LTN: Southwark Council misrepresenting results of consultation

[dougiefreeman]

I have a feeling there are many members of the EDF that avoid the 'our healthy streets' thread for a number of reasons - many of them understandable. However, that may well mean that they are unaware of some of the facts surrounding the results of the recent 'consultation' carried out by Southwark Council.

So in order to open the conversation on what (I believe) is quite a serious issue, a new thread seems appropriate. And this thread should focus not on whether you are or are not in favour of LTNs, but whether you feel that the way the council have responded to the consultation is appropriate, fair, unfair, dishonest, illegal, corrupt or anything else.

To open this up - the council have recently delivered newsletters displaying the results of the consultation but with the main focus seemingly being on the fact that most of the respondants agreed with the objectives of the council to reduce traffic and clean up the air of our streets. However, there is one glaring ommision (unclear whether this is deliberate or not - thoughts and opinions welcome on this) and that is the fact that the overwhelming majority of respondants (two thirds) stated that they were not in favour of the LTNS and their preference was that they were removed and the roads returned to the original state.

Alarmingly, there is absolutely no mention of this whatsoever in the newsletter. It is only when you delve into the report and check the data that you see this.

You can find the report here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101517/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultation%20Report.pdf

For what reason would Southwark have omitted this in their newsletter?

Then we come to the fact that, despite this overwhelming preference for the LTNs to be removed, the council are seemingly ignoring it and opting to retain every single measure albeit with some minor adjustments.

Do you believe this is a just outcome?

Should the council be allowed to ignore this part of the consultation?

Do you feel they are pushing forward their own agenda?

What can be done about it?

Or do you feel that this is a legitimate response?

Do you feel that councils can make decisions like this in certain circumstances?

Do you feel the ends justify the means?

Or perhpas you're stuck in the middle, and maybe are in favour of the LTNs yourself and would love to see them retained but not at the expense of a proper democratic process?

[DuncanW]

We really do not need yet another thread on this.

[BM13]

I don't think this is 'yet another thread'. It's not about LTNs, it's about bringing attention to the fact that Southwark council is trying to misrepresent the outcome of the consultation (which anyway was very biased in a way question were asked) and manipulate us.

[legalalien]

I'd favour a more general thread about the way Southwark engages with its residents - this is one example of that, but there seems to be a pattern across a variety of areas (see the current issues with Peckham Green/ Jocelyn Park or as Southwark call it, the Flaxyards site). I'm sure there are other examples but given the breadth it would probably go in the Lounge?

I have more of an issue with the "process" issues around the LTNs than I do about the LTN policy itself, so I get your point in that sense.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Please, not another thread

[heartblock]

Actually, it is reasonable to have a new thread. I agree with Legal...not just this 'consultation', but also about consulting on infilling and building on parks. 100's of videos from locals angry about not being consulted about building on a park, in the 5 year lead up echos the terrible job of consulting on LTNs.

It is perfectly reasonable for ED forum users to discuss how their Council uses their Council Tax and what representation local Councillors in Goose Green, Village Ward actually give us on the full Southwark Council and Council senate. Otherwise what is the point of them?

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Actually, it is reasonable to have a new thread. I

> agree with Legal...not just this 'consultation',

> but also about consulting on infilling and

> building on parks. 100's of videos from locals

> angry about not being consulted about building on

> a park, in the 5 year lead up echos the terrible

> job of consulting on LTNs.

>

> It is perfectly reasonable for ED forum users to

> discuss how their Council uses their Council Tax

> and what representation local Councillors in Goose

> Green, Village Ward actually give us on the full

> Southwark Council and Council senate. Otherwise

> what is the point of them?

There is also a thread about the infilling of parks (which I agree is pretty poor). But sure, let's have another duplicate thread, why not.

[peckhamside]

I'm finding this discussion increasingly bizarre. Every day the news if full of stories about the need to cut CO2 emissions, floods, droughts, COP2? etc. Some ways to do this, e.g. make fewer short car trips, are a lot easier than others such as switching from gas to electric heating. But everyone is still railing against LTNs. Frankly I don't think it matters much what residents want or don't want, it has to be done. If you don't want LTN come up with another workable suggestion to reduce car traffic.

[slarti b]

peckhamside Wrote:

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

If you don't want LTN come up with another workable suggestion to reduce car traffic.

But these LTNs don't reduce car traffic, they merely divert it onto other roads, causing more congestion.

Other workable suggestions? Key one is improving public transport but the council is not interested in that.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

P3girl Wrote:

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

>What it will take is

> mass action in the form of protests and demos on

> the streets of Southwark -particularly at Tooley

> St and Southwark Town Hall....something along this modest attempt?

You think you live in a dictatorship and you're going to overthrow a suburban traffic management scheme by seizing town hall?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> peckhamside Wrote:

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

> -----

> Other workable suggestions? Key one is improving

> public transport

You mean like making buses faster and more reliable by reducing and timeshifting the volume of private car, minicab and delivery van traffic?

[Bicknell]

agree with Legalalien that council process v. bad

people lose faith

@dogkennelhillbilly your talking about traffic and ltns, not if council can be trusted so maybe i should let what you said go. but its the council thts slowed down buses by pushing all traffic on to bus routes.

[Canteloupe]

Getting back to the original intention of this thread, it?s pretty obvious that the Dulwich Streetspace Review update that came through people?s doors doesn?t present the data neutrally. For example ?In relation to air quality, there are several locations where there has been a slight or moderate beneficial impact, and in most locations there has been no negative impact of the schemes on air quality.?

To me this says that there are locations where the air quality is worse, possibly significantly so, and many where there has been no benefit. I?m sure this document went through many careful drafts.

[Rockets]

I think that is very much the point. The communication on this, and other issues, is woefully, and deliberately, misleading - very much a case of "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". The council present things as fact yet omit the facts they don't want to have to acknowledge.

They prioritise their ideology over pragmatism.

They are doing it with the in-fill of the greenspace in Peckham. They did it with Cllr Leo Pollack after he was found to have been aggressively trolling his own constituents under a false Twitter handle.

The council is out of control and doing exactly the things most of them have spent their political lives proudly campaigning against and berating other parties for doing.

[heartblock]

The latest TFL data shows that in August 2021 cycling is already down to pretty much pre-Covid and pre-LTN levels. Why pollute and cause idling traffic, longer journeys and loneliness for the elderly and less mobile for the sake of saving face for a failed policy. The consultation clearly points to the lack of support for LTNs and other data shows that there has not been a modal shift to active travel due to LTNs and PTAL has worsened.

Improve PT, get rid of LTNs, bring in ULEZ and use a carrot not a stick.

[tomskip]

A good way to reduce car traffic around Dulwich and East Dulwich?

Ban anyone from outside walking distance from coming to school here.

See how that goes down.

[heartblock]

I have no problem with making all the Private Schools local non-private and only have children from a walking distance catchment area, but one supporter of gated roads for the 3-4 bedroom houses on extremely wealthy roads and more pollution for roads with majority flats and school roads said this was too dictatorial and anti-choice on another thread.

I think ignoring the results of a consultation and keeping gated roads despite them not reducing traffic and pollution is far more dictatorial.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

P3girl Wrote:

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

> 2. They actively prompted cycling clubs to vote

> support for road closures. Similarly they lectured

> school pupils into voting for LTNs. They stuck

> poster and placards on lamp posts promoting LTNs.

>

> 3. They issued massive volumes of leaflets and

> other promotions in favour of LTNs...

What's interesting is how vague the #SouthwarkDerangementSyndrome posters are: usually they simply assert that whatever they disagree with as an individual is necessarily undemocratic. When they do make specific claims, they are like the above - patent nonsense.

Still no comment of course from P3girl (who might be one trip short of a P4) on whether these people genuinely believe they live in a dictatorship or whether they think they will overthrow Southwark Bleeding Council by force over a road closure.

> Roll on May 2022!

Where are the (thus far) interestingly well-funded OneDulwich and Dulwich Alliance getting their funds from? 🤔

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

tomskip Wrote:

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

> Ban anyone from outside walking distance from

> coming to school here.

>

> See how that goes down.

Sounds good to me. Ban motorised deliveries from outside the postcode (except by Royal Mail once a day) and I think we'll have solved the whole problem.

[Abe_froeman]

"The consultation clearly points to the lack of support for LTNs"

This is not quite right. The consultation has shown that a large majority of people do not support THESE LTNs.

People are behind the cause, to reduce pollution and traffic, but the believe that the measures taken so far have categorically failed to achieve that

[heartblock]

Yep, like many I support measures that reduce pollution, decrease the amount of time cars are on the roads, especially idling -polluting queues of traffic, I support an increase in public transport, that is cleaner- greener and reliable - with end-to-end journeys, so that the PTAL for ED and Dulwich increases. Which is why many agreed with reduction of traffic and pollution in Southwark, but did not support the current LTNs.

I support bike lanes and better pavements and routes for pedistrians, I support re-wilding and a ban on building on green spaces.

That's the reason I do not support these current LTNs or the road that was historically closed as a temporary road repair measure, but stayed so as not to upset the chief planner/ designer of many a disaster in Southwark - successful Consultation only happens it seems, between mates and ex-councillors/employees of the council who live on particular roads.

LTNs do not reduce car use, idling traffic and pollution. They do increase pollution and traffic on high density residential school roads.

[mrwb]

I read in the council leaflet that car use has declined 10%, it occurred to me quite a bit of that was probably due to the local population also declining 10% in the last 18 months.

Given what a traffic riddled crime ridden hell hole a lot of Southwark is turning in to, have they modeled what happens when the population falls another 10% and so on? This is what happened in London for years after the war and it only turned around in the 80s. Cyclical?

Not just the LTN of course, Covid has shown people can work from anywhere in quite a lot of professions. Then you have Brexit and vastly reduced immigration too. On the crime side, the local police stations are a foot note in Dulwich history now. Cat thefts, bag snatches and even getting a sawn off shot gun in the face when you open the door are now common place?

Can't imagine why people who can work remotely who have kids especially, would now choose to stay around here.

[heartblock]

Well I still love East Dulwich, despite many changes over the last 35 years, I think I liked it more when it was more multi-cultural, had more green spaces and the Irish Shop, but the increases in independent retail have made LL a lovely area as well. It was great having the police station on LL - a real shame it closed.

The 10% reduction in traffic is reflected across London, including non-LTN areas in the months measured - but as people return to 'the office' traffic and car use is on the rise and cycling is falling.

The obvious reason not pointed out in the Council Leaflet (with poor and biased analysis of the raw data from the consultation), is that car use dropped at the height of the pandemic and lockdown, cycling increased around the neighbourhood while working from home or home-schooling during the Summer as it was a nice thing to do.

LTNs do not reduce car use or increase cycling and PT usage. That is quite clear as Autumn data starts to emerge.

The Consultation points to a failed experiment and LTNs should be removed and alternative actions planned.

[Administrator]

There's already an LTN thread here: https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2092625