Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

More weird stuff going on in Dulwich.

An account tweets that Southwark Council has awarded £6000 to a pro healthy streets group. Lots of the usual suspects fall over themselves to share this.



Except the group denies it. There was an application for funds but they didn't submit it.



And it turns out the whole thing was a fraud. (thread)

 
Last edited:
Just received emails from Lambeth that Blue Badge Holders can now finally apply for an exemption from one filter in Railton or Oval/Stockwell LTNs. Up to 2 vehicles can be registered
beta.lambeth.gov.uk

Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) dispensation

If you are a Blue Badge holder, you can apply for a dispensation to access a traffic filter location within a given Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN).
beta.lambeth.gov.uk beta.lambeth.gov.uk
 
sparkybird said:
Just received emails from Lambeth that Blue Badge Holders can now finally apply for an exemption from one filter in Railton or Oval/Stockwell LTNs. Up to 2 vehicles can be registered
beta.lambeth.gov.uk

Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) dispensation

If you are a Blue Badge holder, you can apply for a dispensation to access a traffic filter location within a given Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN).
beta.lambeth.gov.uk beta.lambeth.gov.uk
Click to expand...
Has anyone heard from the anti’s recently ?
 
alex_ said:
Has anyone heard from the anti’s recently ?
Click to expand...
They seem to just be focussed on ‘the increased pollution’. Really sticks in the throat that those happily polluting everyone so easily try and blame those looking to improve things. Luckily most are well aware of their priorities.
 
edcraw said:
chowce5382 are you part of this plan to raise a legal challenge to the traffic orders for Oval & Railton?

View attachment 314386
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by legal challenge.
From what I see above this is predicated on a number of (legal) assumptions. As such those assumptions will probably need to be met before a challenge is made. Ed - feel free to give some professional advice on this as it would be good to know your legal thought process.

Anyone got anything to say about the recent story of a counsel lying about pollution?

After all, you guys have been telling everyone that it’s down on all roads everywhere.

Looking to forward to the yes but no answers, or the, “we’re actually trying to make the world better but you drive a car” answer (even if we don’t) and what we’ve been saying previously has now been admitted by a counsel that is a major advocate of LTNs).

Personally, and given the stories coming from BrixtonBuzz, I’m not entirely sure that the council are entirely focussed on the things that matter (housing etc). However, I’m sure you’ll spent the next few days putting me right and pointing out that a council was completely right in what it has said.

Given you guys care so much about this, it’s surprising that there is very little on this topic on here. I would have assumed that you’d be shocked and would be calling this counsel out. You aren’t, because it doesn’t back up your narrative.

Looking forward to people picking into the exact use of language rather than addressing the point.

Off you go…
 
Counsel or council? Kind of confusing when changing the subject from a legal case.

Thanks for your answer - was just wondering how you’ll be finding any further legal fees?

Really don’t know enough about the scheme in Islington to comment tbh. Only read this article but it’s LBC so 🤷

I thought your focus was solely on the effect on people with disabilities?

As mentioned above it’s interesting how the argument seems to have focussed on pollution now. It’ll be good to see OneLambeth getting behind the ULEZ extension and I’d be interested to hear you’re other ideas of tackling it - or is it all down to LTNs?
 
Last edited:
Okay - so it was an error in an interim report apparently. The full year report shows rises in pollution but they are inline (less within the LTN) with borough wide rises of over 15%!!!! Where’s the fucking outrage over that ffs!

Page 74 onwards.

chowce5382 little tip - if only LBC is reporting a story (especially on traffic) there’s probably more going on.
 
Last edited:
Anyway - back to the court case chowce5382 - on what basis do you think you can challenge the traffic orders? I thought your barrister said they were separate from the emergency ones.
 
Last edited:
edcraw said:
Anyway - back to the court case chowce5382 - on what basis do you think you can challenge the traffic orders? I thought your barrister said they were separate from the emergency ones.
Click to expand...
Every order is separate from another order, by definition, if it’s a different order in a different place. Doesn’t mean that’s it’s not capable of challenge on the same, or a similar basis.
 
edcraw said:
Okay - so it was an error in an interim report apparently. The full year report shows rises in pollution but they are inline (less within the LTN) with borough wide rises of over 15%!!!! Where’s the ducking outrage over that ffs!

Page 74 onwards.

chowce5382 little tip - if only LBC is reporting a story (especially on traffic) there’s probably more going on.
Click to expand...
and a couple of broadsheets. So pollution is down then? Pretty big error. Did they mix up the plus and minus sign again? Or is it up in general?
 
chowce5382 said:
Every order is separate from another order, by definition, if it’s a different order in a different place. Doesn’t mean that’s it’s not capable of challenge on the same, or a similar basis.
Click to expand...
And that’s the question - on what basis does OneLambeth think they can challenge these orders?
 
chowce5382 said:
and a couple of broadsheets. So pollution is down then? Pretty big error. Did they mix up the plus and minus sign again? Or is it up in general?
Click to expand...
I don’t really know - it’s another borough, I’m just reading the full year report. The story is about an earlier report. You bought it up so presumably you know the ins and outs.
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
So, pollution is still going up everywhere, but that’s the fault of a few LTN’s, yes? That’s now the loons argument?

How quickly “the disabled” are forgotten, eh?
Click to expand...
If pollution is up since their implementation then that’s a bad thing. I’m just pointing out that your argument (as a collective group) has always been that they reduce pollution and that traffic is displaced and evaporates. Just your argument so it’s interesting to understand whether pollution is has gone up or down and whether this can be attributed to LTNs or whether is just randomly gone up since then and for no related reason.

You’ll see that the purpose I’m doing this originally has not been forgotten given that there is another legal challenge which has just gone in.
 
chowce5382 said:
If pollution is up since their implementation then that’s a bad thing. I’m just pointing out that your argument (as a collective group) has always been that they reduce pollution and that traffic is displaced and evaporates. Just your argument so it’s interesting to understand whether pollution is has gone up or down and whether this can be attributed to LTNs or whether is just randomly gone up since then and for no related reason.

You’ll see that the purpose I’m doing this originally has not been forgotten given that there is another legal challenge which has just gone in.
Click to expand...
I’m of the view that pollution arguments are entirely secondary to the simple removal of through traffic from residential streets/city centres. Replace every polluting car out there with an electric one and nothing changes. Our streets will still be cramped and dangerous. We will still have rat runs and traffic jams. Pavements will still be blocked by parked cars.

We need less cars.
 
edcraw said:
What legal challenge?
Click to expand...
Not in London.

On the above comment which I assume is from Facebook or something similar, we’ll look at each order as and when it’s made and make a decision on whether/how to challenge based on the merits of that order. As they are all individual then you have to take an individual approach
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
I’m of the view that pollution arguments are entirely secondary to the simple removal of through traffic from residential streets/city centres. Replace every polluting car out there with an electric one and nothing changes. Our streets will still be cramped and dangerous. We will still have rat runs and traffic jams. Pavements will still be blocked by parked cars.

We need less cars.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I don’t see that many pavements blocked by parked cars, they tend to be on the street.
 
chowce5382 said:
Not in London.

On the above comment which I assume is from Facebook or something similar, we’ll look at each order as and when it’s made and make a decision on whether/how to challenge based on the merits of that order. As they are all individual then you have to take an individual approach
Click to expand...
It's from your Twitter account.
 
edcraw said:
You're not paying attention then. In our area Coburg Crescent & Gaywood Close are particularly awful.
Click to expand...
Not a single car on the pavements anywhere near where I walk, everything is on the street rather than the pavement. I’ll keep an eye out but I walk everywhere and generally don’t see this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
655
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Coronation (and anti Coronation events this weekend in and around Brixton
Replies
5
Views
763
Gramsci
Gramsci
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Tulster218
T
editor
Who remembers Jayday in Brixton and Brockwell Park, May 2003?
Replies
10
Views
1K
Meerkat
M
Rushy
Petition to make busy Effra Road / Brixton Water Lane junction safer for pedestrians
Replies
18
Views
1K
Zapp Brannigan
Zapp Brannigan
Back
Top Bottom