Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[upthejunction]

Is this the same thread? I had forgotten where I posted the stuff! No I did not. They do not feel an obligaiton to answer anyone - though if I was really sneaky I could try to get something out of them. The questions I wantto know about now are:
1. What were the results of the original consultation in terms of numbers and unequivocal postive replies (given the quesituons were so slanted)?
2. What was the effect of the very large petition from Loughborough Estate that was delivered a few days late?
3. What were the resutls of he traffic survey that was eventually done?
4. Is the raw data from the traffic survey availabel to be analysed by an independent expert? If so, please supply them.
5. Is any forthcoming traffic survey going to include areas badly affected by the change (such as Coldharbour lane all the way to the Town Hall, and Railton Road) which are outside the original consultation and survey areas?
6. Is any consultation going to involve a leaflet drop to residents in the immediately affected area (200yds either side) explaining the changes and askign what people think (preferably in an easy tick box form with questions such as "Do you support Loughborough Road being blocked to traffic?"). A leaflet drop of this kind would cost about £200 commercially, and presumably not much more to collect responses.
7. Where did the original figure quoted of "13000 vehicles per day" come from, where were the vehicles, where were they going, and how many were local people using the roads outsides their abodes?
8. How was the 13000 figure arrived at if there had been no traffic survey before the consultation concluded?

 

[teuchter]

BTW: Was KCL part of the consultation? Has anyone asked them?

Last night I think the Lambeth guy said yes, they were part of the consultation (although it might have been that he said the Ambulance Service, rather than KCL).

He also said they woud be talking to them as part of the evaluation process.

I assume that if LAS or KCL have been concerned about the effects so far, they will have had channels to Lambeth to let them know.

I haven't seen any official statements from either confirming there's a serious issue. Just anecdotes and someone wearing a paramedic uniform speaking at the previous meeting.

 

[teuchter]

upthejunction which roads specifically are the ones where there's been a significant increase in rat-running?

Denmark Rd and St James Crescent have been mentioned. Which others?

 

[LadyV]

Obviously a rise in accidents between pedestrians and cyclists is not a good thing. But as I understand it, in Amsterdam it is in the context of a massive rise in number of cyclists on the roads. Is it balanced by a decrease in the number of pedestrian/motor vehicle accidents? It appears it is, because the overall number of road fatalities in Amsterdam is consistently falling.

So it doesn't seem like it's a valid argument against increasing the number of cyclists on the road, because it appears that in Amsterdam the increasing number of cyclists is accompanied by a decreasing number of pedestrians killed on the road.

http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-dis...ands-most-dangerous-city-cyclists-pedestrians

Those are fatalities though, fatalities will decrease due to less cars, cars are bigger and heavier, therefore cause more damage. But a bicycle can still cause a decent amount of damage to a pedestrian. Plus I wasn't using it as an argument against increasing the number of cyclists, more against using the Netherlands as a perfect model

 

[LadyV]

Is this the same thread? I had forgotten where I posted the stuff! No I did not. They do not feel an obligaiton to answer anyone - though if I was really sneaky I could try to get something out of them. The questions I wantto know about now are:
1. What were the results of the original consultation in terms of numbers and unequivocal postive replies (given the quesituons were so slanted)?
2. What was the effect of the very large petition from Loughborough Estate that was delivered a few days late?
3. What were the resutls of he traffic survey that was eventually done?
4. Is the raw data from the traffic survey availabel to be analysed by an independent expert? If so, please supply them.
5. Is any forthcoming traffic survey going to include areas badly affected by the change (such as Coldharbour lane all the way to the Town Hall, and Railton Road) which are outside the original consultation and survey areas?
6. Is any consultation going to involve a leaflet drop to residents in the immediately affected area (200yds either side) explaining the changes and askign what people think (preferably in an easy tick box form with questions such as "Do you support Loughborough Road being blocked to traffic?"). A leaflet drop of this kind would cost about £200 commercially, and presumably not much more to collect responses.
7. Where did the original figure quoted of "13000 vehicles per day" come from, where were the vehicles, where were they going, and how many were local people using the roads outsides their abodes?
8. How was the 13000 figure arrived at if there had been no traffic survey before the consultation concluded?

Maybe you should send it again to all the relevant players, and get someone important to write it on fancy letterhead to Jennifer Braithwaite, you might get a response, a la Bimble's QC. Who did you send the original request to?

 

[teuchter]

Those are fatalities though, fatalities will decrease due to less cars, cars are bigger and heavier, therefore cause more damage. But a bicycle can still cause a decent amount of damage to a pedestrian. Plus I wasn't using it as an argument against increasing the number of cyclists, more against using the Netherlands as a perfect model

What are the numbers for injuries, then?

 

[bimble]

upthejunction

Is this the same thread? I had forgotten where I posted the stuff!

It is! and your questions there over a year ago are scarily prescient.

1. What were the results of the original consultation in terms of numbers and unequivocal postive replies (given the quesituons were so slanted)?

The total number of people living inside the consultation area who participated in the consultation & responded ‘yes’ to the proposed road closures = 181.

2. What was the effect of the very large petition from Loughborough Estate that was delivered a few days late?

I believe it was delivered on the day that was stated as last day of consultation. The response was basically that it was ignored completely.

3. What were the results of he traffic survey that was eventually done?

No idea.

4. Is the raw data from the traffic survey availabel to be analysed by an independent expert? If so, please supply them.

Information request maybe ?

5. Is any forthcoming traffic survey going to include areas badly affected by the change (such as Coldharbour lane all the way to the Town Hall, and Railton Road) which are outside the original consultation and survey areas?

Apparently not. There are 2 locations on CHL on the list of where they counted traffic before the closures. They are:

> Coldharbour Lane Somewhere between j/w Herne Hill Rd and j/w Loughborough Rd
> Coldharbour Lane Somewhere j/w Loughborough Road and north of j/w Shakespeare Road

6. Is any consultation going to involve a leaflet drop to residents in the immediately affected area (200yds either side) explaining the changes and asking what people think (preferably in an easy tick box form with questions such as "Do you support Loughborough Road being blocked to traffic?"). A leaflet drop of this kind would cost about £200 commercially, and presumably not much more to collect responses.

The scrutiny committee documents say that 10,991 letters saying something will be delivered during the closures, but nobody (incl George Wright and Stockwell Partnership have any idea what they will be or who is supposed to send them.

7. Where did the original figure quoted of "13000 vehicles per day" come from, where were the vehicles, where were they going, and how many were local people using the roads outsides their abodes?
8. How was the 13000 figure arrived at if there had been no traffic survey before the consultation concluded?

That figure seems to be ..a mistake.
The average traffic on Loughborough road can be seen here below (from clean air london website) .It’s CHL that has 13,000 vehicles a day on average. Or did have, before it got all Loughborough Road's stuff on top.

 

[LadyV]

What are the numbers for injuries, then?

I can't find anything concrete or recent, most research is on pedestrians or cyclists vs cars rather than pedestrians vs cyclists. I imagine it's quite hard to collect data on it as from my experience that info wasn't collected at the hospital and there would be no associated insurance claim. But it stands to reason that there would be an increase due to the increase in cyclists on the road. That said they will go down as many schools in the Netherlands have cycling classes for children similar to the cycling proficiency classes I did when I was a kid. Maybe that's the answer here

 

[snowy_again]

Home - Bikeability

 

[teuchter]

I can't find anything concrete or recent, most research is on pedestrians or cyclists vs cars rather than pedestrians vs cyclists. I imagine it's quite hard to collect data on it as from my experience that info wasn't collected at the hospital and there would be no associated insurance claim. But it stands to reason that there would be an increase due to the increase in cyclists on the road. That said they will go down as many schools in the Netherlands have cycling classes for children similar to the cycling proficiency classes I did when I was a kid. Maybe that's the answer here

So, just speculation on your part, in the end. I don't think you can say it "stands to reason" that overall injuries are up. It's plausible that there are more cyclist/pedestrian injuries on account of there being more bikes on the road. But it's also plausible that there are fewer motor vehicle/pedestrian injuries on account of there being more bikes on the road.

 

[bimble]

Home - Bikeability

I did that! Helped my confidence on a bike a bit.

 

[MrM]

I think it's fair to expect that a massive shift towards cycling is likely to involve additional cycle vs pedestrian collisions, but fewer car vs pedestrian collisions. And on balance that's clearly a social positive, given that a bike collision is less likely to be severe/fatal than being hit by a car.
I think the point Lady V was making was just that the social benefit is not unqualified - i.e. the thousands of lives saved come at the cost of some injuries too, and that this is often ignored (data not collected).
I don't think she meant that a shift to cycling is not a good thing (leaving aside the wider benefits of local air quality/global carbon emissions/transport infrastructure savings/health benefits etc).

 

[Haya87]

Bimble, in response to your question, anecdata suggests that East of Loughborough Rd modal shift to walking and cycling has taken place. Is Loughborough Rd more pleasant to cycle? again anecdata suggests yes. Area wide filtering South of CHL starting from Himton Rd would build on the current scheme.

What I cannot get straight in my mind is this. Would filtering area wide from Hinton, including HHRd and Shakespeare, achieve a similar or greater modal shift than filtering Loughborough Rd? I think the other filters north of CHL, including the car park and Angell Town ones noted earlier, would still be needed to prevent displacement.

I am struggling to remember what they are called, but 2 rubber lines across the road were installed across Lambeth to measure the speed of traffic prior to the 20mph zone going in. I think they detect the number of vehicles as well. I am pretty certain the number was increased across LJ and Myatts Fields. I think this was to establish a baseline.

Clare

 

[Gramsci]

So I also went along, nice to meet Gramsci and Beasley whilst there, hello!


The G word, gentrification, was also mentioned but not until a good while into the meeting, with shouts of social cleansing from the crowd, a lady from Vassall and Coldharbour Forum (VCF) answered partially to that saying that VCF want to consult people on that aspect of things, didn't quite get how, she wasn't a good speaker, then or when she gave a presentation later.
.

Where I was sitting it was what people were going on about. (Also said to me previously) Why I said that the remit for consultation should be widened to ask people on estate more about how they feel about area and what is happening to it. Also what they want for improvements to the area.

It appears to me that a lot of people on the Estate feel the Platform, Farm and road closures are all linked as not something for them and having no relevance to there lives.

Also that its about general gentrifying of the area.

My view is that the road closure issue is linked in with fears about gentrification of area. Talking to estate residents afterwards they also ( correctly imo) see what is happening to other estates like Cressingham Gardens and do not feel Council Housing is safe in Lambeth Labours hands.

So is Lambeth learning anything? My Ward Cllrs objected to road closures but do not seem to see some of the underlying issues that are linked to the objections to the road closures.

I stayed for rest of meeting when the issue of the grant application by Council to do a "Pop" Brixton on the Farm came up. The application was put in with no proper consultation with local residents ( which is the Loughborough Estate).

I objected to the new plans for the Farm going forward with no meaningful consultation at last meeting and did so at this last night.

 

[teuchter]

My Ward Cllrs objected to road closures but do not seem to see some of the underlying issues that are linked to the objections to the road closures.

This is a salient point I think - and relevant to why I find some of the councillors' stance on this a bit pathetic. It's easy for them to oppose the closures, because they can appear like they are standing up for the residents against the bullying powers-that-be who are imposing this scheme on them. And opposing the closures doesn't involve arguing for funding, or even arguing for change. Just arguing to maintainthe status quo. But (in my opinoin of course) the motives behind the scheme aren't to do with imposing things on those with the least advantage - they are to do with trying to improve things for those with the least advantage. So while the councillors can appear to be standing up for people they are actually helping trash something that could make things better for those people. And meanwhile, are they standing up for people on the really difficult issues? The ones where resisting proposals means coming up against massive financial and other powerful pressures? Like you say Gramsci things to do with protecting social housing in general.

 

[CH1]

I stayed for rest of meeting when the issue of the grant application by Council to do a "Pop" Brixton on the Farm came up. The application was put in with no proper consultation with local residents ( which is the Loughborough Estate).

I objected to the new plans for the Farm going forward with no meaningful consultation at last meeting and did so at this last night.

Sorry to deviate a little from the thread - but surely this particular issue is how grant aided funding always works.

There is suddenly the prospect of funding for a project which might fit our area - if only we can get the application to suit the requirements of the funders.

This has been going on for 25 years - maybe even since World War II if you count things like originally designing and building the New Loughborough Estate itself.

Who asked for the Camberwell Odeon building to be demolished and replaced with a Nandos and "Foyer" as part of Brixton Challenge? Certainly nobody from Brixton (outside the employees of Brixton Challenge Ltd and Lambeth Council that is). And yet that project - together with the Ritzy Multiplexing accounts for the majority of government regeneration funding allocated to Brixton during 1990-94.

Who asked for Popes Road car park to be demolished? - Tescos apparently so they could build their Streatham Superstore.

I guess the only saving grace about this Farm site application is that we now know from the Pop Brixton experience that these things are "flexi".
In other words if the residents now demand a gym to be included there is a precedent for doing this - after all Pop Brixton is not the project that was originally approved.

 

[Beasley]

Was KCL part of the consultation? Has anyone asked them?

They weren't. My neighbour emailed the then chief executive of King's Trust in April. The reply, from the Head of Stakeholder Relations at King's, was:
"I confirm that the Trust has not been consulted about these proposals by Lambeth Council and I will be contacting Lambeth Council to find out why not.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention."

 

[Haya87]

Off topic, I want to plug the Loughborough Junction Forum. Key members (stakeholdets?) Loughborough Estate Management Board, LEMB and LJAG. It has a revolving chair.

I have been to meetings where Loughborough Estate activists have chaired, others where an LJAG rep has chaired, and I have chaired myself. Perhaps someone on this thread could chair a meeting. Lady V? Bimble? I think volunteers from across the community are very welcome.

I understand it is moving towards becoming a formal planning body with a formal plan. It is the any means necessary approach. I used to work alongside consultant planners who advised developers how to get around locsl authority plans, for instance to provide cycle parking, green space or social housing. If a LA had a good plan which was difficult to get around they would advise developers to go elsewhere. Also active local communities were a consideration.

Back to filtering
.
Clare

 

[Beasley]

Just anecdotes and someone wearing a paramedic uniform speaking at the previous meeting.

Quote from Councilor Brathwaite's FAQs: the proposed closures will be enforced through signage meaning the roads will remain open to vehicles on emergency calls … All emergency services will be made aware of the closures and informal discussions with the emergency services have resulted in no objections to the proposals. End Quote and note: "informal discussions" not "consultations".

In his talk at the previous meeting, the London Ambulance Service Clinical Team Leader said the ambulance service is concerned at the way things have turned out. Quotes from his accompanying report:
"time critical patients being transported to hospital under emergency conditions are at risk of experiencing delays in receiving definitive, lifesaving care owing to increased congestion.
"We would support the use of traffic calming measures including red light/speed cameras as an alternative to the current road closures."

 

[bimble]

Quote from Councilor Brathwaite's FAQs: the proposed closures will be enforced through signage meaning the roads will remain open to vehicles on emergency calls … All emergency services will be made aware of the closures and informal discussions with the emergency services have resulted in no objections to the proposals. End Quote and note: "informal discussions" not "consultations".

yes. When I bumped into a man called Chief Inspector Roy Smith a few weeks back, right at the roadblock on Gordon Grove (when we still had actual blocks across the street) he said he had no clue what this was all about, had never heard a thing from the council about road closures, and would be writing to them to ask what was going on. He used the word 'chaos' as he observed the corner and the maneuvers drivers were making.
I told him the claim about 'no objections' and he was really surprised.
So the "informal discussions' must have been very informal, if he wasn't informed.

 

[upthejunction]

upthejunction
It is! and your questions there over a year ago are scarily prescient.
The total number of people living inside the consultation area who participated in the consultation & responded ‘yes’ to the proposed road closures = 181.
Information request maybe ?

Not quite as those are the questions I would put in an FoI now but I did ask some before. I would add (based on replies here)

9. Were the following bodies consulted, was it formal or informal, and what was the answer (with dates please)?
a. King's College Hospital
b. London Ambulance Service;
c. London FIre Service
d. Metropolitan Police
10. What has been the total cost of the whole process including drawing up the plans?

 

[critical1]

yes. When I bumped into a man called Chief Inspector Roy Smith a few weeks back, right at the roadblock on Gordon Grove (when we still had actual blocks across the street) he said he had no clue what this was all about, had never heard a thing from the council about road closures, and would be writing to them to ask what was going on. He used the word 'chaos' as he observed the corner and the maneuvers drivers were making.
I told him the claim about 'no objections' and he was really surprised.
So the "informal discussions' must have been very informal, if he wasn't informed.

Informal as I phoned and had a chat with the receptionist, no paper trail, no records, no documentation...
So yeah I had several informal discussions with all agencies involved, and nothing negative was received back. BUT I don't have any evidence of this.. And when the S*** hits the fan you wont see me around, I'll plonk some poor work mate into the mess I created whilst I hide. Only in Lambeth...

Shame about last nights meeting LJAG could have had more members to support POOR Anthea Massey, looks like they bailed ship also. Some say she's brave, I say NO she is the chair of LJAG, she has stated she "fully supports the closure", forget about the community... nothing has really been stated look at the letter lets reviews it.. no STOP.


800+ said no, and she(LJAG) ignores it an organisation who states the represent Loughborough, but in relation to the Higgs Development only 100 objected and it made the Newspapers, LJAG, The Local MP Tessa Jowell personally wrote an open letter, Lambeth listened, then they cancelled the original plan...
So what gives here?
Who does LJAG really represent? And WHY?

 

[teuchter]

I heard they are actually LIZARDS.

 

[concerned1]

lol Loughborough Estate Activists? Haya87

 

[Beasley]

I haven't seen any official statements from either confirming there's a serious issue.

Maybe not, but there is mounting evidence of delays from unofficial sources such as this recent post on LJ Road Madness Facebook:
When will this hell end!! Camberwell to Brixton.. 45 minutes!!! In an ambulance with patients!! Usually takes 6-8 mins!! Absolute madness!!!

 

[critical1]

lol Loughborough Estate Activists? Haya87

Dunno who that is? maybe a resident who calls themselves an activist,A for LEMB board I noticed the LEMB Chair there recently his second only appearance... to talk about the road closures as they are against it and the fact they were not consulted about the pop farm idea!

 

[concerned1]

Not consulted?

 

[cuppa tee]

Off topic, I want to plug the Loughborough Junction Forum. Key members (stakeholdets?) Loughborough Estate Management Board, LEMB and LJAG. It has a revolving chair.

thanks Haya87 this sounds interesting....... is it online or Irl
can anyone join or do we need an invite ?
contact details ?

 

[concerned1]

irl and open to anyone supporting the local community. It is a serious issue that locals are supported, not excluded from ideas and decisions that will affect their lives.

 

[teuchter]

Further information I have is that: 1) Blue light services other than the ambulances have been badly affected, including the police and fire service - in all instances life threatening. 2) The air quality on Coldharbour Lane and affected streets is noticeably worse. 3) Articulated lorries, commercial vehicles and cars are taking short cuts across pedestrian areas of Angell Town and Loughborough Estates. 4) 1100 bus drivers are considering taking action because of the impossibility of doing their job and indeed of getting to work to do it whilst their passengers are massively delayed in their journeys. 5) There are numerous reports of accidents and serious incidents resulting from the confusion and frustration of everyone trying to get somewhere using the roads. 6) Local businesses of all sizes and sorts have reported a 50% drop in turnover in 3 weeks. 7) Children are late for school and nursery, or not attending at all. 8) Patients with serious and chronic medical conditions requiring treatment are not able to get to hospital for clinics and procedures, including dialysis and blood transfusions. AND SO THE MADNESS GOES ON.

Excellent collection of "information" from mystery sources here (from post on LJRoadmadness page).

"50% drop in turnover for local businesses of all sizes and sorts"

Really? I am struggling with plausibility here.

Couldn't help but notice that the author of these comments has Dulwich College and Dulwich Old Alleynian Rugby Club listed in his likes and groups. And a couple of Caribbean boating resorts.