Latest One Dulwich update

[Rockets]

DulvilleRes - any concerns from your side about the stories of Labour councillors and award winning active travel lobbyists infiltrating the "properly constituted local organisation" Dulwich Society transport sub-committee to the point that Dulwich Society had to intervene and state that that committee did not speak on behalf of DS and that they were impartial to the DV closure......

It seems there is a hefty dose of double-standards at play here or is that fatuous?

[first mate]

Agreed, and councillors have the power to do stuff. Infiltration of The Dulwich Society transport sub-committee by individuals with an agenda to get expensive changes to local junctions, against the will of many locals, is far more significant.

[DulvilleRes]

On 13/02/2025 at 16:52, Rockets said:

DulvilleRes - any concerns from your side about the stories of Labour councillors and award winning active travel lobbyists infiltrating the "properly constituted local organisation" Dulwich Society transport sub-committee to the point that Dulwich Society had to intervene and state that that committee did not speak on behalf of DS and that they were impartial to the DV closure......

It seems there is a hefty dose of double-standards at play here or is that fatuous?

I have no idea of the ins and outs of this one, so we only have your word for what has happened, something which frequently in the past has been subject to 'reader added context' style interventions across a range of topics. However, if true, from your description, this is exactly what a well-run transparent organisation does if it perceives something that runs against it's constitution.

That is in stark contrast to One Dulwich, who no one actually knows what it really is. Is it like Farage's Reform, and constituted as a private company? Certainly something that it would have in common with Reform is that many are claiming that they are hugely exaggerating their level of support. I find it deeply puzzling and in many ways potentially misleading that the One Dulwich website represents itself as a broad-based community organisation, campaigning for, amongst other things, transparency and democracy in local politics, yet these very important questions go unanswered.   

This same sense of opaqueness and the sense I feel of things not quite adding up applies to some of the posters on this forum. They claim they have no idea or no interest in who might behind One Dulwich, and yet demonstrate a detailed knowledge of local politics and a relentless anti-council agenda that would suggest being political activists. The sustained attack lines and strong alignment with One Dulwich's pronouncements suggest a campaign. They might of course deny this, and say it is all a massive coincidence. Whatever the truth, I have no issue with people engaging in local politics, but the question remains is it being done transparently on this forum, and in the good faith manner a local debate between neighbours should be?  

[first mate]

Your consistent attempts to conflate those who disagree with your views on local traffic changes with far right political groups is risible. It is clear what you are trying to do and does you no favours.

Posters on here who happen to agree with views on local traffic and road layout changes as expressed by One Dulwich, are fed up locals who know the council is not interested in their views. Something that has been demonstrated again and again when the council has proceeded with its preferred agenda, without mandate, rejecting consultation results.

It is the Council, not One Dulwich, that has the power. It is the Council that in this issue is treating locals with contempt.

[Glemham]

4 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

 

This same sense of opaqueness and the sense I feel of things not quite adding up applies to some of the posters on this forum. They claim they have no idea or no interest in who might behind One Dulwich, and yet demonstrate a detailed knowledge of local politics and a relentless anti-council agenda that would suggest being political activists. The sustained attack lines and strong alignment with One Dulwich's pronouncements suggest a campaign. They might of course deny this, and say it is all a massive coincidence. Whatever the truth, I have no issue with people engaging in local politics, but the question remains is it being done transparently on this forum, and in the good faith manner a local debate between neighbours should be?  

Please could you explain the difference between being a “political activist” and “people engaging in local politics”? You seem to be suggesting the former is not to be trusted, but the latter is acceptable. 

[first mate]

Take note how daring to voice disagreement with traffic and road measures in your local area on a local forum is reframed as a "relentless anti council agenda". 

[Glemham]

Indeed! You are entitled to your opinion and to speak freely as long as you don’t  criticise the Council agenda ………….now where have I been reading recently about similar attitudes to “Free” speech?

[ab29]

Campaign Update | 24 Feb

West Dulwich Action Group High Court hearing West Dulwich Action Group’s legal case against Lambeth for imposing an LTN has been heard in the High Court. The hearing was widely reported in the national press, including the Standard. It is likely to be a few weeks before the judge delivers his verdict.  New review highlights scale of opposition to LTNs A review of 90 LTNs across 17 London boroughs and six other UK cities has found that the overwhelming majority were brought in without community support. Of the 78 LTNs that were subject to public consultations, 86% had sizeable majorities of respondents opposed. Despite this, three out of four LTNs were imposed anyway. The review, based on councils’ own published results, was carried out on behalf of a coalition of more than 15 local campaign groups by One Dulwich, who are quoted in last Saturday’s Times. The article highlights the extent to which councils manipulated survey questions and results to disguise the scale of opposition. Safety at the Dulwich Village junction One Dulwich has written to Southwark Council expressing major concerns about safety at the re-designed junction, urging the Council to install better signage and road markings, and to improve crossing points. Because of the risk of serious accidents, we have asked for the Council to respond as a matter of urgency.  Thank you for your support. Best wishes,

The One Dulwich Team

[Bicknell]

thanks for posting @ab29

intresting review of ltns

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just for a little balance, the 'review' was undertaken by anti-LTN campaign groups and looks at the responses to online consultation exercises. These exercises are not remotely representative.

Polling involving representative samples, consistently show majority support for LTNs. 

Edited February 26 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

Personally, I would like to see Southwark using professional polling to establish a representative picture of local views and to ensure that minority views do not dominate the discourse. I believe that this is now recommended by central government.

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Just for a little balance, the 'review' was undertaken by anti-LTN campaign groups and looks at the responses to online consultation exercises. These exercises are not remotely representative.

Just for a little balance, all the counter information was undertaken by pro-LTN groups, including Southwark Council itself. The Council is always careful to ensure that no form of actual poll which can be claimed to be authoritative is ever undertaken by itself, in case the poll goes against it - it can thus always claim that it's consultations aren't actually statistically valid (i.e. referenda) or need to be followed if the 'poll' goes against it. It 'consults' to meet requirements, it dodges any results it doesn't like to meet its own objectives. These exercises are not remotely representative too - or at least that's its position when it doesn't like the answer.

[first mate]

Case in point, the new East Dulwich CPZ questionnaire, currently out to residents on Melbourne Grove South and roads off it. That questionnaire forces you to give a preference response for CPZ timings, but you cannot answer that you do not want CPZ at all,not in that bit. So they are skewing the results. You are also told that if you refuse to answer that bit your whole questionnaire response will be invalidated. In other words, they need your response, because it helps them construct their preferred narrative. 

The CPZ narrative is now being reframed as balancing the needs of visitors using cars with those of residents who use cars. They are also now trumpeting that they will be leaving plenty of parking on Lordship Lane. But, won't that just increase pressure on buses?

When CPZ was first proposed in the area, it was all about discouraging visitors in cars, because, allegedly, these car-using visitors were placing huge pressure on local residents. Funny how things change. Now the Council is seemingly falling over itself to accommodate visiting car-users...

First CPZ was anti visitor -'we must protect local residents and keep car-using visitors out';

Then it was anti any cars- 'we must green our streets and tax all car users so hard the pips squeak, and to make this happen we will force through a combination of LTNs, CPZ and double yellow lines and soon there will be borough wide CPZ and (if Cllr McAsh has his way) no cars at all'.

The latest narrative it is all about protecting the rights of car- using visitors and shoppers. 'We must ensure there is enough parking for visitors, because the evil and greedy, car- using residents are all clogging up the local streets where they live. We will helpfully put in lots of paid parking bays and ensure cars can park along Lordship Lane (creating even more chaos and congestion).

For the council all these conflicting narratives are great fun and so lucrative, with more opportunities to charge everyone.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

Just for a little balance, all the counter information was undertaken by pro-LTN groups, including Southwark Council itself. The Council is always careful to ensure that no form of actual poll which can be claimed to be authoritative is ever undertaken by itself, in case the poll goes against it - it can thus always claim that it's consultations aren't actually statistically valid (i.e. referenda) or need to be followed if the 'poll' goes against it. It 'consults' to meet requirements, it dodges any results it doesn't like to meet its own objectives. These exercises are not remotely representative too - or at least that's its position when it doesn't like the answer.

Conspiratorial stuff aside, I absolutely agree that the council should use professional polling to get a proper idea of local sentiment (as I already said). Wherever representative polling does take place it shows most people want less priority given to cars and support for things like LTNS. I have absolutely no doubt that a representative sample of those living locally would show a large majority in favour of retaining Dulwich square.

Edited February 26 by Earl Aelfheah

[alice]

Depends how you define locally. Some of us have increased traffic because of dulwich village road blocks.  

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sounds like a fairly rare point of agreement on this thread. Suggest people email their councillor suggesting the use of professional polling to establish a representative picture of local views on changes in future, and ensure minority views do not dominate the discourse. 

Edited February 26 by Earl Aelfheah

[fredricketts]

On 09/09/2023 at 11:56, Rockets said:

One Dulwich have sent their latest update.

 

One Dulwich

 

Campaign Update | 9 Sep

What Southwark is now saying about the Dulwich LTNs

 

As you know, we met Cllr James McAsh (who took over from Cllr Catherine Rose as the Council’s decision-maker on LTNs) in June, and raised our continuing concerns about missing data, traffic displacement, delays to buses, the impact on local shops and businesses, and discrimination against people with disabilities.

 

Cllr McAsh said he would respond within two months, and we received his reply on 24 August.

 

Basically, he hasn’t budged an inch. It seems more important to him to avoid disagreeing with his predecessor’s decision than to address the very real problems that these LTNs are causing in the Dulwich area.

 

There are three key revelations from Cllr McAsh summarised in three reports on our website:

 

1) traffic count data - the baseline data is “not a perfect comparison” with post-LTN data, so it’s impossible to tell if the LTNs have reduced or increased traffic;

 

2) air quality data cannot be reliably linked to specific local interventions, so it’s impossible to tell if the LTNs have improved or worsened air quality;

 

3) discrimination continues against those who have disabilities, or who are frail or housebound (and all those who care for them), as the Dulwich Village junction remains closed 24/7 all but emergency vehicles.

 

We have written to Cllr McAsh asking why he has so singularly failed to respond to the issues we raised in our meeting.

 

We will now pass all this information on to the Prime Minister’s review of LTNs. Separately, we are seeking advice about how the Council’s failure to take into account the needs of those with disabilities can be challenged. (Please get in touch if you have any expertise or experience in Public Law and can help with this.)

 

Please also encourage friends, family and neighbours to join us. We are continuing to campaign because there is no evidence at all that the Dulwich LTNs are meeting the Council’s aims to reduce traffic, make our air cleaner, increase active travel or improve road safety. The Council is not looking after the needs of the Dulwich community.

 

Best wishes,

 

The One Dulwich Team

2 hours ago, first mate said:

Case in point, the new East Dulwich CPZ questionnaire, currently out to residents on Melbourne Grove South and roads off it. That questionnaire forces you to give a preference response for CPZ timings, but you cannot answer that you do not want CPZ at all,not in that bit. So they are skewing the results. You are also told that if you refuse to answer that bit your whole questionnaire response will be invalidated. In other words, they need your response, because it helps them construct their preferred narrative. 

The CPZ narrative is now being reframed as balancing the needs of visitors using cars with those of residents who use cars. They are also now trumpeting that they will be leaving plenty of parking on Lordship Lane. But, won't that just increase pressure on buses?

When CPZ was first proposed in the area, it was all about discouraging visitors in cars, because, allegedly, these car-using visitors were placing huge pressure on local residents. Funny how things change. Now the Council is seemingly falling over itself to accommodate visiting car-users...

First CPZ was anti visitor -'we must protect local residents and keep car-using visitors out';

Then it was anti any cars- 'we must green our streets and tax all car users so hard the pips squeak, and to make this happen we will force through a combination of LTNs, CPZ and double yellow lines and soon there will be borough wide CPZ and (if Cllr McAsh has his way) no cars at all'.

The latest narrative it is all about protecting the rights of car- using visitors and shoppers. 'We must ensure there is enough parking for visitors, because the evil and greedy, car- using residents are all clogging up the local streets where they live. We will helpfully put in lots of paid parking bays and ensure cars can park along Lordship Lane (creating even more chaos and congestion).

For the council all these conflicting narratives are great fun and so lucrative, with more opportunities to charge everyone.

Its all for the Money. supposed to make safer streets, Ashbourne grove, since the LTN in Melbourne Grove has been put in I have caught on camera over 20 lorries some artic coming down the road, not been able to get out, so they back all the way down the road into Lordship lane, which is illegal. Now they want CPZ in the whole area and yes they have manipulated the Times Question, and if I read it right only 16 people contacted them to introduce CPZ. it gives the Council a income for the life time of the Council and will increase every year. those who paid for crossovers will have double yellow lines put in front of their houses to stop them parking on the road. its one big scam connected to Net zero and climate change rubbish.

23 minutes ago, fredricketts said:

Its all for the Money. supposed to make safer streets, Ashbourne grove, since the LTN in Melbourne Grove has been put in I have caught on camera over 20 lorries some artic coming down the road, not been able to get out, so they back all the way down the road into Lordship lane, which is illegal. Now they want CPZ in the whole area and yes they have manipulated the Times Question, and if I read it right only 16 people contacted them to introduce CPZ. it gives the Council a income for the life time of the Council and will increase every year. those who paid for crossovers will have double yellow lines put in front of their houses to stop them parking on the road. its one big scam connected to Net zero and climate change rubbish.

 

23 minutes ago, fredricketts said:

Its all for the Money. supposed to make safer streets, Ashbourne grove, since the LTN in Melbourne Grove has been put in I have caught on camera over 20 lorries some artic coming down the road, not been able to get out, so they back all the way down the road into Lordship lane, which is illegal. Now they want CPZ in the whole area and yes they have manipulated the Times Question, and if I read it right only 16 people contacted them to introduce CPZ. it gives the Council a income for the life time of the Council and will increase every year. those who paid for crossovers will have double yellow lines put in front of their houses to stop them parking on the road. its one big scam connected to Net zero and climate change rubbish.

The LTNs in Melbourne Grove have forced all the vehicles onto the main roads there by trebling the pollution, remembering Southwark Council pulled down a Police station on the main road and built a school Lordship Lane. it has trebled the traffic on our main roads. one time in East h road because of road works and the LTNs traffic was diverted, and had a 3 mile detour down to Kings college and back to Hearn Hill 

[Earl Aelfheah]

18 hours ago, fredricketts said:

The LTNs in Melbourne Grove have forced all the vehicles onto the main roads there by trebling the pollution

How have you concluded that there has been a trebling of pollution?

The data I've seen suggests pollution (NO2) has been dropping across the area:

SDT	Location	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023
139	Lamppost (2139 - L29) Grove Lane			33.2	24.1	27.5		18.6
136	Lamppost (2160 - L12) adjacent to Dog Kennel Hill School			33.8	20.2	23.9	22.3	20.1
138	Lamppost (2127 - L11) Pytchley Road			31.1	24.7	27.4	25.9	23.4
114	Lamppost No 1 Goose Green / East Dulwich Road	37.4	31.6	33	22.6	25.2	25	21.8
161	Lamppost 2120-02 adjacent to 8 East Dulwich Grove						29.2	25.3
162	On the southern downpipe at Harris East Dulwich Primary School, Lordship Lane						23	22.1
151	Junction of Townley Road & Lordship Lane Lamppost ( 2300 - 01)			28.6	18.6	22	20.1	17
97	Barry Road	37.5	37.3	32.5	24.3	26.8	24.4	23

Edited February 27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Bicknell]

source/link for data, pls @Earl Aelfheah

there used to be a dulwich data dashboard. but not on council website now

[Earl Aelfheah]

I’ve provided the site IDs (the SDT numbers) and given the location of the monitoring equipment. It's all publicly available data. Southwark publish an annual report with all the NO2 readings. You can easily Google it. But may I ask why you’ve not even questioned what data there is to back up the claim that pollution has ‘trebled’ (where, over which time period etc)?

I think the Data dashboard you're referring to related to vehicle counts, not pollution levels.

Edited Friday at 15:41 by Earl Aelfheah

[Bicknell]

 

here is  southwark report

London Borough of Southwark Air Quality annual status report 2023

figures diffrent from figures they gave before for 2023

sdt 161 is  8 east dulich grove (near junction with lordship).   report says 2023 figure 25.3

but in 2023 council said figure was 36 LTN+Air+Quality+2023.pdf

anyone work this  out?

Same with sdt 98 (south circular/underhill) – southark said was 40 in 2023 - now says 29.8

[Earl Aelfheah]

Before we start getting into a debate about the detail of the data we do have (which I’m very willing to do.. the second document gives a six- month average for the first half of 2023 and is marked as unratified values without bias adjustment / subject to change in 2024), can we first clarify where the figure of a ‘trebling in pollution’ comes from? Because it feels like there are some fairly obvious double standards when it comes to scrutiny of different statements in relation to evidence around the impact of the Dulwich LTN. 

…as in there is zero scrutiny of regular, unevidenced claims made in opposition of the LTN.

Edited Friday at 19:02 by Earl Aelfheah

[Bicknell]

think better to look at data

big diffrence in figures

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 28/02/2025 at 20:39, Bicknell said:

think better to look at data

big diffrence in figures

Nope. There is multi-year data across a number of local sites. All showing pollution falling. You have dug out two examples of data for a six- month average covering the first half of 2023 (clearly marked as unratified values without bias adjustment / subject to change in 2024), which have subsequently been updated to provide the full year figure.

On the other hand we have a claim that pollution has trebled. With no source, and completely at odds with official data. So is that just made up? Is that fine? If we're playing that game, I'd like to point out that every Dulwich resident has got 3 inches taller and seen their income double as a result of the changes on Calton avenue. Now show me data on height or income and I'll try to pick it apart. That's how it works right?

Edited Monday at 12:36 by Earl Aelfheah