Latest One Dulwich update

[Moovart]

19 hours ago, Rockets said:

....... The laughable thing is the only ward not getting a CPZ is the ward where there are some parking pressures due to the proximity to the Lane...go figure...

I'm guessing that the idea is that the ward with previous very vocal opposition will feel such pressure (once all the surrounding streets have CPZ and parkers move from the CPZ to the next door streets with free parking) that the previous opposing CPZ residents  will change from opposing it to wanting it and it will be introduced without further bother to Southwark.  Job done!

[rch]

I live at the Lordship Lane southern end of Melbourne Grove where there are several residents who don’t own cars (including me)… but we all opposed the CPZ partly because of the shops but also because there are a significant number of teachers who park here due to the Harris school on Lordship and also the Charter school at the northern end of Melbourne, which does have a CPZ.

I’m regularly saying hello to the Charter teacher who parks outside my house, stressing to her that I don’t mind her parking there at all.

So I suspect that as the cabinet member who is overseeing this is a teacher, he may be sympathetically delaying the Goose Green CPZ imposition.

Ironically, during the school holidays, our end of Melbourne is completely empty.

[Rockets]

Has anyone asked Cllr McAsh what the reason is for his ward not getting the CPZ - is he just trying to ring-fence and protect his political career/longevity? As cabinet member behind the grand CPZ plan it does seem a little odd that he chose not to roll it out in his ward and I wonder how his councillor colleagues in those affected wards feel about this. It does also seem strange that the very ward where the council has told us previously that there is the pressure on parking is not part of the plan........all a bit strange.

[first mate]

I do agree, although I don't want to pressure him to change his mind. I suspect he knows that parking pressure will kick in and residents fold, once everywhere else is CPZ...he's playing the long game.

[Rockets]

Latest One Dulwich update....no surprises that Southwark has not responded to the DFT questionnaire on LTNs........you can draw your own conclusions as to why.....

 

 

One Dulwich

Campaign Update | 16 Oct Southwark Council not co-operating with Government LTNs Review Last month, after the Government ordered a review of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, the DfT (Department for Transport) sent all councils questionnaires about any LTNs they had installed since 2020, and the consultation process used before they were built. Southwark Council is not co-operating. In response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for a copy of their answers, Southwark replied: “Councils were requested and not instructed to complete the LTN survey. Southwark Council did not complete the questionnaire.” One Dulwich has now written to the DfT asking how we can submit evidence to the LTNs Review and inviting them to send us a copy of the questionnaire so that we can fill in the answers based on the evidence we have. Discrimination against Blue Badge holders at the Dulwich Village junction Several Blue Badge holders spoke to Southwark News about the increased pain, social isolation, and poorer quality of life caused by the 24/7 closure of the Dulwich Village junction. The article has already received 5,300 views.   We hear that Southwark also plans to close Gilkes Place 24/7, with no exemptions for Blue Badge holders, despite having previously promised access to Dulwich Village from the Calton Avenue area. Closing date for objections – Ref. ‘TMO2324-011 Giles Place’ – to [email protected] by 19 October. We still haven’t received a response from Helen Hayes MP to our email of 2 June in which we asked her not just to pass on to Southwark Council the concerns raised by vulnerable residents but to actively champion their needs. Separately, we hear that she recently told a Blue Badge holder that a local campaign group had raised tens of thousands of pounds but “couldn't find any professional that supported the assertion that the junction could safely operate a timed closure model”. If anyone knows who this campaign group is, please get in touch. Best wishes, The One Dulwich Team

[first mate]

So Southwark are just going to stick their fingers in their ears until the inconvenient questions go away.

[Rockets]

Latest One Dulwich update... Campaign Update | 10 Dec

Dulwich Village Junction Update The Council has just issued a “consultation” on the re-design of the Dulwich Village junction (phase 3). Southwark has taken no notice of the views of local people. Public feedback on phase 2 asked for the junction re-design to prioritise access for key workers and those with disabilities and to consider the problem of displaced traffic. This hasn’t happened. The junction is still closed to all but emergency vehicles. There is still no access for the frail, the elderly and those with disabilities who depend on their cars for mobility. Traffic is still being displaced on to surrounding roads where families live and where children walk and cycle to school. This is not Streets for People. This is Streets for Some People. Please see our detailed comments. As this “consultation” ignores feedback from the local community, we suggest you fill in and return the survey but ignore question 6 and answer “1 (not at all)” to questions 7 – 12. And do please use the comment boxes to emphasise that the community rejected this 24/7 closure in the original consultation, and that the wider area will continue to suffer, not benefit, from it. The deadline is 17 January 2024. Thank you for your support.

The One Dulwich Team

[Rockets]

Latest update attached - fascinating that the council unexpectedly updated the Streetspace Dashboard with data that shows traffic increasing massively on a lot on roads they were previously claiming as proof that the LTNs were working....even more interesting is that the Streetspace Dashboard is currently unavailable: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis 

One Dulwich   Campaign Update | 15 Feb New data from Southwark on the Dulwich Streetspace Data Dashboard confirms that the Dulwich LTNs are a failed experiment. Traffic in Dulwich has not disappeared or “evaporated”. It has simply been displaced. As Southwark’s own figures show, traffic on East Dulwich Grove – a Dulwich LTN boundary road where thousands of children walk and cycle to school – has increased by 35.8% since pre-Covid/pre-LTN. This increase represents thousands more vehicles. In December 2022, during one five-day period, a daily average of nearly 17,000 cars/LGVs (Light Goods Vehicles) was recorded by the ATC (Automated Traffic Count) near the junction with Townley Road. Within the Dulwich Village LTN, traffic on Townley Road – closed for 2.5 hours a day – increased by 14.6% between 2022 and 2023, while cycling fell by 23%. On Burbage Road, cycling dropped by a massive 57%. Please read our full report here. The question is this: when will Southwark wake up to the fact that the Dulwich LTNs have not reduced traffic but simply created gross inequality? Thank you for your support.

[march46]

The dashboard showed traffic on most roads was significantly lower than pre-covid. 
 

The recent trend (Jun 22 compared to Jun 23) showed some increases which reflects the change to the timed restriction hours (halved I think?). Reducing the timed restrictions has induced demand.

[ab29]

@Rockets what a con! Is anyone really surprised?

No money for sweeping pavements and social care and yet thousands of pounds wasted on ltn,  ltn consultations, ltn road closures, ltn so-called 'planters' upkeep, ltn dulwich village junction consultations and re-consultations and re -re-consultations and re -re-re consultations and so on!

Am not sure how much the councils are in finanicial trouble as oppose to complete mismanagement and money wasted on crap like ltn!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CPR Dave]

Hi Rockets, am I reading that right if I conclude that there is now 35% more traffic on East Dulwich Grove E than there was before March 2020?

 

If so that represents a shocking failure on the part of the council. Someone should resign for that.

And someone should resign for all the gaslighting telling us that there is less traffic than there was before.

Edited February 16 by CPR Dave

[BM13]

I am not even sure that data collected by Council is trustworthy. From my personal most resent experience, walking down Croxted Road in the mornings of December 2023 and January 2024 (my exercise routine) , noticed that ATC appeared about a week leading to Christmas and was taken away second week of January, i.e it was in place during traffic quieter times due to the holiday season.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, CPR Dave said:

Hi Rockets, am I reading that right if I conclude that there is now 35% more traffic on East Dulwich Grove E than there was before March 2020?

 

If so that represents a shocking failure on the part of the council. Someone should resign for that.

And someone should resign for all the gaslighting telling us that there is less traffic than there was before.

CPR - yes there is 35% more traffic on that road than there was pre-Covid...let's remind ourselves of what Cllr McAsh said that unless everyone was benefitting from reduced traffic then the LTN's could not be considered a success........we await, with interest, his comments on the latest set of figures......but don't hold your breath on ever hearing from any councillor on anything to do with LTNs...I think they would prefer they could just move on now.....ahem....

Edited February 16 by Rockets

[Rockets]

Campaign Update | 11 Mar   Southwark is treating us with contempt Councils must consult local people – but don’t have to act on the results. Southwark Council is very good at playing this game and is pushing ahead with its plans for the re-design of the Dulwich Village junction, even though the recently published results of its Phase 3 consultation show that 65% of those who responded are critical or not in favour. This percentage against is remarkably similar to the results of previous pointless consultations. The public consultation in Summer 2021 showed that 64% of people in Dulwich wanted the junction reopened. The statutory consultation in December 2021 had 69% of responses objecting to the closure of the junction, and 67% of those who responded to the Phase 2 public consultation last summer were critical or not in favour. This time the Council has to work very hard to spin the results, dismissing our comments about traffic displacement caused by the junction closure because we should have been talking about the design itself. But, as one respondent said, “Consulting on this design is like asking someone how they would like their arm to be cut off. I’d rather not have my arm cut off, thanks.” Two-thirds of local people do not support the 24/7 closure of this junction. The council is treating us with contempt. Lambeth Council scraps Streatham LTN After weeks of dire traffic conditions and bus chaos in and around the recently introduced Streatham Wells LTN, Lambeth is being forced to remove the scheme after an intervention by Mayor of London Sadiq Khan. We are writing to the Mayor and the Leader of Southwark Council pointing out that the situation in Dulwich is very similar, with traffic congestion on boundary roads substantially worse than it was before the LTNs went in, and bus services suffering as a result. As the Mayor is also the Chair of TfL, which published the 2022 report about the Dulwich Village LTN being the root cause of delays to the No. 3 bus, we hope he might want to boost his election chances in May among Southwark voters by calling for the Dulwich LTNs to be scrapped. If you would like to write to Sadiq Khan too, email him at [email protected] and copy in Leader of the Council [email protected] and decision-maker [email protected]. Thank you for your support.

The One Dulwich Team

[Spartacus]

Thanks Rockets 

It's like a quote from the bible "before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times"

What is the real reason for keeping it? 

Residents don't want it (see above) it's not a money maker as you can't drive through the square so no fines generated,  

It's almost as if someone has a vested interest in it staying, maybe a resident who is in the council 🤔 or a friend of a friends kid goes to school there. Who knows 🤷‍♀️ but does feel like residents are rolling a stone uphill at the moment 🤔 

 

Edited March 12 by Spartacus

[march46]

They sound deranged and, in the interests of accuracy (something One Dulwich care little for) the Streatham LTN hasn’t been ‘scrapped’ or removed, it is suspended.

[Spartacus]

@march46 we will have to wait and see if the Streatham LTN is reinstated or, if like the rising bollards that were in Peckham years ago, simply forgotten about post the road works.

Its a 50 50 gamble.  

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, march46 said:

They sound deranged and, in the interests of accuracy (something One Dulwich care little for) the Streatham LTN hasn’t been ‘scrapped’ or removed, it is suspended.

....according to the council and their fanboi following as they spin their way out of the debacle and desperately try to save face.

The signs and cameras are being removed over the course of the next two weeks (confirmed by a council official to local media)......that's a pretty permanent "suspension" in anyone's book.......;-)

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 11/12/2023 at 10:06, Rockets said:

This is not Streets for People. This is Streets for Some People.

This "team" with unspecified source of funding and unclear links to other similarly-named groups is not One Dulwich. I think in all the media reports, I've only noticed one person mentioned by name as an actual member - the "co-founder" who's an ex-PR guy. Is it just One Guy in Dulwich?

Edited March 12 by Dogkennelhillbilly

[Rockets]

Ha ha, the "team" that seems to have galvanised local residents to finally stand up to the council and be heard on CPZs.....bravo to them (and whomever funds them!!!).

 

It clearly annoys some that One Dulwich dare make life more difficult for the council by forcing them to become accountable to their constituents.....

Edited March 13 by Rockets

[Spartacus]

4 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

This "team" with unspecified source of funding and unclear links to other similarly-named groups is not One Dulwich. I think in all the media reports, I've only noticed one person mentioned by name as an actual member - the "co-founder" who's an ex-PR guy. Is it just One Guy in Dulwich?

Love the posts Rocks puts up from One Dulwich. 

They report facts that the council are twisting the narrative to suit their agenda and some people seem to compare them to an organisation like the illuminati.

Billy, you may think you're safe behind your handle but the axis of evil that is 1d will expose your true identity as H from steps 🤣

[CPR Dave]

Casting aspersions about their funding because you have no answer to their arguments is a really shabby way to engage with this important issue.

You should try to be better.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 12/03/2024 at 08:34, Rockets said:

Campaign Update | 11 Mar   Southwark is treating us with contempt Councils must consult local people – but don’t have to act on the results. Southwark Council is very good at playing this game and is pushing ahead with its plans for the re-design of the Dulwich Village junction, even though the recently published results of its Phase 3 consultation show that 65% of those who responded are critical or not in favour. This percentage against is remarkably similar to the results of previous pointless consultations. The public consultation in Summer 2021 showed that 64% of people in Dulwich wanted the junction reopened. The statutory consultation in December 2021 had 69% of responses objecting to the closure of the junction, and 67% of those who responded to the Phase 2 public consultation last summer were critical or not in favour. This time the Council has to work very hard to spin the results, dismissing our comments about traffic displacement caused by the junction closure because we should have been talking about the design itself. But, as one respondent said, “Consulting on this design is like asking someone how they would like their arm to be cut off. I’d rather not have my arm cut off, thanks.” Two-thirds of local people do not support the 24/7 closure of this junction. The council is treating us with contempt. Lambeth Council scraps Streatham LTN After weeks of dire traffic conditions and bus chaos in and around the recently introduced Streatham Wells LTN, Lambeth is being forced to remove the scheme after an intervention by Mayor of London Sadiq Khan. We are writing to the Mayor and the Leader of Southwark Council pointing out that the situation in Dulwich is very similar, with traffic congestion on boundary roads substantially worse than it was before the LTNs went in, and bus services suffering as a result. As the Mayor is also the Chair of TfL, which published the 2022 report about the Dulwich Village LTN being the root cause of delays to the No. 3 bus, we hope he might want to boost his election chances in May among Southwark voters by calling for the Dulwich LTNs to be scrapped. If you would like to write to Sadiq Khan too, email him at [email protected] and copy in Leader of the Council [email protected] and decision-maker [email protected]. Thank you for your support.

The One Dulwich Team

The report describes how the effects of the new road layouts were monitored and changes / modifications made to keep traffic moving. It's so disingenuous to portray this as 'failure' of a scheme, when in fact it shows the opposite - how the implementation was undertaken carefully and changes made as needed. Indeed all the monitoring shows that overall the Dulwich LTN has reduced traffic, improved safety, and increased active travel. The one area where there has been an increase in traffic is along a 300 metre stretch of East Dulwich Grove, as a result of east bound traffic turning later - having been routed away from Melbourne Grove south (which has the entrance to ED Charter School on it and is full of kids in the morning and evening rush hours).

As for the consultation on the design of the junction - One Dulwich has encouraged people to treat it as a referendum on the LTN. It is not. This is obvious to anyone paying attention, as is their mischief making. The council want views on the design, they are not asking people if they want to reopen Calton Avenue to rat runners.

[Rockets]

Earl, you are not completely correct on the increases in traffic - the actual dashboard shows that traffic has increased (and is continuing to increase) on many roads and remember key displacement roads like Underhill Road, Barry Road and the A205 are not monitored (interestingly though Underhill and Barry Road have monitoring strips in place now). Anyone who knows Croxted Road would probably challenge the council's assertation that traffic has dropped by 32% on that road but that is probably down to the failings of monitoring strips to monitor crawling traffic under 10kph.

 

Your are correct the DV consultation was not a referendum (the council is not that foolish as they know they would lose that) but the council is bound by guidelines on consultations which say:

 

What is consultation?

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. 

 

That's the guidance from the local government association. Consultations are not supposed to be designed so the council can just force whatever it wants on it's residents - which is what Southwark has been doing before it was forced to put yes/no responses into the CPZ consultation.

 

So the DV consultation is the last one where the council have been able to design the consultation to influence the result THEY want. But just look at the results - overwhelming rejection of the plans (and 82% of the people who responded said they were from the Dulwich area) and this without a yes/no. The mood board amongst my friends (not scientific by any means) was that local people were annoyed the council was prepared to waste yet more of our money on that junction given the huge amount of money that has been spent on it already (especially at a time when the council is pleading it has no money). The consensus amongst locals is that the biggest issue with that junction now is fast moving cyclists coming down Calton (especially on Saturdays and Sundays when they head off to Box Hill!) and all that is need is a cyclist dismount sign to help counter that.

 

The council's obsession with that junction is clearly not being driven by the views of local residents but something else.

Edited March 15 by Rockets

[ab29]

One Dulwich

Campaign Update | 23 Mar New government guidance on LTNs As a result of the government’s research report on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (Southwark refused to take part), the Department for Transport has introduced new statutory guidance for councils.  The guidance says that local authorities should not impose LTNs in the face of strong local opposition (two-thirds of those living and working in Dulwich who responded to the 2020 public consultation were against them).  Where they are introduced, councils should regularly review LTNs, ensuring they keep meeting their objectives, aren’t adversely affecting other areas, and are locally supported. The Dulwich LTNs fail on all these points.  The guidance also says that where the community is not supportive, authorities should introduce changes to address community concerns or remove the scheme.  Please join us in writing to  • Leader of the Council [email protected] • Head of Highways [email protected] • Council cabinet member for Climate Change, Streets and Clean Air [email protected] • Transport Secretary [email protected] to say that, because of continued opposition by local residents and businesses, increased traffic and worse air quality on boundary roads, and discrimination against those with disabilities, Southwark Council should now review the Dulwich LTNs and either modify or remove them.  Dulwich Village junction redesign approved Cllr James McAsh has approved the proposed redesign of the junction, even though two-thirds of those who responded are critical or not in favour.  The new design blocks direct access to Calton Avenue from Dulwich Village for emergency vehicles – they must now take the longer route via Court Lane.  This change will inevitably lead to delays for ambulances. We are writing to the London Ambulance Service to raise our concerns. Thank you for your support. The One Dulwich Team