Josephone Avenue
High Trees
Strathleven Rd
Palace Road
Crescent Lane
Pretty much all postwar housing....
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
High Trees
Strathleven Rd
Palace Road
Crescent Lane
Pretty much all postwar housing....
I guess that why some choose to argue about the process as they have been shown to massively improve areas and are popular - who would rip any of those out?
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
You could also argue that any one way street introduces an LTN eg Sudbourne Rd, Hayter Rd.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
I’m sure this has been mentioned before but Ultimately it's a bit of a moot point isn't it?
"This briefing also provides an overview of Equality Impact Assessments. These are assessments that public authorities often carry out prior to implementing policies, with a view to predicting their impact on equality. The Equality Act 2010 does not specifically require them to be carried out, although they are a way of facilitating and evidencing compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty."
The document/report just makes it easier to demonstrate you've considered the impacts. Which is why the "that's not a proper EQIA" or "it doesn't look like other ones I've seen" are also a bit of a dead end and likely why the judge found as he did.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I've been avoiding some of this thread as I'm repeating myself.
We fundamentally disagree on what constitutes consultation.
These aren't "experimental" LTNs. At best consultation is for a few tweaks. That imo is not consultation. Nor is it "experimental".
The Council took decision to go about it this way and I don't support it.
They're all f**king crazy
editor
hiraethified
This is a very strange line of reasoning (from Buzz comments):
Anti LTN bloke:
Maybe you should read the text rather than firing off missives: I said “affluent car owners” not all vehicle owners in the borough. Case in point: I took a walk down Railton one evening last week and as a Maserati cruised pass me near the Hamilton I spotted a brand new 5.0 litre Ford Mustang parked up at the Herne Hill end. After that I thought blimey, has Clarkson moved into the neighbourhood! You can’t make this stuff up.
Me:
I’m just dropping into this interesting debate, but could you explain the relationship between an expensive sports car driving past you in the street and the pros and cons of LTNs?
I walk around Brixton a lot and see expensive cars parked up in all sorts of areas, including the Moorlands Estate and am curious as to what their relevance is to the argument.
Anti LTN bloke:
there seems to be no move within the LTN barriers from motor car ownership. These type of vehicles must be most embarrassing to the pro-LTN cause. Remember that their MO is all the owners of filthy, gas-guzzling, polluting cars live the outside the barriers, whereas if you believe the stuff they churn out they cycle, skateboard and land yacht everywhere.
These specific cars I used as good examples simply because they are not exactly electric/biofuel/green are they?
Me:
I’m confused how can a passing sports car and a nice car parked near Herne Hill be “most embarrassing to the pro-LTN cause.”
What relationship are you seeing between pro-LTN campaigners and passing cars?
Anti LTN bloke:
To reiterate: pro-LTNers seem to be in denial that cars exist within the barrier schemes – and they certainly display no interest in actively reducing car ownership within them.
Therefore, how will their blessed miracle of “traffic evaporation” ever occur if they are still driving about?
www.brixtonbuzz.com
Anti LTN bloke:
Maybe you should read the text rather than firing off missives: I said “affluent car owners” not all vehicle owners in the borough. Case in point: I took a walk down Railton one evening last week and as a Maserati cruised pass me near the Hamilton I spotted a brand new 5.0 litre Ford Mustang parked up at the Herne Hill end. After that I thought blimey, has Clarkson moved into the neighbourhood! You can’t make this stuff up.
Me:
I’m just dropping into this interesting debate, but could you explain the relationship between an expensive sports car driving past you in the street and the pros and cons of LTNs?
I walk around Brixton a lot and see expensive cars parked up in all sorts of areas, including the Moorlands Estate and am curious as to what their relevance is to the argument.
Anti LTN bloke:
there seems to be no move within the LTN barriers from motor car ownership. These type of vehicles must be most embarrassing to the pro-LTN cause. Remember that their MO is all the owners of filthy, gas-guzzling, polluting cars live the outside the barriers, whereas if you believe the stuff they churn out they cycle, skateboard and land yacht everywhere.
These specific cars I used as good examples simply because they are not exactly electric/biofuel/green are they?
Me:
I’m confused how can a passing sports car and a nice car parked near Herne Hill be “most embarrassing to the pro-LTN cause.”
What relationship are you seeing between pro-LTN campaigners and passing cars?
Anti LTN bloke:
To reiterate: pro-LTNers seem to be in denial that cars exist within the barrier schemes – and they certainly display no interest in actively reducing car ownership within them.
Therefore, how will their blessed miracle of “traffic evaporation” ever occur if they are still driving about?
Lambeth Council issues statement about ongoing vandalism around Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes
With some anti-Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) campaigners continuing their campaign of vandalising and destroying the planters, signs and cameras used to control traffic, Lambeth Council has issue…
www.brixtonbuzz.com
liquidindian
Hello
It's true. I thought I'd able to cycle to work via Railton Road and Shakespeare Road but I keep smacking straight into cars I don't believe are there.
snowy_again
Slush
They're all f**king crazy!This is a very strange line of reasoning (from Buzz comments):
Anti LTN bloke:
Maybe you should read the text rather than firing off missives: I said “affluent car owners” not all vehicle owners in the borough. Case in point: I took a walk down Railton one evening last week and as a Maserati cruised pass me near the Hamilton I spotted a brand new 5.0 litre Ford Mustang parked up at the Herne Hill end. After that I thought blimey, has Clarkson moved into the neighbourhood! You can’t make this stuff up.
Me:
I’m just dropping into this interesting debate, but could you explain the relationship between an expensive sports car driving past you in the street and the pros and cons of LTNs?
I walk around Brixton a lot and see expensive cars parked up in all sorts of areas, including the Moorlands Estate and am curious as to what their relevance is to the argument.
Anti LTN bloke:
there seems to be no move within the LTN barriers from motor car ownership. These type of vehicles must be most embarrassing to the pro-LTN cause. Remember that their MO is all the owners of filthy, gas-guzzling, polluting cars live the outside the barriers, whereas if you believe the stuff they churn out they cycle, skateboard and land yacht everywhere.
These specific cars I used as good examples simply because they are not exactly electric/biofuel/green are they?
Me:
I’m confused how can a passing sports car and a nice car parked near Herne Hill be “most embarrassing to the pro-LTN cause.”
What relationship are you seeing between pro-LTN campaigners and passing cars?
Anti LTN bloke:
To reiterate: pro-LTNers seem to be in denial that cars exist within the barrier schemes – and they certainly display no interest in actively reducing car ownership within them.
Therefore, how will their blessed miracle of “traffic evaporation” ever occur if they are still driving about?
Lambeth Council issues statement about ongoing vandalism around Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes
With some anti-Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) campaigners continuing their campaign of vandalising and destroying the planters, signs and cameras used to control traffic, Lambeth Council has issue…
snowy_again
Slush
It’s also a classic stage of the Bridges model of change management- we’ve gone from denial to bargaining (“if we can’t drive on these roads why should anyone else” - when the roads are still all accessible just not for through routes.
liquidindian
Hello
Fifteen quid a sign, apparently. I'd be checking the signmaker's alibi.
Not condoning anyone else removing it but it’s not private property and the council removes estate agent signs from there.
Anyway, good to see the Sth Circular between 2 LTNs nice and clear in the pics!
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
My reading of the judgement is that the extraordinary circumstances led him to favour Lambeth:
Also he is saying that more should be done in the future:
That is why I say he is giving Lambeth the benefit of the doubt.
If they don't do this they could be subject to further challenge.
He says this:
So imo the judgement is setting a standard for the future. In that way its was useful to do a JR.
Also he is saying that more should be done in the future:
Further assessment should be done over and above past EQIAs
That is why I say he is giving Lambeth the benefit of the doubt.
If they don't do this they could be subject to further challenge.
He says this:
So imo the judgement is setting a standard for the future. In that way its was useful to do a JR.
My understanding was that he allowed the appeal as he didn’t want to set a precedent for rolling assessments which seems fair. Still can’t see how if the appeal was won any LTNs would actually be removed which is why the majority are donating.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
To add the Judge did find that Sofia was right.
He agrees her problem was not identified.
Which is why I'm wondering why Lambeth hasn't said publicly how its going to deal with this problem.
After all he is giving Lambeth time to show it will mitigate specific problems. The judgement supports this one by Sofia.
But I've heard nothing from Council about how it will mitigate this.
He agrees her problem was not identified.
Which is why I'm wondering why Lambeth hasn't said publicly how its going to deal with this problem.
After all he is giving Lambeth time to show it will mitigate specific problems. The judgement supports this one by Sofia.
But I've heard nothing from Council about how it will mitigate this.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Which is all you care about.
It’s what the people donating care about.
The assessment isn’t about making sure no one is affected by the changes but that the impacts are recognised and decisions made on that basis. An expensive court case doesn’t seem a good way to resolve any issues, and seems to have been taker very early rather than exhausting other avenues. Apparently local councillors weren’t even contacted first.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I'm a bit tired of this thread. So thought Id actually read up the judgement and give my view of it.
This is democracy. As Ive said previously it does not come cheap. You cannot do a JR if it does not meet the right conditions.
If you think cases like this are illegitimate perhaps you should support idea of making it more difficult to bring these cases against a local authority and restricting legal aid to them.
Set the bar higher to make it more difficult for disabled person to bring a case against Lambeth.
If a disabled person brings a case like this have it so that those who are part funding it are questioned to see if its a legitimate case.
Set more hurdles about how the money is raised. Etc.
Just ideas as you are so set against this JR.
Last edited:
Never said it’s illegitimate and corrected you on this several times, making the point that it might not be the best course of action, after all the JR did find (heavily) in Lambeth’s favour.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Its exactly what you are saying.
You're just winding me up.
I've tried to post up based on reading the actual judgement and your giving me stuff like this.
Its a total annoying wind up.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Your saying its an expensive court case. So what? That is democracy. People have right to do this.
By saying this you are saying its illegitimate.
Not trying to wind you up, just correcting you when you constantly seem to deliberately misconstrue and ignore what people say.
What’s weird is people only wanting to argue about process rather than the pros and cons of the schemes. There’s a wider view and bigger concepts to be discussed eg. how we actually want our local areas to work and we tackle a very real & incredible scary climate crisis.
You have an obvious dislike for the council and I’m not here to defend them, but this really isn’t about them.
editor
hiraethified
I wonder if they have any evidence at all that people have actually gone around inserting rusty screws into tyres.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I'm posting up my reading of the judgement.
Now you are questioning my motives and purporting to lump me together with other people.
So me reading the actual judgement and posting up about it means I'm weird.
I'm trying not to get involved in the nastiness on this thread.
This post is insulting and makes me so angry. I've tried to actually read stuff up and comment on it.
Why are you doing this?
You say your aren't trying to wind me up then do whole post designed to wind me up.
Your actually saying this to me someone whose spent years on how my local areas work , engaging with the Council.
I'm incensed.
I’ve been trying to engage in a wider discussion with you but you’re not interested, fair enough but don’t accuse me of wanting to make court cases harder or calling them illegitimate.
For those that are interested the consultation for Southwark’s Walworth LTN is now open.
It’s now a great route to cycle between Brixton and Elephant & Castle avoiding the A3 and also a really nice area:
It’s now a great route to cycle between Brixton and Elephant & Castle avoiding the A3 and also a really nice area:
Our Healthy Walworth Review - London Borough of Southwark - Citizen Space
Find and participate in consultations run by Southwark London Borough Council
consultations.southwark.gov.uk
Similar threads
