Rushy
basically a scrotum
Funnily enough the skip site on Herne Place sold too but fell through because they couldn't find anywhere to move the business to (although much smaller so maybe weren't trying very hard).
Herne Hill news, chitter chatter and gossip
- Thread starter choochi
- Start date
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
It's worth noting that only 9% of people in the area use a vehicle for travel to work. Most of the traffic is rat running.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Thanks for posting up about me making sure Im likelly to miss this post.
No Im not aways against the schemes.
Im against the way that people are consulted.
You just don't understand this. A more nuanced approach than yours.
The oppostion to the LJ was by a well run successful campaign by the Council tenants of the Loughborough Estate. The local working class. I know I was saw it.
lordnoise is right the LJ scheme was deepy unpopular with local people. They were from the Loughborough Estate. A working class area. I don't now anyone from the estate who supported the Loughborough road closure.
Given the endlless posts here of graphs etc showing what a benefit it would be it needs to be asked why a Labour Council could not persuade a working class area that these road closures were for their benefit. The Labour party is supposed to represent the interests of the working class.
Like lordnoise has posted:
I agree with this.
On LJ , apart from growing hostility to LJAG, the Lambeth Labour were seen as not being interested in working clsss communities. The road closure scheme opposition was a way to give the local Labour party a slap. Cllr Rachel saw this and supported her constituents on this. To her credit.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
No-one can know what proportion of LJ residents, or even what proportion of Loughborough Estate residents were actually against the scheme.
I think we can agree that the implementation was horribly botched by Lambeth, and that they were not able to offer a convincing response to the objections raised. And I think we can agree that no-one got to see the actual results of the scheme, and had the opportunity to judge it on those actual results.
In that context, yes the campaign against it was very successful.
Apparently the consultation forms never reached most people on the estate. I've been told that the SUV driving director of the estate management board, who was recently on trial for fraud, was particularly anti the measures. Do you know if there's any truth in that Gramsci ?
I think we can agree that the implementation was horribly botched by Lambeth, and that they were not able to offer a convincing response to the objections raised. And I think we can agree that no-one got to see the actual results of the scheme, and had the opportunity to judge it on those actual results.
In that context, yes the campaign against it was very successful.
Apparently the consultation forms never reached most people on the estate. I've been told that the SUV driving director of the estate management board, who was recently on trial for fraud, was particularly anti the measures. Do you know if there's any truth in that Gramsci ?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I can guess from the packed public meeting on the estate and talking to people on the estate that the majority were against the closure of Loughborough road.
The TRA at north end of Loughborough road were also against the scheme. They had other suggestions for traffic calming. Which weren't listened to.
The Chair of LEMB was acquitted.
On this the LEMB were representing the tenants.
Its not often I see a packed meeting of residents. The only other times Ive seen this was after the murder inn the Youth Centre and to save Brixton Rec.
in LJ there had developed hostility to LJAG over several years on the Estate. Which contributed to the opposition.
If a more small scale scheme had been done then I think it would have worked. Closing a few rat runs- like the Padfield road and bringing in better traffic calming.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Does that also apply to Waltham Forest? Another working class Labour area. There was a mass of resistance to the schemes there as well but you cheered on WF council for pushing through with it despite the opposition.
So as long as they ensured that the scheme changed nothing (effectively) it would have got approval? Yes, years of 'neighbourhood improvements schemes' trying to get support from everyone led to completely ineffective changes all over the borough. A few trees, a few speed humps. No one can really object to that. Makes F-all difference to the amount of traffic though.
Every single walking/cycling/traffic reduction scheme the 'pro-driving' campaigners complain that 'no one told us', 'the consultation is invalid', 'we weren't consulted' (which is a lovely bit of twisted logic to put in as a response to a consultation). Every household in Railton area was supposedly written to as part of the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood, and again as part of this process but no-one who does't want this saw the letters of course.
To quote you again "How supporting unrestricted access to roads for motorised traffic ( for in practise that is the position of those here who opposed the road closures) is supporting the working class is beyond me"
No consultation is ever perfect, and there will always be a vocal minority who oppose anything.
Which are you going to support then? Theres a load more coming up from the looks of things. There's no way they can both get them in quickly and do a load of detailed consultation work so are you going to oppose all of them?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Your posts are example of why some people don't enthusiastically support these schemes.
I keep tellling you as someone who lives in LJ it was not a "vocal minority" that opposed it.
This quote from what recent post of mine here is it from? I know this discussion has been going across several threads.
On the present scheme - this Railton road scheme is a temporary scheme for social distancing. Ive already said I accept that several times.
Its supposed to be separate from the Liveable Neighborhood scheme.
Though in practise the Council is without making it clear sliding the two together. Ive posted about that I think on Brixton thread. Looking up Lambeth consultation page.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I don't blame you for choosing not to answer my question.
I know about the packed meeting - I was there, and I heard what was said, and saw how there was no chance of the council representative being able to reply, and I don't disagree that it was the council's fault that things went so badly, and I don't blame residents for being concerned, but I do believe there was a lot of misinformation going round - it turned out later that the ambulance service had not identified any significant problems resulting form the scheme, for example, although that was one of the emotive points brought up at that meeting. As a little reminder of the tone of everything around then, here's the flyer that was put through peoples' doors which LJ road madness said wasn't anything to do with them.
I'll try not to say anything more about the LJ scheme on this thread. Things were not as clear cut as are being retrospectively claimed though.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I thought I did answer the question. The fraud trial went to court and he was acquitted.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
My question was more whether it's true that he is known to be personally strongly anti restrictions on car use.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Does that matter? He was not the Council tenant on the estate who led the campaign along with other residents.
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
No idea what went on in LJ - I remember there was a endless rows on urb but no details. dont really care to be honest.
I'd just like to know whats happening at the end of my street.
I'd just like to know whats happening at the end of my street.
As a resident of Railton, we got a couple of letters with no details of any changes with a link to a website that didn’t work until we got the letter with the cartoon diagram about what was going to be done. It’s only been in the last few days when work has already started that you can leave any comments. I don’t object to the sentiment but it’s just the lack of consultation that sticks but hey, could be worse, live in Shakespeare north, you get all the skip lorries, network rail and school when it returns and can only get to HH via LJ. My wife drives to Vauxhall via Shakespeare pre gates but we will explore a blend of driving, cycling and walking so in that respect, it’s successful if that’s what they want to achieve
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I would urge people to comment on the Railton scheme.
friendofdorothy Not a Vet
Ive just been looking at the commonplace comment page for the scheme and its starting to get comments.
Really good one I will post up:
rtstreets.commonplace.is
Co designing is supposed to be part of the way things should be done under Lambeth the "Coop" Council.
friendofdorothy Not a Vet
Ive just been looking at the commonplace comment page for the scheme and its starting to get comments.
Really good one I will post up:
Comment on the temporary scheme
Give us your feedback on the temporary project and let us know about any specific improvements or issues by marking them on a map of the area
rtstreets.commonplace.is
Co designing is supposed to be part of the way things should be done under Lambeth the "Coop" Council.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Introduction to the Cooperative Council Constitution
snowy_again
Slush
Here’s the DfT initiative this is being directed through:
Emergency active travel fund: local transport authority allocations
and the statutory guidance:
Reallocating road space in response to COVID-19: statutory guidance for local authorities
And the directions on reallocating roadspace
“Measures should be taken as swiftly as possible, and in any event within weeks, given the urgent need to change travel habits before the restart takes full effect.” Which is slightly contradicted with a later paragraph
“Authorities should seek input from stakeholders during the design phase. They should consult with the local chiefs of police and emergency services to ensure access is maintained where needed, for example to roads that are closed to motor traffic. Local businesses, including those temporarily closed, should be consulted to ensure proposals meet their needs when they re-open. Kerbside access should be enabled wherever possible for deliveries and servicing.”
Emergency active travel fund: local transport authority allocations
and the statutory guidance:
Reallocating road space in response to COVID-19: statutory guidance for local authorities
And the directions on reallocating roadspace
“Measures should be taken as swiftly as possible, and in any event within weeks, given the urgent need to change travel habits before the restart takes full effect.” Which is slightly contradicted with a later paragraph
“Authorities should seek input from stakeholders during the design phase. They should consult with the local chiefs of police and emergency services to ensure access is maintained where needed, for example to roads that are closed to motor traffic. Local businesses, including those temporarily closed, should be consulted to ensure proposals meet their needs when they re-open. Kerbside access should be enabled wherever possible for deliveries and servicing.”
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Im aware of thst this is being done as response to the Pandemic to ensure social distancing.
Ive repeatedly said on different threads here that I support that.
But my issue is that Council are using it in Railton to push through part of the "Liveable" Neighbourhood scheme. Which is a different issue.
As Ive posted already the Council are mixing two different consultations together.
Ive repeatedly said on different threads here that I support that.
But my issue is that Council are using it in Railton to push through part of the "Liveable" Neighbourhood scheme. Which is a different issue.
As Ive posted already the Council are mixing two different consultations together.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
So the Tories have decided Police, Emergency services and business will be consulted.
The proles won't. Its good for people to get back to work and be more healthy. Stop being lazy.
Might explain why the stretch of Atlantic road between Dogstar and Brixton road has not been made pedestrian and bus only. It is a place Ive found social distancing is not possible for shopping. Its an area that could do with temporary change to bus and pedestrian road.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
No. Residents are stakeholders. Lambeth Cooperative Council has made the decision not to include them.
So the Tories have decided Police, Emergency services and business will be consulted.
The proles won't. Its good for people to get back to work and be more healthy. Stop being lazy.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I agree they are but as snowy_again quote points out its not explicity stated in the Government legislation.
The way I read it the Police , emergency services and roadside business are consulted at "design stage". Not residents. The government guidance does talk about consultation after temporary schemes in place. If they are to be made permanent.
Its a bit vague on what is the difference between "experimental" and "temporary" imo.
Last edited:
snowy_again
Slush
So the Tories have decided Police, Emergency services and business will be consulted.
The proles won't. Its good for people to get back to work and be more healthy. Stop being lazy.
Or more likely that the Civil Service are updating the 2004 Act to respond (back in May) and using the National Travel Survey results that showed that 40% of urban journeys were under 2 miles - suitable (for many) to be made via walking or cycling.
The preamble to the link I posted above covers the demand side in more details.
Most of the original Bill and subsequent Act was developed with a Labour MP as parliamentary under secretary
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
This is why I'm not that arsed about consultation, it will just run into the usual Nimby stuff and we'll end up with a few useless traffic calming measures. There is a huge amount of entitlement around motoring.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Well, they've decided that they will be consulted while the measures are in place on an experimental basis, as far as I can make out. The government guidance is a little contradictory, as snowy_again points out, because it talks about consultation happening during the "design phase". I expect Lambeth would argue that seeing how things work on an experimental basis is part of the design phase.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I agree that they may be mixing up consultations.
However I think that it's quite clear that schemes like the liveable neighbourhoods ones fall within categories of scheme which the guidance lists under "Reallocating road space: measures" -
snowy_again
Slush
yesterday TfL published a massive chunk of travel data under the title ‘strategic neighbourhood analysis’ to guide the implementation of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.
The data (I think) will be used to assess future investment
The data (I think) will be used to assess future investment
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I been looking at the government guidance and this does look like this is the case
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Lambeth will argue anything that helps justify their avoiding cooperation with local people.
snowy_again
Slush
Isn’t their argument that the commonplace website is what they will use to gather info?
Similar threads
