Please help the campaign Fair Air for East Dulwich

[Metallic]

https://www.gofundme.com/f/east-dulwich-community-clean-air?utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Everyone who lives here, works here, children who walk to school here, we all need air quality monitoring!! The Council are not assessing it, yet all we see are the traffic jams and fumes caused by displaced vehicles, with the residents of LTNs sitting pretty whilst the rest choke.

[Spartacus]

There needs to be a single funding effort to do this and to fight for consultations on the the LTNs

Although both things (air pollution monitoring and consultations) are the councils responsibility yet they are stubbornly and spectacularly failing to engage on both fronts.

Maybe the funding would be better spent on a legal case to get the council to do the right thing and not fob us off with "covid restrictions" which isn't cutting the mustard any more.

[malumbu]

Here's a group that have been campaigning for many years, rather than one set up purely due to the LTN

https://cleanair.london/

And another one

https://www.clientearth.org/

And a further organisation who's interests go even wider

https://extinctionrebellion.uk/

[malumbu]

This lot have a more local interest

Clean air Dulwich

[alice]

Trouble is they?ve blocked me. Very narrow view as to who gets this ?clean air?

Edited to say my comment is about malumbo?s comment not the op.

[ab29]

What is the plan - to install some monitoring on the affected roads?

Metallic Wrote:

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

> https://www.gofundme.com/f/east-dulwich-community-

> clean-air?utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1&utm_mediu

> m=social&utm_source=twitter

>

> Everyone who lives here, works here, children who

> walk to school here, we all need air quality

> monitoring!! The Council are not assessing it,

> yet all we see are the traffic jams and fumes

> caused by displaced vehicles, with the residents

> of LTNs sitting pretty whilst the rest choke.

[smooch]

Clean Air Dulwich are very clearly in the 'its our way or nothing' camp, whereas I understand that this campaign is addressing the very real concerns related to the now stationary and polluting traffic and need to be able to present data to a council that is refusing to engage.

As a frequent cyclist, these congested main roads are now worse to cycle along in terms of both air quality and safety.

plus of course the numpties who walk in the middle of court lane despite perfectly serviceable pavements either side.

[nxjen]

Describing Lordship Lane, Grove Vale and East Dulwich Grove, the fund raising page states these ?roads are residential, many with a high proportion of BAME residents (as high as 60%) and social housing?

What is meant by ?as high as 60%? and how was this figure arrived at? Do you mean 60% of the total residents of these roads are BAME and if not what do you mean?

Can you explain where the social housing is in these roads that add up to a ?high proportion??

[march46]

How does someone get in touch with the ?Fair Air for East Dulwich? group if they have questions?

Such as, who will be supplying the diffusion tubes? I?ve tried to get some through Friends of the Earth but believe their scheme has unfortunately ended.

[Jellybeanz]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> Describing Lordship Lane, Grove Vale and East

> Dulwich Grove, the fund raising page states these

> ?roads are residential, many with a high

> proportion of BAME residents (as high as 60%) and

> social housing?

>

> What is meant by ?as high as 60%? and how was this

> figure arrived at? Do you mean 60% of the total

> residents of these roads are BAME and if not what

> do you mean?

> Can you explain where the social housing is in

> these roads that add up to a ?high proportion??

It doesn't seem to say high proportion of social housing but rather high proportion BAME. I have no idea where the statement comes from but imagine if we can prove it impacts people disproportionately we might have more of a case.

Personally I would stick to the LTN road closures causing problems - not only for the air and traffic on main roads but also the businesses for example on Melbourne Grove who are clearly suffering from a huge reduction in footfall.

If anyone knows of any sites against LTNs I would be grateful if you could share - I agree the clean air campaigns tend to support LTNs despite what I would say obvious worsening of traffic on surrounding side and main roads, resulting in huge headaches for commuters, cyclists and pedestrians who use those alternative roads.

Only those residents living on LTN roads seem to benefit (from increased house prices as well as cleaner air than the rest of us) so it is grossly unfair and I can't quite believe they have all been installed without any prior wider neighbourhood consultation (i.e. they only seem to have contacted the residents living on the affected roads who benefit so are likely to support road closures to cars and other vehicles).

[James Barber]

Research currently under peer review into equity of LTN's across London - https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/q87fu/

Highlights:

- LTN's more often in deprived areas

- BAME residents slightly more likely to live in LTN than white residents

- LTN's varied widely

- LTN demographically nearly idnetiifcal to surrounding areas

[nxjen]

?It doesn't seem to say high proportion of social housing but rather high proportion BAME. I have no idea where the statement comes from but imagine if we can prove it impacts people disproportionately we might have more of a case.?

I read it that it is high proportion BAME AND social housing but I guess that is a matter of interpretation. Of course the 60% figure has been put in to make ?more of a case? but if it?s not true, and evidence of my own eyes tells me it's not, then fraudulent information is being used to raise money. As someone who is neither for or against the LTNs it makes me wonder what other false information is being cited. The points James Barber highlights from research currently under peer review points are interesting.

What I most object to is that fake concern for false demographics is being put forward to make ?more of a case?.

[Nigello]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-56419277 (not the first time it's appeared on BBC Online)

I have to say that I don't see a lot of cycling or walking (hardly any, in fact) down the streets at the end of which there is an LTN, even at peak commuting time. Timed/camera LTNs and a concurrent campaign to help pedestrians and cyclists would work better, I think, or LTNs only in places where there is more need (however that is assessed, ie. proximity to dense social housing, college, hospital, etc.)

[Rockets]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> ?It doesn't seem to say high proportion of social

> housing but rather high proportion BAME. I have no

> idea where the statement comes from but imagine if

> we can prove it impacts people disproportionately

> we might have more of a case.?

>

> I read it that it is high proportion BAME AND

> social housing but I guess that is a matter of

> interpretation. Of course the 60% figure has been

> put in to make ?more of a case? but if it?s not

> true, and evidence of my own eyes tells me it's

> not, then fraudulent information is being used to

> raise money. As someone who is neither for or

> against the LTNs it makes me wonder what other

> false information is being cited. The points James

> Barber highlights from research currently under

> peer review points are interesting.

>

> What I most object to is that fake concern for

> false demographics is being put forward to make

> ?more of a case?.

The Lordship Lane Estate at the end of Lordship Lane is currently having to live with the negative impacts of the LTNs and the testimony of someone who lives on the estate during the Dulwich Hill LTN call was very compelling.

The Aldred research has been debated widely on here previously but is looking at London as a whole and has been criticized for its methodology and particularly the elimination of boundary roads such as Lordship Lane from its analysis.

[nxjen]

No information regarding the 60% BAME claim?

[alice]

Where is this 60% mentioned

[nxjen]

This is a screen shot from the Fair Air for East Dulwich go fund me page.

[alice]

It says that some roads have up to 60% BAME residents. As Southwark failed in its legal duty to complete an Equalities Impact Assessment it?s difficult to dispute. I had thought they were going to do it retrospectively but nothing has happened.

[nxjen]

As no source has been given for this figure, despite my asking, it's very easy to dispute.

[alice]

Ok but the fact that dulwich village is the richest part of south Southwark is impossible to dispute.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Oh look, another greenwashed front group. Is this OneDulwichFairAir...?

[legalalien]

The various decision notices seem to refer to the EqIA done on the general Movement Plan, which you can find here

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/transport-policy/policy-and-guidance-documents/movement-plan - there's a 2019 Joint Equality and Health Analysis. Which doesn't exactly help on this specific issue as the evidence for almost all the conclusions is stated as

"Consideration has been given to specific impacts that might arise as a result of the implementation of the Movement Plan .The Equalities Analysis has also been informed by feedback through consultation events and responses, our evidence base document and our local knowledge and expertise." Oddly it notes that a pregnant women might rely on using a car but doesn't say the same thing about someone with a disability. The Evidence Base document referred to is at that link as well.

alice Wrote:

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

> It says that some roads have up to 60% BAME

> residents. As Southwark failed in its legal duty

> to complete an Equalities Impact Assessment it?s

> difficult to dispute. I had thought they were

> going to do it retrospectively but nothing has

> happened.

[malumbu]

No it's the popular front for the people of Dilwihs DKH, keep up will you.

Although Greenwash can hardly be applied to Client Earth (ignoring the major funding by celebs), Clean Air in London and Extinction Rebellion.

You should also try Clean Air London, it's got some lovely graphics (so that is a rainbow wash) https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/shorthand/clean_air/

[Metallic]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> What is the plan - to install some monitoring on

> the affected roads?

>

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> https://www.gofundme.com/f/east-dulwich-community-

>

> >

> clean-air?utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1&utm_mediu

>

> > m=social&utm_source=twitter

> >

> > Everyone who lives here, works here, children

> who

> > walk to school here, we all need air quality

> > monitoring!! The Council are not assessing it,

> > yet all we see are the traffic jams and fumes

> > caused by displaced vehicles, with the

> residents

> > of LTNs sitting pretty whilst the rest choke.

Yes it is the plan

[Metallic]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Oh look, another greenwashed front group. Is this

> OneDulwichFairAir...?

Can't you just accept that residents want to know what they are breathing in so that they can hold Southwark to account? Don't pro LTN supporters care about what they breathe in?