Southwark Environmental Scrutiny meeting next week

[legalalien]

The agenda for this is now up.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=517&MId=6833&Ver=4

It includes an officer and partner update on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, input from the Southwark Fire Service on the LTNs, cabinet feedback on the Commission's Air Quality report, and a scoping exercise for Part 2 of the Commission's work, the proposals for which include

Reviewing effective implementation of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN), by the council and partners, to ensure that they deliver better air quality for all Southwark citizens, particularly those residents most at risk from the adverse impacts of poor air quality (children, BAME people, older people, disabled people, people living in deprivation etc.

With key issues including

A Implementation of LTNs, including investigating how emissions on side roads and main roads are measured, as well as other areas with more vulnerable populations including schools, health and care settings.

B Ensuring that LTNs are safe and that emergency services have been

engaged to allow adequate access

It's a zoom call. I don't think it will be broadcast live, usually there's a statement saying members of the public are welcome to attend, it doesn't say on this one. Will email the contact person and find out.

[legalalien]

Details from Southwark (impressed by the prompt response): you can join the meeting, here is the link

Join Zoom Meeting

https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fzoom.us%2Fj%2F99763915591&data=04%7C01%7C%7C70452ee2c264461d4b3708d87b2c10bf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637394776470957909%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=VtPQVKguH6XIih5q2Y21Etyb%2BMbMe0lijg5SVMC71cE%3D&reserved=0

Meeting ID: 997 6391 5591

Passcode: 788208

(I checked and they said fine to distribute it)

"As it?s a meeting in public rather than a public meeting , questions are at the discretion of the chair . If you have a particular point you may wish to raise, or have addressed, it you may wish to contact the chair, Cllr Jason Ochere, in advance. Email is probably best : [email protected].

The meeting is recorded and placed on YouTube pretty promptly, usually next morning. "

[FairTgirl]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Details from Southwark (impressed by the prompt

> response): you can join the meeting, here is the

> link

>

> Join Zoom Meeting

> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?ur

> l=https%3A%2F%2Fzoom.us%2Fj%2F99763915591&data

> =04%7C01%7C%7C70452ee2c264461d4b3708d87b2c10bf%7C8

> 4df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63739477

> 6470957909%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA

> wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3

> D%7C1000&sdata=VtPQVKguH6XIih5q2Y21Etyb%2BMbMe

> 0lijg5SVMC71cE%3D&reserved=0

> Meeting ID: 997 6391 5591

> Passcode: 788208

>

> (I checked and they said fine to distribute it)

>

> "As it?s a meeting in public rather than a public

> meeting , questions are at the discretion of the

> chair . If you have a particular point you may

> wish to raise, or have addressed, it you may wish

> to contact the chair, Cllr Jason Ochere, in

> advance. Email is probably best :

> [email protected].

>

> The meeting is recorded and placed on YouTube

> pretty promptly, usually next morning. "

Thanks for this. I think it would be good to know why so much data is missing for months Jan/Feb usually amongst the worst months for air pollution readings) and missing for all but 2 months of 2019 for the 4 No2 tubes located around Goose Green school. One tube of which reads over 54 μg.m-3 for the two months recorded. Legal limit is 40.

[Siduhe]

This is one of the recommendations in response to the air quality report - we knew it was probably coming but looks like it?s here. I?m still trying to get my head round how CPZs drive down car ownership and driving when it seems to have the opposite effect of making it easier for people in those areas to park and therefore increase incentives.

Introduce a borough-wide CPZ renamed a Community Kerbside Zone.

A controlled parking zone is a name defined by National government and is therefore set in the legislation that the council uses to control parking. The council would need to take legal advice on whether the use of a different term such as a Community Kerbside Zone might cause any issues with parking enforcement, it certainly would not be able to be used in any of the legal documents that create the borough wide parking controls.

[Rockets]

This meeting will be fascinating as on the LTN section we will hear from Lucy Sanders who runs Healthy Streets Ltd, the company that provides all of the data that councils use to determine their approach to things like LTNs. BTW does anyone know is Healthy Streets funded by TFL? If not, who funds them? Her group is a big advocate of LTNs and their data was used extensively during the lobbying efforts during OHS and they have a big lobbying presence on social media.

Secondly it will be very interesting to hear from the borough fire commander on the agenda item: LTNs: access to emergency vehicles - especially in light of the comments from the emergency services that they are not supportive of LTN road closures due to the delays they cause in responding to emergencies.

[FairTgirl]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> This meeting will be fascinating as on the LTN

> section we will hear from Lucy Sanders who runs

> Healthy Streets Ltd, the company that provides all

> of the data that councils use to determine their

> approach to things like LTNs. BTW does anyone know

> is Healthy Streets funded by TFL? If not, who

> funds them? Her group is a big advocate of LTNs

> and their data was used extensively during the

> lobbying efforts during OHS and they have a big

> lobbying presence on social media.

>

> Secondly it will be very interesting to hear from

> the borough fire commander on the agenda item:

> LTNs: access to emergency vehicles - especially in

> light of the comments from the emergency services

> that they are not supportive of LTN road closures

> due to the delays they cause in responding to

> emergencies.

Healthy Streets fund Southwarks LTNs and looks like their funding is coming via London Mayor and thus probably Tfl bailout funds. Last round of funding for 'social distancing active travel interventions' Southwark had 100K of a pot.

Wonder if Southwark are seen to not be fulfilling criteria of funding, will they get as much funding in next batch or any, and can conditions be applied to it? Hugely unpopular schemes could actually prevent them from getting any money to invest in solutions (like build some cycle path, cycle hangers, trams, better bus routes) that might actually help air pollution for all.

[Rockets]

So once again a group funded by the Mayor is used as both a general public lobbying organisation and a consultant for the council on the implementation of these schemes - talk about keep it in the family and a bit of a closed shop!

I do wonder whether our local councillors may be causing a bit of a problem for the council as they are spending an seemingly never ending amount of money on what appear to be nothing more than local councillor vanity projects when these funds should be going elsewhere where the problems are greater. If the council is deemed to have mis-spent the money and gets no further funding (no doubt the govt will be looking for cases like this to make a point) then I would not want to be one of the people behind the plans.

[Spartacus]

The documents show how easy it is for people to think it's a war on car ownership

A borough wide CPZ.

Lobbying the GLA to expand the ULEZ to the M25 as parts of southwark will be outside it when expanded to the south circular.

A borough wide school streets programme.

Aiming to drive down private vehicle usage so that by 2030 only a limited number of EV vehicles are in common use. (Support limited to car clubs, EV bicycles and scooters, EV commercial freight , EV public transport).

Adopt a target to halve petrol and diesel journeys by 2025 and by 90% by 2030.

Lobby the GLA to introduce a road usage charge.

Timed closures for high pedestrian footfall areas.

Repurposing 10% of kerbside car storage to cycle storage within the next 18 months.

Roll-out secure bike storage in the tens of thousands directly replacing car storage spaces.

Adopting a borough wide program of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

Develop a LTN programme that gives a competitive advantage for cargo bikes which can pass through permeable filters whereas motor vehicles may be taking a more circuitous route.

Increase the cost of car parking for all motor vehicles.

Basically I would call this a war on motorists... why not go the whole hog and force the closure of all petrol stations so even if you do own a car, you can't drive it.

Absolutely no consideration for those who can't cycle or walk (the elderly, disabled, with very young children)

These measures will effectively make all the areas in Southwark into small enclaves where the local residents don't travel to the neighbouring enclave and distrust strangers from it.

This madness has to stop as its no longer about environmental issues as these measures even try to limit the number of clean vehicles. Welcome to the new communist southwark state comrade !

[legalalien]

Just a reminder that this meeting is tomorrow evening, a supplemental document has been added to the website including a report from council officers on LTNs.

I haven't read it yet, it looks to include a lot of summary/ background info and some info on three specific school based plans being funded by the Guys and St Thomas' charitable trust - focussed on schools in areas with high deprivation/ poor air quality. Includes Harris Peckham if anyone interested.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6833

[FairTgirl]

FairTgirl Wrote:

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

> legalalien Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Details from Southwark (impressed by the prompt

> > response): you can join the meeting, here is

> the

> > link

> >

> > Join Zoom Meeting

> >

> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?ur

>

> >

> l=https%3A%2F%2Fzoom.us%2Fj%2F99763915591&data

>

> >

> =04%7C01%7C%7C70452ee2c264461d4b3708d87b2c10bf%7C8

>

> >

> 4df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63739477

>

> >

> 6470957909%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA

>

> >

> wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3

>

> >

> D%7C1000&sdata=VtPQVKguH6XIih5q2Y21Etyb%2BMbMe

>

> > 0lijg5SVMC71cE%3D&reserved=0

> > Meeting ID: 997 6391 5591

> > Passcode: 788208

> >

> > (I checked and they said fine to distribute it)

> >

> > "As it?s a meeting in public rather than a

> public

> > meeting , questions are at the discretion of

> the

> > chair . If you have a particular point you may

> > wish to raise, or have addressed, it you may

> wish

> > to contact the chair, Cllr Jason Ochere, in

> > advance. Email is probably best :

> > [email protected].

> >

> > The meeting is recorded and placed on YouTube

> > pretty promptly, usually next morning. "

>

> Thanks for this. I think it would be good to know

> why so much data is missing for months Jan/Feb

> usually amongst the worst months for air pollution

> readings) and missing for all but 2 months of 2019

> for the 4 No2 tubes located around Goose Green

> school. One tube of which reads over 54

> μg.m-3 for the two months recorded. Legal

> limit is 40.

So I sent in some questions and did get a very polite and quick reply that they should be posed to our specific councillors or responsible cabinet members, which we already have, and thus far no one has been able to answer questions around monitoring, specifically air quality.

[hpsaucey]

Thanks for posting.👍

[Abe_froeman]

Thanks Legal Alien

That finally confirms the war on motorists that has been denied on here for so long:

"Recommendation 5: Drive down total private vehicle usage over time so

that by 2030 only a limited number of EV vehicles are in common use on

Southwark roads. Set targets for yearly traffic volume reduction. Adopt a

local target to halve petrol and diesel road journeys by 2025, and by 90% by

2030, and encourage London Councils and the Mayor to do likewise"

It also confirms that this is the sole motivation for parking controls and road closures:

"The council, though, has limited tools to help deliver a reduction in private

vehicle ownership and usage, with our parking controls and network

management being the strongest. A series of proposals in both these

areas are being explored by officer"

[exdulwicher]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Thanks Legal Alien

>

> That finally confirms the war on motorists that

> has been denied on here for so long:

>

It's Government policy - Paris Agreement plus a couple of other sections of various policies commit Government to urgent decarbonisation / lowered carbon emissions.

There's a summary of the dichotomoy here:

https://theconversation.com/car-dependency-uk-government-cant-cut-driving-and-build-lots-of-roads-at-same-time-134965

On the one hand, lowering congestion / more efficient journeys / keeping the economy going; on the other hand the very pressing need to urgently cut emissions. Transport (vast majority of which is cars and vans) contributes about 28% of carbon emissions nationally.

It's only perceived as a War on Motorists because literally nothing has been done to stop motoring (quite the opposite) over the last 30 years and now there's the first pockets of resistance (and that is all it is, it's far from a "war") that suddenly everyone is up in arms. Compared to what some cities have had to implement (like total or partial bans on all private vehicles on certain days), this is not a war, this is a few potshots!

The council are implementing Government policy. Of course there's a debate to be had about HOW that policy is formulated by Government, fed down to councils and implemented by them which is the role of a Scrutiny Committee in public office.

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Thanks Legal Alien

> >

> > That finally confirms the war on motorists that

> > has been denied on here for so long:

> >

> It's Government policy - Paris Agreement plus a

> couple of other sections of various policies

> commit Government to urgent decarbonisation /

> lowered carbon emissions.

>

> There's a summary of the dichotomoy here:

> https://theconversation.com/car-dependency-uk-gove

> rnment-cant-cut-driving-and-build-lots-of-roads-at

> -same-time-134965

>

> On the one hand, lowering congestion / more

> efficient journeys / keeping the economy going; on

> the other hand the very pressing need to urgently

> cut emissions. Transport (vast majority of which

> is cars and vans) contributes about 28% of carbon

> emissions nationally.

>

> It's only perceived as a War on Motorists because

> literally nothing has been done to stop motoring

> (quite the opposite) over the last 30 years and

> now there's the first pockets of resistance (and

> that is all it is, it's far from a "war") that

> suddenly everyone is up in arms. Compared to what

> some cities have had to implement (like total or

> partial bans on all private vehicles on certain

> days), this is not a war, this is a few potshots!

>

> The council are implementing Government policy. Of

> course there's a debate to be had about HOW that

> policy is formulated by Government, fed down to

> councils and implemented by them which is the role

> of a Scrutiny Committee in public office.

I think you hit the nail on the head: many are questioning how the council are implementing them (especially in light of the council's own guidance over implementation criteria the last few years) and why they are focussing on areas like Dulwich Village and East Dulwich that don't come close to meeting their own criteria (high PTAL scores, low car ownership, areas of depravation). It looks more and more like councillor vanity projects are taking precedent here.

[exdulwicher]

Rockets - absolutely! There's a real problem here in that Government and, to a lesser extent, councils have pottered along for years (decades...) doing things very gradually, very piecemeal. A lot of that is simply how Government functions anyway, it's all very slow progress for various reasons. That's not necessarily a criticism, just a factual statement.

Austerity has removed the opportunity for councils to do anything like as much as they've wanted.

Now, with Paris Agreement and kickstarted by Covid, there's sudden rapid changes in policy, urgent pressing need to "do things" (some of which is the more politically convenient "being seen to do things whether or not those things are positive").

It's the equivalent of living in a house for 30 years and doing little more than painting the skirting boards in that time and then suddenly discovering that the place is falling down and needs full scaffolding, re-plumbing, re-wiring and re-decorating. There's going to be disruption no matter which way you go about it.

[JohnL]

It's right wingers that often call it the "Great Reset" but it's one thing they may have an inkling about as thats a world economic forum initiative and after Brexit that's one of the areas the UK will want to lead :)

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Rockets - absolutely! There's a real problem here

> in that Government and, to a lesser extent,

> councils have pottered along for years

> (decades...) doing things very gradually, very

> piecemeal. A lot of that is simply how Government

> functions anyway, it's all very slow progress for

> various reasons. That's not necessarily a

> criticism, just a factual statement.

>

> Austerity has removed the opportunity for councils

> to do anything like as much as they've wanted.

>

> Now, with Paris Agreement and kickstarted by

> Covid, there's sudden rapid changes in policy,

> urgent pressing need to "do things" (some of which

> is the more politically convenient "being seen to

> do things whether or not those things are

> positive").

>

> It's the equivalent of living in a house for 30

> years and doing little more than painting the

> skirting boards in that time and then suddenly

> discovering that the place is falling down and

> needs full scaffolding, re-plumbing, re-wiring and

> re-decorating. There's going to be disruption no

> matter which way you go about it.

And taking you metaphor once step further the problem is the council seems to have decided to focus on the properties that are, in fact, in least need of repair.....

[Spartacus]

Not only in need of least repair but they have treated them to the special council bulldozer experience !

[legalalien]

This is really good. There has been a whole new spiel about public participation (not sure anyone has attended the zoom meetings before)and now the councillors are introducing themselves. Transparency happening and will be available to people who can?t make the meeting, in recorded form.

[legalalien]

And the Southwark chap has just said that the guys and st Thomas schemes differ from the dulwich one in that they have proper before and after monitoring whereas the dulwich one doesn?t...

[Rockets]

When Cllr Ochere said the report stated the first two LTNs had been well received and he put on record there was consultation on-going about that he referred to Brunswick - is the other one the Dulwich set?

Very interesting that Guys and St Thomas are paying for monitoring to establish a baseline and the council chap said there is no baseline in Dulwich as they had to implement them quickly.

[legalalien]

No he?s referring to the three Guys etc schemes which don?t include dulwich

[legalalien]

Which sound really organised and well set up / targeted / monitored - they?re spending 20% of the budget on proper evaluation so it can be modified / used as a template as appropriate.

[Rockets]

And interesting their selection criteria are:

High child obesity

Poor air quality

High levels of social housing

Higher proportion of Black ethnicity

Schools

Local Parks

AND.....they are looking at displacement issues and the impact on surrounding streets.....

The council is getting absolutely schooled by a charity on how to run an LTN implementation programme!!!! ;-)

[Rockets]

Cllr Graham Neale - claiming the council was being ambushed by a small but vocal minority (he reiterated that small but vocal minority twice) - I presume he was referring to the 3 proposed areas or more broadly? The small but vocal minority seems to be a bit of a narrative the council is trying to weave.