Dulwich Village Phase 3 consultation

[Rockets]

The council are back, trying again with the Dulwich Village changes

 

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-village-phase-3-design/

[Rockets]

Is it just me or is anyone else struggling with what benefit there is of these changes - seems to be a lot of money being spent on doing very little indeed to the existing design?

 

I wonder how much this exercise is costing (and how much has been spent thus far) and whether that money could be put to something more valuable to the local community like sorting out the Lordship Lane/East Dulwich Grove death-trap junction? Dulwich Square is becoming an expensive white elephant for the Southwark tax payer!

[ab29]

Dulwich Village junction has to be reopened.

Hundred of thousands of pounds waisted on the vanity project called ltn and yet the pavements near Wood Vale have not been cleared once this Autumn.

No surprise the councills are going bankrupt.

[CPR Dave]

This is another survey that you can't complete at all unless you agree to the council harvesting your data. There is no option to opt of data collection if you want to proceed with the survey. 

I'm not sure how they square that with GDPR.

[heartblock]

They are obsessed... just clean our roads of leaves, litter and dog poo, empty the bins and keep our storm drains working..... please stop with this nonsense!

[Rockets]

Who are they pandering too with these proposals, they seem utterly pointless and a complete waste of money as do very little to change the junction. Is this some sort of legacy vanity plan for the Village councillors? The council has wasted so much money on this junction and on each occassion it has made things worse. Remember the first bit of meddling they did to "reduce emissions" and their own research showed it had the opposite effect and increased emissions. Its becoming an expensive joke - perhaps it needs a plaque paying respect to the huge amount of tax payers money buried with whatever changes they put in!

[first mate]

 

Rockets Posted 15 hours ago (edited)

Ha ha…Cllr McAsh seemed to be squirming a bit….here is the link…20 mins in

 

 

- interesting that the meeting on the 10th at the library about 100 people turned up but were told it was 1:1 format and people had to register. Certainly when I saw the invite to the event there was no mention of 1:1 format or the need to register a second time. Cllr McAsh’s explanation is bumbling to say the least and he doesn’t sound too convinced of what he is relaying to the deputation group. It seemed to me it was a community meeting not this “drop-in 1:1” format that the council now seems to prefer….are they trying to divide and conquer, they really seem to hate having to address an audience of constituents….?

- also interesting to hear that an FOI showed there had been no requests for CPZs on some of the roads that, on the council materials, had shown requests had been made. Another oversight per chance…..?

 

- Cllr McAsh admitted there were problems with deliveries of the consultation leaflets and that there could have been issues with the company they use with the addresses…..this is rather odd because if you say hand-deliver to every house on Eynella Road how difficult is it….? The fact they are going to re-issue the documents is very interesting but they will have to get a crack on….and he seemed to indicate they will be posted rather than hand-delivered so expect to receive them one week after the consultation closes at yet more expense to the tax-payer! 😉

 

- his mention during the drop-in discussion about the active community in Dulwich Village makes me suggest they have a fight on their hands and maybe this isn’t going to be plain sailing for them….but also the fact that the council has, again, messed up communication. His closing comments on that part are incredible….that somehow because the local community had to rely on word of mouth to communicate about the meetings and more people turned up than the council was expecting, because people hadn’t received the council’s documentation, is a poor reflection on the council’s communication skills.

 His reminder that it is a consultation not a vote is a clear indication that the council is likely to ignore the views of residents and push forward with the CPZ regardless of the outcome.

 

Oh my, we have seen so much of this type of behaviour before from the council - how many more times can they pull these tricks….?

Edited 15 hours ago by Rockets

[malumbu]

Did he talk about the open air swimming pool they have constructed at the East Dulwich Grove/Dulwich Village crossing?  Pah, pandering to those in the leafy boroughs again.  It's enough to get you all angry and post on the EDF.

 

 

[Spartacus]

  On 22/01/2024 at 16:09, malumbu said:

Did he talk about the open air swimming pool they have constructed at the East Dulwich Grove/Dulwich Village crossing?  Pah, pandering to those in the leafy boroughs again.  It's enough to get you all angry and post on the EDF.

 

 

Expand  

Are you agreeing that the road closure at the Dulwich Village junction is pandering to those in the leafy Borough there Mal ? 

Certainly feels like it, welcome to the dark side 

[first mate]

Eh, what Malumbu? First you complain about the former post being in the wrong thread, then when it is posted in the right thread, you try to take the subject off thread.

This thread is about CPZ consultation. 

To get back on thread, as Rockets stated earlier, Cllr McAsh states that the consultation on CPZ in Dulwich Village has been extended.

Do watch the resident deputation approx 18 minutes in. It is rather revealing and indicates that Southwark may have been using flawed (completely invented) data to support its rationale that DV needs CPZ.

 

[CPR Dave]

"Not our responsibility" "we're doing a pretty good job"

Shameless 

[first mate]

In the latest council meeting, Cllr McAsh said that letters were to be mailed out to residents in DV about the consultation. I am interested to know if anyone has received a letter?  

The latest mailing was necessary (possibly to meet legal obligations) because somehow the original hand mailing, street by street, seems to have missed whole streets and houses on streets.

Given the consultation period, albeit extended, ends on 28 January, it is cutting it a bit fine.

If residents have had their letters that is great, but interesting to know, given the parlous state of the post.