LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Bicknell]

i am confused. @malumbu is Cllr.leeming?

[first mate]

Malumbu has implied they might be a woman...

[Rockets]

Malumbu - so what's the point of the consultation? A consultation cannot be something you only do to try to get validation of what you want to do - which is how Southwark council seem to use them now.

According to the Local Government Association a consultation is:

Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set.

Can you explain to me how that definition applies to how Southwark have acted on the LTN consultation? Southwark are not giving local people a voice - they are, in fact, ignoring the majority of local people.

Whichever side of the debate you are on what Southwark is doing now sets a very dangerous precedent.

[intexasatthe moment]

Sadly not a precedent ,all too common .

Any organisation can argue that they listened ,were influenced and set priorities as a result of consultation .

They can also say, as said to me ,and trotted out on here before

"A consultation isn't a rolling ballot ,you can't just vote for what you want ." Steve Farnsworth Westminster Director of Schools 2007 -2008

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2007/oct/23/schools.newschools

[Rockets]

So it basically renders consultations as a pointless waste of tax-payers money, a tick-box approach to say - we fulfilled our obligations by pretending to be interested in what people think!

Meanwhile, I cannot help but notice that there is a concerted effort by the pro-LTN lobby to try to deposition One Dulwich on the basis of the narrative we have seen on here "what do they want, how can they ask for timed closures yet still push for the removal of the hard closures, do they agree with Townley etc etc etc".

Anytime that happens you know they must be cutting through. Well done One Dulwich, keep up the excellent work.

Roll on Saturday at noon at The Junction!

[legalalien]

I gather the council refused the LD?s call in request on the Dulwich decision (not sure why, the first six minutes of the overview and scrutiny commission video of last night?s meeting has no audio so not sure if mentioned there) Does anyone know? There?s a lengthy discussion about the Rye Lane decision and the reasons for refusing to call that in later in the meeting (have described it on the Rye Lane thread - it was an interesting watch).

They run out of time to discuss Streetspace schemes other than Rye Lane so postpone for future discussion.

[Metallic]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I gather the council refused the LD?s call in

> request on the Dulwich decision (not sure why, the

> first six minutes of the overview and scrutiny

> commission video of last night?s meeting has no

> audio so not sure if mentioned there) Does anyone

> know? There?s a lengthy discussion about the Rye

> Lane decision and the reasons for refusing to call

> that in later in the meeting (have described it on

> the Rye Lane thread - it was an interesting

> watch).

>

> They run out of time to discuss Streetspace

> schemes other than Rye Lane so postpone for future

> discussion.

Convenient to run out of time!

[peckhamside]

can we come and demonstrate in favour of the LTN, I can't see the issue for local business as it is only through traffic that is impeded surely, it is probably easier now to go to bottom of Court Lane of Carlton Grove now and park than it was before. In fact last time I went through there, on my bike, there was loads of cars parked on Court Lane, for an event but they could also be using local business.

[AlexandHelenC]

peckhamside Wrote:

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

> can we come and demonstrate in favour of the LTN,

> I can't see the issue for local business as it is

> only through traffic that is impeded surely, it is

> probably easier now to go to bottom of Court Lane

> of Carlton Grove now and park than it was before.

> In fact last time I went through there, on my

> bike, there was loads of cars parked on Court

> Lane, for an event but they could also be using

> local business.

Great idea. You could arrange a pro LTN march along East Dulwich Grove if you can bear the pollution, whilst taking care to avoid being knocked down by the numerous cyclists that have taken to the pavement to get past the traffic.

[heartblock]

I think a pro-LTN march on Croxted or ED Grove during the school run would go down so well, but don?t get the bus here...you will be stuck in traffic flow quite a while. Also why not have a Tango lesson near the Health Centre or on the new sports area on ED Grove when all the kids are walking to school, breath in those particulates....

[Rockets]

One Dulwich update on the protest on Saturday:

Saturday 16 October at 12 noon in Dulwich Village

This Saturday 16 October, at 12 noon, we will be joining together at the central junction of Dulwich Village/Court Lane/Calton Avenue to protest against the LTNs in Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill. More information here. The police have been notified and will be in attendance, and we are putting in place all their requests to ensure a safe and peaceful protest.

Now is the time for the majority ? the two-thirds of us living and working in the Dulwich area who responded to the consultation by rejecting the current scheme ? to come together and demand that Southwark Council scrap their flawed, unfair and divisive plans and start again.

Southwark must listen to what local people are saying. Even with the recent tweaks, this is a bad scheme that displaces traffic on to residential roads with schools and health centres, discriminates against the vulnerable, and damages local businesses.

Dulwich deserves better. Come and protest for the benefit of the whole community.

See you on Saturday ? and thank you, as always, for your support.

[Moovart]

Didn't think Councillors were allowed to post comments with a political bias under a pseudonym?

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> i am confused. @malumbu is Cllr.leeming?

[march46]

?Stop the Road Closures? signs were available before the consultation started, so any claim One Dulwich make that the council?s consultation process ?left them with no choice but to recommend a return to the existing state? is untrue.

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > You are deliberately conflating One Dulwich's

> > timed restrictions lobbying versus the only

> > reasonable option they were presented by the

> > council in their flawed review process.

>

> There was an option to select 'modify existing

> measures' and a box to fill in suggestions for

> modifications. But One Dulwich told their

> supporters to select 'remove all measures' because

> they're prepared to jeopardise the whole scheme

> just to get what they want.

[Rockets]

Errr March - Stop the Road Closures has applied since day one. One Dulwich, and the emergency services for that matter, have, since day 1 been saying that closing roads is not the solution and create more problems than they alleviate.

Timed closures are not closed roads - there is a big difference. Closed roads are roads where no traffic can pass through at any time.

I am afraid you keep labouring a point where none exists as nowhere on the council's review documentation could you select "timed closures" as an option.

[march46]

So the 'Stop the Road Closures' signs just relate to Dulwich Square? And One Dulwich support timed restrictions on Townley Road, Dulwich Village, Turney and Burbage Road?

It would be helpful to be clearer on which scheme/s "Reopen Our Roads" applies to.

What is their position on roads which were filtered pre-pandemic? There are many around the Dulwich area eg Frank Dixon Way, Milo Rd, Oakhurst Grove etc...do they propose a 'Reopening of All Roads' or just some?

[march46]

Why didn't One Dulwich put up a sign to garner support for timed restrictions? Instead of a blanket 'Stop the Road Closures'.

[first mate]

Because what is needed is to stop the current model, step back, consult properly and come up with solutions/ a model that is not purely driven by ideology but that takes local knowledge and views into account.

[Rockets]

March - let us be clear One Dulwich have not put any signs up. People who believe the council needs to "Stop the Road Closures" put the signs up. The position of One Dulwich and, seemingly, the majority of people in Dulwich is that the road closures are a "solution" that is making the problem worse and benefitting a few but negatively impacting the majority.

Let me ask you a question: do you think the road closures in DV are a fair and equitable solution to the problem? Are you happy that they have totally failed to deliver on the stated aims the council sold you on?

[march46]

One Dulwich clearly were involved in putting the signs up. Their email account facilitated it.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> March - let us be clear One Dulwich have not put

> any signs up. People who believe the council needs

> to "Stop the Road Closures" put the signs up.

[march46]

Also an account on this forum facilitated it - seems to be quite an unsavoury character.

[eastdulwichhenry]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> "Final comment - a consultation is not a

> referendum (can you imagine a referendum say on

> bringing back hanging, or leaving the EU - surely

> not). It is a measure of the more extreme views,

> pro and anti."

>

> I saw that on Twitter, attributed to

> Cllr.Leeming.

>

> I must say the two councillors for the ward have

> not shown themselves in the best light to their

> WHOLE electorate. Only to the FEW people we all

> know from Calton Ave, Court Lane and Gilkes

> Crescent.

The job of an elected official is to cater to the needs of ALL their citizens, and I don't mean those who live in leafy mansions on Calton Avenue, I refer to those who are disadvantaged, disabled, young etc. Governance is not a question of who shouts the loudest on an internet forum or go marching around the streets on a Saturday. That means that sometimes they have to go against what is "democratic", to do what is *right*. In the case of creating safer streets for local children and poorer residents without cars, to walk and cycle on, is clearly the right thing to do.

And before you lecture me about the supposed increase in traffic on LL or EDG, remember that there is little evidence for that. Those streets have always been busy and they still are, surprise surprise - although of course measures to reduce that traffic would be even better, perhaps through congestion charging. Meanwhile, however, there is ample evidence that overall car use in the area has decreased substantially.

With the exception of the dubious decision to reopen Melbourne Grove south, I thank Southwark council for staying true to the course and helping to do something about the climate and pollution emergency in London.

[peckhamside]

Well said, I was thinking extending the congestion zone to south circular may be the answer, this would discourage through traffic from outside the ss while residents would only pay a small annual fee which anyone sensible would think was worth it.

[Rockets]

march46 Wrote:

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

> One Dulwich clearly were involved in putting the

> signs up. Their email account facilitated it.

>

> https://i.imgur.com/K1mWt6D.jpg

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > March - let us be clear One Dulwich have not

> put

> > any signs up. People who believe the council

> needs

> > to "Stop the Road Closures" put the signs up.

I really don't know what point you are trying to make - you seem to be just trying to portray One Dulwich in a negative light. One Dulwich didn't go around putting the signs up randomly in people's gardens - people requested them - and a lot of people requested them.

And you say people have been banned from the forum you have no proof that the person who set-up the onedulwich account on the forum had anything to do with the onedulwich organisation - LTNBooHoo, Manatee etc were also banned around the same time - so again, what point are you trying to make exactly?

If truth be told I think what you're really angry about is the fact that OneDulwich has been doing a great job educating the majority of Dulwich residents as to what has been happening and how poorly the council has been treating residents who live here.

[ab29]

@eastdulwichhenry: "(...) supposed increase in traffic on LL or EDG, remember that there is little evidence for that " - I have eyes and I've been in my current place long enough to be able to compare the before LTNs and after.

It is a big difference to have a couple of hours am and pm of idling traffic in front of your place and to have to put up with it all day long, including weekends & to walk these roads and to wait at the bus stops there.

It is utterly wrong and unjust to sacrifice peoples' health and wellbeing in the name of a vanity project like LTN with zero evidence it actually helps to reduce traffic or help to improve air quality.

[KidKruger]

ab29 - well said.