But there were lots of comments and sugestions on the Commonplace map during the ‘consultation’ - where are those comments now and HOW HAVE THEY BEEN ASSESSED?! Last time I looked, when the consult was still live, there were loads of comments about the pedestrian crossings for the A205 next to Forest Hill station and at the junction of A205 and Dartmouth Road.
2 Likes
I assume they’ve been pruned. But I don’t know who did the pruning. I had put suggestions for pedestrian controlled crossing points on Kirkdale at the junctions with Thorpewood and Kelvin Grove, because Kirkdale is crazy busy at school run times and many uncontrolled children running about.
I’d also put a suggestion for double yellows on Kirkdale towards the top of the hill, where cars can only pass one at a time and sightlines are terrible.
Those suggestions disappeared, along with many others I had read and agreed with. I’ve put some of mine back in again, but haven’t checked if they’re still there.
I get the impression of someone sitting in some small back room somewhere just selecting those propisals they’ve already decided on.
2 Likes
perhaps you’re not making enough donations to the local planning department! 
2 Likes
That’s the problem @clausy - this stuff doesn’t appear to be going through the planning process. It’s going through an unknown/undefined process which seems arbitrary, without oversight, impartiality or equal opportunity for residents to put their ideas across. And there’s no feedback on why some items are taken forward and others just disappear.
4 Likes
To complicate matters, I think it’s possible the council are using multiple Commonplace instances. The map for “Covid” improvements looked very different from the Commonplace map I saw a few months ago when I last used it.
1 Like
Similar advice was given on the Radio 4 Today program this morning.
1 Like
Yes, that looks to be the case. We don’t know which Commonplace ‘consultation’ we’re looking at. The purpose of each needs to be clearly labeled, also whether what we’re looking at is a ‘live’ consultation or the the supposed outcome of a previous Commonplace exercise. How the outcomes are arrived at is crucial. I don’t know anyone who understands how decisions are made, which leads people to conclude that decisions are made in private conversations and that the so-called consultations are a sham.
3 Likes
As shown here, I think the home addresses of local councillors are in the public domain. So in that regard there is transparency. I have also been to planning committees where councillors declared the connection to the application, once through domicile and once through business ties, and rightly recused themselves from the discussion and vote for those applications.
I’ve also gotten to know a number of our past and present local councillors including for Perry Vale and Forest Hill, I am highly confident in their integrity and would be surprised if they wouldn’t approach this issue in the same way. I appreciate this is my personal experience but I feel it is widely shared. But like with all institutions there are exceptions. I am aware of a local councillor who pro-actively lobbies on planning decisions around pubs, but does not declare connections to special interest groups associated to the campaigns.
By all means a local councilor or any public servant should be called out on these issues. But we should also be very careful about casting suspicions on people based solely on domicile.
I am, however, becoming very wary that when there are these clear breaches to these codes, that action may not be taken. There are many prominent examples recently at all levels of government where obvious breaches are either ignored nor investigated. And some bold members of government, as on Radio 4 this morning, even publicly announce ways to “game the system”.
If you can find evidence that local councillors are using their position to gain the system on the road closures please share this. I’m just not accepting that domicile is sufficient to cast aspersions on the reputation of these individuals.
1 Like
[Humouring the whataboutery for a moment] That’s hardly sinister behaviour. A lot of people care about pubs.
Whereas it’s only really people that live on the Thorpes that care about traffic management on the Thorpes.
Yes in regard to what’s happening on Waldenshaw I do care, for example ridiculous speeding while I’m trying to wash my car parked by the side of the road and don’t want people flying by at 40+. But I also care about traffic management at the FH station crossing and various intersections or stretches where I feel it is unsafe to cycle, for example.
2 Likes
I think it should be up to our elected representatives and council to use processes which adhere to principals of transparency and integrity such that their actions can be clearly justified and seen to be proper if questioned.
While I like the presumption that there is no problem unless evidence to the contrary can be found, I unfortunately lack the investigative powers that are probably needed to out any foul-play or collusion that may be going on behind closed doors. Also note that while the Council member’s addresses appear on public records, I do not think they are intended to be advertised or published as any declaration of interest.
2 Likes
Hear hear. Whilst I agree with @starman that we shouldn’t cast aspersions, the simple point is that if these process and decision making was transparent then it wouldn’t come into question in the first place.
If people are posting suggestions and they’re being removed with no explanation then that’s bound to invite conspiracy theories.
4 Likes
The entire quote was.
So yes, a lot of people care about pubs. But not a lot of people are also in a position of influence to directly lobby those in a decision making capacity. Which I gather has been the concern of many posters on this thread. And that concern I think is well placed and is addressed in part by the part of the Code of Conduct which Marymck posted.
Foresthull is spot on in his later comment about the use of processes.
Property ownership is included in the declaration. But it does appear some feel that domicile should be a declared interest as they would suggest that interest affects their actions. For example.
I would hope those in that position would recuse themselves from any direct decision making process that would affect their residence. Or inform if their actions private or public would have some influence.
This thread has become a good discussion on conduct and conflict by public servants. But it might also be a good time to split this discussion onto a new thread for it to continue.
1 Like
I remember trying to wash my car and getting the c"ap scared out of my be people going fast on that section. Some seemed to do it on purpose. I did step back in shock a few times accidentally soaking cars!! 
I’m not sure we need to split it but happy to hear other opinions, it’s local politics and relevant to the road closure theme, although I would say allegations and generalisations don’t help (from anyone to be clear, no one singled out in particular)
Something something too much moderation…
2 Likes
Hi all,
I just want to comment on a few of the things I’ve seen in this thread and on previous threads discussing our transport strategy in response to covid-19.
Firstly, I’d like to challenge a common sentiment in these threads which is that the ‘knock-on effect’ of model filters - i.e. displacement of traffic onto other roads, is necessarily a bad thing. Modal filters prevent rat-running and funnel traffic down a more limited set of avenues - if the same number of cars utilise the roads it will cause congestion on these ‘displacement’ roads.
How do you avoid getting caught up in this congestion? Simply don’t use your car.
Two-thirds of car journeys in London are under 5km (a 20-minute cycle ride). This is not sustainable. Relatively few people ‘need’ to drive short distances.
Model filters will create ‘quiet ways’ away from rat-running traffic to help you safely and comfortably cycle. The hope is that by creating quiet roads for cycling, more people will take up walking and cycling for short journeys, thus alleviating congestion across the borough.
Model filters will make driving from A to B ‘more difficult’ in a certain area. This will hopefully nudge Londoners to pause before they jump in their car and ask themselves, ‘do I really need to drive?’. In the long-run, it’s about changing our behaviour.
Personally, I would’ve liked to have seen us implement these space-making strategies sooner, without consultation and earlier in the crisis. The consultation period would have been the period in which these modal filters/pavement widening/cycle lanes were active during the crisis - afterwards we then have a thorough consultation and assessment on their relative success and whether they may be made permanent or not. The Department of Transport seemed aware of the need for rapid action. They expanded the remit of traffic regulation orders to encompass Covid-19 response measures. TROs are temporary but can last 18 months but they do not need a 21-day prior consultation period. The DfT understood the need for a rapid response by local authorities before the lifting of lockdown.
Alas, I’m not in charge - the Cabinet member (who is an elected representative) appointed by your directly elected Mayor, is in charge and oversees these decisions. While I certainly understand the frustration of residents with the fact that many councillors have limited power - we haven’t had any more of a say than individual residents on where these filters or pavement expansion may be placed - I do accept that due to the urgency, it was right to delegate these decisions to officers (who at the end of the day are the transport experts).
Consultation is one element of the decision-making process. We delegate many day-to-day or crisis management decisions to officers, overseen by our elected representatives who are guided by personal judgement and the views of those who elected them (views within just one ward, are often very varied!). Executive judgements are scrutinised by the elected members on Overview & Scrutiny committees. I am certain that our traffic-management response to Covid-19 for example, will be poured over by the Sustainable Development SC and officers will detail in their reports their decision-making process. These reports are made available to the public.
I hope this clarifies my position and to some extent that of Lewisham Council.
Many thanks,
Leo
3 Likes
Thanks for your detailed response, @LeoGibbons.
Regarding this point:
Let’s say the local broadband exchange was highly loaded and everyone’s Internet connection was slow as a result. Sure, some of us are shopping online for non-essential items etc, but regardless of our use case, we should be getting the broadband capacity we’re paying for.
I would not take kindly to a broadband provider saying: “how do you avoid congested broadband? Simply don’t use the Internet”
I would certainly not be impressed if that broadband provider then selectively reduced the capacity of customers’ connections in order to dissauade people from using the Internet.
That’s effectively what the council is doing here with our road network, which was paid for by our taxes and which we would like to use regardless of how “necessary” you judge our individual use cases to be.
I don’t think that analogy is right - in the case of broadband it would be like saying, our service is really busy and causing problems for everyone, so here’s a parallel service that gets you the same data in a different way, in largely the same amount of time (oh and by the way, the alternative is cheaper and gives you great legs).
The measures the council are putting in place don’t ban people from moving (ie cut off the broadband) they encourage a change in method.
1 Like
“Our alternative is dial-up: it gets you the same data in a different way. It’s cheaper and it really helps you work on your patience as you queue for two days while your Netflix episode downloads”
I cannot do a big shop without my car (infrequent bulk shopping is a Covid-19 requirement).
I cannot take refuse to the tip without my car.
I cannot take my baby to visit his grandparents in Essex on my bike.
I cannot get deliveries from deliverymen on bikes.
Carers cannot do their rounds on foot.
Need I go on?
You need not go on Chris 
I don’t suggest all journeys must therefore be by cat - but that some should be. I have both a car and bike myself and use my bike 7 days a week and my car once a week or so, mostly for the things you refer to. If the roads got more congested around me I’d drive less and invest in some big panears.
Briefly back to the old broadband example, from my experience of cycling in London most days for 8 years, the bike is the broadband in your example, cars might be ADSL, southern rail maybe morse code.
Edit: you also haven’t addressed most important point re. Legs