Rockets

Yes and I think the council we able to lean in on vested-interest local lobby groups like EDST, Mumsforlungs, Melbourne Grove RA etc to do their bidding for them.

Funny isn't it but before the council started meddling no-one ever complained about parking pressure? Dulwich parking pressure is being created by a council hell bent on securing revenue from CPZs. It's so transparent it's laughable.

Mischievous is a wonderful description for our council and their approach to such things. How many parking spaces have they managed to remove? @march46 I think the council misled you with their clever misuse of plurals.....look how the decision document talks of a request coming from " the businesses on Lordship Lane" (which implies more than one) and then in the very same sentence it very quickly switches to...."that they have large vehicles coming to collect and deliver goods to the business" (implying a single business). And then later it said the council officers met with "the local business". - although, to be fair, the whole thing is so poorly written it could well be that the council officer who wrote it struggles with sentences and basic grammar 😉

"Parking pressure" - catnip to the LTN fan bois......it's almost as if the council do things just to create "parking pressure". Well fancy that...why on earth might that be.....?

Ha ha, but the pedestrians are on the crossing - the cyclist has to give way to them and stop....the Highway Code is very clear about that. I think that poster is hilarious and I cannot believe someone from the WHO didn't notice their visual Freudian slip.... Because it is not a myth but a fact. A fact backed up by comments from your beloved Southwark council and TFL. You know that the further outside a city centre you get the worse the transport links get right? Or are you arguing that the southern most parts of the borough of Southwark have better or comparable transport links to the northern parts? And please don’t start talking about comparing here to some village in the countryside - that is basically doing the same as the council bleating on about most people in Southwark don’t own a car….it’s trying to create a narrative to fit your argument.

But the vast majority of households in this area (where the council has decided to roll out these measures) do have a vehicle. Why? Because the transport links are poor and there are more families. This whole "majority of households do not own/have access to a car" is such distraction narrative nonsense - Southwark is a big borough - in the north of the borough (where the highest density of housing is) transport links are excellent and car ownership is low. In the south of the borough transport links are poor, the density of housing is lower and car ownership is high. Go figure.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ge92xldrjo

@march46 sorry I have to laugh that even the WHO poster shows what looks like a cyclist speeding towards a pedestrian crossing with clearly no intention to stop.....;-) Not the best clip art selection by the WHO there....

Does anyone think Lambeth has helped, or hindered, the goal by what they have done? From day one of these debates I said councils risked doing long-term harm to the active travel cause by behaving in the way they were - by forcing measures on a lot of residents (often by bending the rules) without engaging them or getting them on the journey risked alienating the very people who councils needed to get support from. Lambeth have done exactly that and now the LTN will need to be removed and they have turned a lot of people against the measures - of course they are also likely going to have to repay the huge number of fines generated by the LTNs and fund that from (likely) allocated budget after spending tax-payers money on defending the case their constituents had to bring against them. They have created one hell of a mess which may have long term negative impacts - and this is what I feared from the outset - it's well and good pandering to the active travel lobbyists and the small number of people directly benefiting from the measures but if you're not convincing the majority then you are digging a deep hole for yourself. Lambeth find themselves at the bottom of said hole.

@Earl Aelfheah the challenge facing many councils now is that so many of the tactics that Lambeth have used (and the judge had issues with) are the same that others councils have been using to force these measures in and to suppress legitimate concerns raised by local residents. Unfortunately for councils it is not the cycle/active travel lobby or posters on forums who are deciding whether claims made by residents in opposition to the way councils have implemented these are B*****S or not it is now high court judges and they actually properly assess what happened on a point of law. Lambeth have opened the floodgates. Yes there are lots of great, and effective, active travel interventions that have a clear ROI but there are also many that are local ideologically driven vanity projects that actually are doing more harm than good. This is the problem when politicians (of any kind) only listen to lobby groups - things get forced through that then have to be taken out because the proper process was not followed. How much time and money has Lambeth wasted on this? It is not that many messages ago that people were coming on here saying that the West Dulwich LTN would not be removed and saying the same for more local ones too. Trust me, there will now likely be a number of very nervous councils getting their legal departments to go on a discovery exercise to determine what happened during the implementation of their LTNs - whether they were installed one year ago or 5 years ago and determining what their defence will be if people come after them. Bottom line is if councils have cheated the system they will get found out as Lambeth have found to their cost and ultimately this is no longer about just the LTN process but also political reputation particularly timely for Southwark given one of the favourites to take over from Cllr Williams is the councillor responsible for oversight of the Southwark LTNs.

@Dogkennelhillbilly I think the judge and the high court didn't think so. If you read the ruling the judge was critical of many parts of the consultation process but said the issues raised did not reach the high-bar required to make them unlawful in his court. Whatever anyone thinks about this I think we can all agree that Lambeth council have let themselves down, let their residents down and ultimately done harm to the broader active travel cause by implementing something that was, ultimately, unlawful. As I have said numerous times before the way councils are going about their implementation of active travel schemes could well be doing long-term harm to the fight against climate change. The West Dulwich case and the removal of the LTN is a very local example of it and I suspect the first of many as other local resident groups learn from the WDAG victory as there are so many similarities between the gripes about the way the councils have been behaving.

Sounds like Lambeth are finally having to be accountable for their (unlawful) actions. What a diabolical waste of tax-payers money and well done for WDAG for keeping up the fight and not giving in. All of those spouting the "this is all a nonsense judgement based on an admin oversight" must be pretty upset right now - oh how they were happy to come on here to impart their wisdom on how the LTN would not have to be removed....well I guess they might be feeling a little daft right now. Now I love how the narrative is "well the other LTNs aren't going anywhere" when surely the narrative should be how have we ended up at this point and can we trust our elected officials to do anything right? Maybe instead of cheer-leading the unlawful actions of a local council many should be trying to hold them to account (as many of us are) - for too long there have been way too many blinkered council-apologists who are helping prop up and defend councils who have been engaging in awful, and now in Lambeth's case unlawful, behaviour, often against the very people they are supposed to represent. Turning a blind eye because you agree with what they are doing is not a defence. Lambeth have helped open a tinder box for other fights against LTNs and I suspect you will read more about successful challenges where there has been unlawfulness. That statement from Lambeth Council is everything you would expect from a council that has been humiliated by a judge for their downright brazenness....one wonders if they might also be heading for a slap down from the High Court judge in the Brockwell Park case too...they are going to have to learn they aren't above the law nor are the above being accountable to residents. Maybe there might be a vacancy in the leadership of Lambeth council in the not too distant future too..... No wonder so many are so disillusioned by politics and politicians now. It's this type of wanton abuse of power that is giving rise to the likes of Reform but, a bit like the statement from Lambeth for many politicians sorry seems to be the hardest word.

https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2025/06/west-dulwich-ltn-overturned-by-high-court-with-lambeth-council-denied-permission-to-appeal/ Ouch....Lambeth got a telling off from the judge too......pretty clear now.... Deputy High Court Judge Tim Smith firmly rejected Lambeth’s attempt to delay removal of the LTN and to avoid the ETOs from being quashed: “Revoking the Orders after I have made a finding of unlawfulness leaves the same impression as would an attempt to resign immediately after one has been fired.” He also refused Lambeth’s request to appeal, confirming there was no realistic prospect of success, and stated in relation to Lambeth’s attempt to avoid paying a full costs award to WDAG: “The Claimant came to court seeking a quashing of the Orders. It has gone away having achieved that objective. It has therefore been completely successful.” A spokesperson for the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG) said:

The frustrating thing is when you get an email saying they couldn't deliver as no-one was in when you have been in all day and no postie has been anywhere near the house...

Apologies @Dulwich Born And Bred this is all so confusing - I had no idea EDF now has a Facebook page.

I wonder if someone can prove that East Dulwich Mums is also a proxy for the group pretending to be East Dulwich Forum. Is someone able to name the cleaning company involved as this is pretty underhand stuff and I am not sure I would want to engage them in cleaning services.....

Looks like McAsh got his chance to make a run on the leadership - the cut-throat world of internal party politics playing out before us....

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/kieron-williams-to-stand-down-as-leader-of-southwark-council/

You cycled? A303?

It seems to be the actual works get completed but there is always a delay for the new traffic signals - the DV/Red Post Hill junction was the same.

I don't think it is time restricted...the Southwark noise team's website says....(oh and look at the very first item on the list....;-)) Noise issues and nuisances that we can deal with We can help if you're being disturbed by noise coming from: amplified music TV parties nightclubs and pubs including people outside making noise DIY home renovation some construction sites barking dogs alarms / car alarms odours and fumes from commercial properties smoke commercial venues and events dust or noise from some works or equipment in the street fireworks at night from 11pm to 7am - extensions exist for the following festivals: first day of Chinese New Year until 1am the following day on the day of Diwali until 1am the following day New Year's Eve until 1am on New Year's Day 05 November until midnight

Errr could it be because of the noise pollution coming from it perhaps? You may not be able to hear it where you live but anyone on the Dulwich Village side of Lordship Lane all the way to beyond Brockwell Park is being disturbed by it - the sound wash from it is huge and that's a lot of people. As I said before we know people who live nearer to Brockwell Park to us and they say it is unbearable. To be fair the Emirates moved to a piece of wasteland between railway tracks so it actually in a less densely populated area now and the council actually goes out of their way to try to mitigate the impact on local residents and yes, other than the concerts, you could hear a pin drop on matchdays! 😉

But Alice, most football stadiums in London have been in the areas they are in for around 100 years - so there aren't any people who can say they were surprised to find a stadium dropped into their midsts. And it's actually the noise pollution that is the biggest concern not the people flocking to the festivals (that's a pain for those in the most immediate vicinity). We don't live close enough to Brockwell or Peckham Rye to be impacted by the people attending but we are impacted by the noise from both - that is the real problem here and why densely populated inner areas within crowded cities are no place for music festivals. As I said before if I set-up a sound system in my garden that disrupted as many people as Brockwell and Peckham Rye does trust me, the council would be round in a jiffy to shut it down....

But Mal, if someone is playing incessant music loudly in their garden and it is causing a nuisance then the council will send around a noise officer and they will have words with said person. The council, on the other hand, is happy to allow events that cause incessant noise disruption for thousands and thousands of people over multiple days over multiple weekends and are actively encouraging it. Does that not seem slightly hypocritical? Or does hypocrisy not count when there is revenue to be had? Perhaps this is the route those impacted need to take, just keep reporting the council-mandated events to the council's noise team over and over and over again during the duration of the disruption.....

Absolutely agree - there is a place for multi-staged music festivals and densely populated residential areas in a crowded city are not it, especially not over multiple weekends.