LTN Discussion

[Spartacus]

Metallic

Can you give some more background or reference information to your last post as it seems to assume people know what it relates to ?

[Metallic]

Sorry. I was looking at the twitter feed of the Dulwich Village Ward councillors and saw there was a row about grants being allocated and someone not being honest when they applied. Or rather, maybe being misleading. But I thought it looked as if it had got a bit out of hand and so was just relating what I had seen. It probably isn't very important but I don't really like seeing anyone accused of stuff that is not really very important in the end of things.

[ab29]

Where is this info available re: Dulwich labour cllrs and property developers pls?

slarti b Wrote:

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

> VotethemoutMay22 Wrote:

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

> -----

> A group of us have got together (from all

> parties)because we believe that our local Dulwich

> councillors have not represented everyone in the

> community when pushing for the Dulwich LTNs.

>

> A bit of an understatement there. I think what

> you mean is our local councillors have

> represented a tiny minority of activists and

> misled and ignored the vast majority of their

> constituents!

>

> Fascinating reading of some of the candidate

> profiles, I had no idea how closely several of

> the Labour councillors are associated with

> property developers, very clear conflicts of

> interest there, I am surprised the Labour party

> tolerates it.

[slarti b]

This is a bit unclear for me at the moment but it seems that an application was made for neighbourhood funding of ?6,060 by a group calling itself "Clean Air For Dulwich" to "Promote the awareness of the need to adopt zero or low pollution means of transport (electric/ hybrid vehicles and cycles) and to use public transport more". This application was included in the agenda to be proposed by our Village ward councillors Newens and Leeming and all set to be rubber stamped (sorry approved) by the local Labour group at the meeting on 7 March. But at the last moment, possibly during the meeting itself, the application was omitted.

It seems C'llr Leeming now claims the application was "fraudulent" because the name of the group was similar to,but different from, a Twitter handle "Clean Air Dulwich" which he supports.

I agree that there should be an enquiry and it should investigate questions such as:

- why were local councillors Leeming and Newens about to rubber stamp a proposal from a group which they thought they supported without, it seems, reviewing the details of the application?

- why do Leemings and Newens believe the application was fraudulent, apart from the similarity of the group applying to a Twitter handle they support?

- if the application was "fraudulent" why did council officers not identify this from the application, which requires a lot of detailed information. Was any deliberate untrue information included?

- Newens and Leeming were initially happy to support spending council taxpayers money to "Promote the awareness of the need to adopt zero or low pollution means of transport (electric/ hybrid vehicles and cycles) and to use public transport more". But when they discovered the money would go, not to a group they support, but to a different group with similar objectives they claimed fraud. This suggest the council taxpayers funds are being used for political purposes. Is this legal?

Goldilocks seems close to the Village Ward Labour Councillors and the Twitter group Clean Air Dulwich, can you answer any of these questions?

Apart from the specific issue of the "Clean Air For Dulwich" application this meeting highlighted how over ?500k of council taxpayers money can be spent totally at the discretion of our local Labour councillors, without providing any detailed back up or allowing any independent scrutiny. Pork Barrel politics.

[march46]

Slarti you mustn't be familiar with the process for these grants. The lists that are published online are the long list of all applications. The meeting is the point at which the councillors announce the ones that have been successful, and for how much (not always the full amount).

[heartblock]

The whole thing is very confusing, but I also cannot understand how it gets to the 'recommended' stage without due diligence, unless waved through because it was thought to be Southwark's very own LTN fan-base the CAD. So slarti b's take on it sounds very feasible. When they realised it was put in by a man....so couldn't be southwark's CAD mates, the recommendation was cancelled?

Meanwhile Peter Walker, owner of his very own LTN at the bequest of his mates on Southwark Council has this charming comment on Twitter.

"DV roads were wide, but packed with through-traffic, so was never fun to ride down pre-LTN. And I'm not a complete local, but from memory, EDG has *always* felt like a traffic hellhole...."

Charmingly like by Cllr. Leeming.

https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1501678815600431104?s=20&t=VHltiuxII1j29wIrRoRJgw

[slarti b]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> Has Khan abandoned, or even suspended, the Bakerloo line, yes or no?

> And has Khan played politics with TfL funding by eg freezing fares etc? Yes or No?

Golilocks, I am still waiting for a proper answer to this...

[march46]

This is veering massively off-topic, but just to clarify - there isn?t a ?recommended stage?. There is a list of applications, some basic checks will have been done I assume but the real rigour in the process is before the applicant receives the cheque - there are lots of additional forms to fill in, documents to provide etc before the funds are released.

This is another example of people seeking a conspiracy when there isn?t one.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> The whole thing is very confusing, but I also

> cannot understand how it gets to the 'recommended'

> stage without due diligence,

[heartblock]

Nah... before it gets to that stage, where there is a summary etc., surely they must have been scrutinised and *should* go through due diligence, otherwise they would have to discuss every application. As I say - I'm confused as it seemed to be on an approved for recommendation list? as I say...very confused..but yes back to topic...

Any thoughts on EDG being a 'traffic hellhole' from LTN lobbyist and general poster-boy for how great LTNs are for us hellhole residents?

[slarti b]

march46 Wrote:

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

Slarti you mustn't be familiar with the process for these grants.

You are quite right, I am not familiar with the applications for council taxpayer funds. For example, I am a member of One Dulwich and we have funded ourselves from the vast majority of local residents who object to the council's botched schemes..

But I can read the requirements for applications for neighbourhood funding on Southwark's web site and this raises further serious questions. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/grants-and-funding/neighbourhoods-fund-2022

For the application to be considered by the Council the proposing group must answer a series of detailed questions including those such as

- Are you applying on behalf of a group or organisation? or Are you applying as an individual?

Name of your project/idea

- Describe what the project is trying to achieve, including why it is needed and demonstrate how it is going to benefit residents of the ward you have selected above. Please explain in less than 300 words.*

- In no more than 200 words state range of beneficiaries i.e., age, sex and ethnicity and approximate numbers.*

- When did your group start?

- Please describe in no more than 50 words the aims and activities of your group and your work in the community.* Q3 - Does your group have a constitution or set of rules?* UPLOAD

- Please itemise expenditure relating to this application. The total will be what you are requesting from the neighbourhoods fund this year. *

And there is a key deadline which is "Closing date for applications: Monday 11 October 2021, 12 noon"

This is a lot of detail eh?? And, having applied for funding the web site states "Your project/idea is then considered by your local ward councillors. Your local ward councillors will invite you to a multi-ward meeting in November [ie 2021] to present your projects to decide which proposals receive funding and how much. Your local ward councillors will announce their decisions at the February/March 2022 Multi Ward meeting.

So, in this case did the Local ward councillors, ie Newens and Leeming, consider the project at a multi ward meeting in Nov 2021 as per council procedures? If so, can you direct me to the minutes or online video of the meeting?

Re the application were any of these questions about the project answered incorrectly? If so,why has it taken them 5 months to identify this?

If Newens and Leeming did consider the project in November 2021 and had reservations, why was it still on the list of projects to be approved in March 2022?

My speculation is that the application missed the deadline and was not fully reviewed because the Council and\or local councillors thought it was from their chums. Can you provide evidence this was not the case.

In the interests of open government I would expect applications for and awards of public (ie taxpayers) money to be fully transparent. Does Southwark publish these or try and hide them?

[slarti b]

march46 Wrote:

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

This is another example of people seeking a conspiracy when there isn?t one.

Was the "Clean Air For Dulwich" funding application submitted by the Southwark deadline of 11 Oct 2021?

If yes, why did it take 5 months for the council to reject it. If no, why do the council accept the application?

[heartblock]

From the meeting information.

"The application form invited expressions of interest for the applicants to deliver projects themselves. A due diligence exercise to ensure that this is both practical and realistic has been undertaken as part of the feasibility process.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the South Multi-Ward Forum allocates a total of ?146,120 of the Neighbourhoods Fund 2022-23 to the list of applications outlined in Appendix 1, subject to this funding being approved in the 2022-23 budget."

Well - If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck...

[slarti b]

So, if they have followed the procedures then Southwark hase carried out a due diligence excercise? in that case, if the council approved the project but, at the last moment, changed its mind sounds like any investigation should concentrate on the council officers who carried out the negligent due diligence exercise.

[kissthisguy]

Really weird story. Without knowing the full facts, one can only speculate as to the most likely explanation. But I agree with @slartib that the due diligence (either by officers or cllrs or both) can't have been done for all of this to blow up on the night of the funding announcement. Simplest explanation must be that cllrs / officers thought they knew who they were dealing with, surely? It might not be ideal, but you can see how known quantities might be under less scrutiny.

I'd want to know if cllrs contacted *the actual applicant* at all. It sounds like they went straight to Clean Air Dulwich, CAD said it wasn't them, fair enough. Then we have this tweet from cllr Leeming which talks about a fake application being made and also discussed on the east dulwich forum https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1501148429782822914 and then this tweet from cllr newens about asking officers to investigate a fraudulent attempt to obtain council funds

I am not a lawyer, and do not know the evidence that cllrs rely on to allege fraudulent activity but that strikes me as quite a leap, and that the truth is probably less convoluted. Do we know, for example if forum user @P3Girl was the applicant, and, importantly, how? It's incredibly unclear - and I doubt the EDF would reveal usernames IRL.

To me it feels like cllrs, who are no doubt under pressure, might be adding 2+2 to make 5. Isn't it possible an application was made in a name similar to CAD, no malice or subterfuge intended, and the entire mess rests on that confusion and my first point above: scant or no dd conducted, and the original applicant not contacted? Who knows...

It's never dull in ED!

[Spartacus]

Having looked at the councillors tweets on this (as highlighted in the thread earlier) it strikes me once again that leading up to local election when councillors should be engaging with and listening to residents, that having your twitter account set to "only people councillor x follows and people mentioned in this tweet can respond" is a bit weird.

Seems to me that it reinforces their echo chamber and demonstrates that they don't want to listen to or engage with voters.

But that's just my take on it.

[Nigello]

Could someone please "boil" this? (ie. reduce it to the facts in chrono order?)

[Rockets]

It's when Leeming refers to anti-democracy groups tweeting about the application having received funding that is starts getting ridiculous.

Perhaps P3girl can provide some background?

I wonder if no-one from the council did any due diligence on the applications before the meeting and because it was listed as Clean Air for Dulwich they presumed it was from their friends in the pro-LTN lobby group and that the funding would get a straight-forward greenlight. Perhaps during the meeting someone actually read the details and realised it was from an anti-LTN lobby group and the council was about to greenlight funding for it and create a huge issue for themselves. From P3Girls post it seems the application was submitted on the basis of "well if you are happy to fund pro-LTN activities in the closed streets will you fund some anti-LTN activities too in the displacement streets in the spirit of democracy and fairness".

So rather than fraud, as Cllr Newens and Leeming are suggesting, could it be that council incompetence led to the funding getting tabled at the meeting? The way the councillors are trying to backtrack on this does suggest that they are trying to deflect blame onto others.

Interestingly, Cllr Leeming's long list of reasons not to fund it reads like a list of technical faults rather than a dissection of whether trying to do anything for the roads most affected by the displacement from LTNs is legitimate.

BTW, out of interest, did the legitimate CAD group receive any funding from the councillors in this recent round?

[slarti b]

From what I can see in the public domain the timeline was:

-4 Oct 2021- P3Girl posts publicly on EDF announcing his\her intention to apply for funds from the Neighbourhood fund under the name of a new organisation called "Clean Air for Dulwich" (CAFD. This name is similar to a Twitter Group "Clean Air Dulwich", a small anonymous group of local activists. nb I have not seen this post personally so this is subject to correction

- 11 Oct 2021 Deadline for applications for Neighbourhood fund. Per Council procedures, applications must include detailed information about the applicants and the projects, see my post from 12.26 this morning.

- Oct 2021->Mar 2022, Councillors and officers carry out feasibility studies and due diligence on all applications. Southwark's agenda for the multi ward meeting confirmed this was carried out.

- Early March 2022 (not sure of exact date) Southwark agenda for multi ward meeting on 7 Mar published with recommended applications for approval, including one from Clean Air For Dulwich (CAFD)

- 7 Mar, multi ward meeting. Labour Councillors approved all the other applications for Village Ward but no mention of the CAFD application.

- 8 Mar Newens and Leeming complaining about alleged fraud on Twitter, sorry I dont have details on that.

Edited to add info about P3Girl's EDF post supplied by Rockets.

[Rockets]

According to the screenshot Cllr Leeming posted the EDF post was made on Oct 4th on the dearly departed Our Healthy Streets thread.

I would be interested to know why the councillors believe this is fraud - that is a strong accusation and suggests someone was going to mis-appropriate the funds or are they suggesting fraud because it used the same name as another twitter campaign group? Or is this the usual sensationalist echo-chamber twitter nonsense we have seen time and time again from our councillors?

Clean Air for Dulwich also posted something about it but not sure they can claim a new anti-LTN group if this is linked to the post in Oct

Bottom-line is the council and councillors have created a monster of a mess with the LTNs and they are under massive pressure with the elections fast approaching.

[Spartacus]

If it was / is fraud have the police been involved?

If it isn't fraud then it's slander and again have the police become involved?

It's a slippery slope accusing someone of fraud unless there is overwhelming evidence that it is.

[Penguin68]

I gather that Tooley St is pressing for a mandatory 15 year imprisonment term for anyone not referring in future to LTNs as 'a magnificent boon to all mankind'.

[slarti b]

On the face of it it certainly doesn't look like attempted fraud to me. But whether it was or not, Councillors Newens, Leeming and the chair of the meeting, C'llr Simmonds, have a lot of questions to answer about this episode. But instead, their typical response has been to take to Twitter making unfounded allegations which cannot be responded to.

The sooner we get rid of this unaccountable crowd the better, roll on May 5th!

[kissthisguy]

@nigello I'll try, from the info we have and best guesses/questions where relevant.

--Applications invited from community groups for funding, deadline Oct 11.

--Due diligence period commences where officers & cllrs assess suitability of applications (as detailed in another post above). I assume this is a 'sifting' period, so inappropriate applications junked. [Observation/question: If the due diligence process as outlined in Cllr Leemings thread re the rationale for reasons not to approve the application actually happened, surely the application would have fallen at this stage, not at the mtg].

--All viable applications are then recommended for approval, though the actual funding amounts can vary from what was applied for and the decision is made in public

--It appears that up until the 11th hour the Clean Air For Dulwich application was essentially about to be approved BUT at there was a un/welcome (delete as appropriate) intervention from @votethemoutmay on twitter who cried foul over what they perceive as Clean Air Dulwich getting ?6K to educate people about non-polluting cars.

--Councillors at the meeting did not fund the Clean Air For Dulwich application.

--Which brings us up to date to the claims about fake applications etc etc

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Could someone please "boil" this? (ie. reduce it

> to the facts in chrono order?)

[legalalien]

One more point for the timeline - there was a "Funding Workshop" (online zoom call) on 8 December, at which applicants were invited to give a 2-3 minute pitch to relevant ward councillors. I was actually on that call. My memory is a little hazy, I definitely recall some of the applicants that were there, but I don't remember anyone from Clean Air For Dulwich giving a presentation.

[CPR Dave]

I think "Clean Air Dulwich" also sometimes call themselves "Clean Air for Dulwich" which probably doesn't help, but the council have a lot of egg on their face here (once again)