since Sept 2020. We discuss any incidents advised by the services and have instigated a number of changes to the Streetspace measures to facilitate access for the Police, ambulance and Fire services.

So please, stop posting this stuff, it's simply untrue.

Southwark listened, cameras were installed in/before May in preparation, now the junction will be open to emergency vehicles; happy?

If you're not happy still, direct some ire at the drivers who mounted the pavements around the planters, and got those big concrete blocks put in. Was perfectly good emergency vehicle access until then.

[heartblock]

It's not 'true' that LTNs reduce pollution, reduce traffic or increase cycling, but people keep posting this stuff on this thread.