Rockets

Saw loads of cars heading towards a fine in Dulwich Village yesterday as they drove through the restrictions during the operating hours - oblivious to the fact that the restrictions also apply on bank holidays - an expensive assumption to make and one the council is more than happy to accept!

I did love this line in the Lambeth CPZ which demonstrates the FUD council's sell to people: Although Lambeth is one of the leading boroughs for sustainable travel with almost 80% of trips by residents made by walking, cycling and public transport, and 60% of households being car free, emissions from transport still make up almost a quarter of the total emissions from the borough. The use of the word transport is key here as private cars, which are targeted by the CPZs, make up a small partof emissions from transport with buses, delivery vehicles, lorries and taxis taking the lion's share of blame. Included in Lambeth's categorisation of transport and the 25% is: river, rail, motorcycle, taxis, PHVs, non TFL bus and coach, TFL bus and coach, HGV and LGVs and cars so why they feel the need to reference that is, ahem, anyone's guess ;-)......probably because if they listed what private cars owned by residents contribute people would be like...is this a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Layer on top of that the fact that in other Lambeth documents they say 40% of emissions in our air emanate from outside London and you realise just how futile it is to try to claim that CPZs will contribute significantly to cleaner air - it's clearly absolute nonsense but a convenient untruth that councils peddle as it deflects attention from the bigger contributors like construction and domestic and industrial heating.

And therein lies the problem. Too much of the council-led narrative on these measures is based on assumptions, best-guesses, misinformation and wide-sweeping generalisations which are lapped-up and repeated verbatim by the supporters of these interventions (the short-journey one being a prime example as it holds no weight in the very area the council is pushing these measures). Earl, you mention buses - you know that buses are now being delayed due to the additional congestion being caused by LTNs - see the unholy spat between our local councillors and their bullying of TFL officials when TFL dared to publish a document that challenged the council "LTNs don't cause any problems" narrative? Again, it is very easy to be critical of the amount of space dedicated to parking spaces for cars but if you haven't taken the time to determine why that is and the factors that contribute to that then you are only telling half the story and being, perhaps deliberately, blinkered. The council has been very clear that residents in Dulwich are more reliant on cars because of a number of factors: a combination of the fact that PTAL scores in the area are low and there being more families in the area. You can't ignore that and if you don't address those factors then people will always need cars and I suspect the council knows this but then looks on it as a good source of revenue generation (even during a cost of living crisis) as their ideology is that you are well-off if you have access to a car.

Malumbu, is it the also then disingenuous for the council to build their anti-car narrative on the basis that, and I quote, 40% of Southwark residents don't have access to a car?

Earl, the problem here is the council has zero clue what creates the traffic challenges in the area and applies broad, wide-sweeping generalisations to create an anti-car narrative without actually spending any time to determine what is happening. They have done it time after time because, unfortunately, a lot of people lap them up and repeat them without actually determining if they are correct or not. Remember the side-street, supposed, massive increase in miles driven which turned out to be utter rubbish - repeated verbatim by the council and councillors yet and created a narrative that pro-LTN lobbyists ran with? The fact is more Dulwich'ites walk more short journeys (68%) than any other part of the borough so short car journeys are clearly not the issue here - but the council doesn't seem to care and nor do those campaigning for "change" - they hope the mud sticks. If you don't understand what the problem is how on earth can you find a solution to it?

Yes but you do realise that us Dulwict'ites already walk more short journeys (68% from the council's own figures) than any other part of the borough? So not sure the "the problem is short unnecessary car journeys" really hold much weight here but, of course, the council loves to apply the "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" narrative to support many of it's own ideologies!

Please, please do not compare Southwark to Islington - it's chalk and cheese in terms of PTAL scores. In fact, the high PTAL scores in Islington is one of the reasons their car ownership rates (around 30%) are some of the lowest of any local authority not only in London but the country as a whole. Islington became popular due to it connectivity to the centre of London and the gentrification there was built on the fact it was so easy to get into the city. You can very easily get around and in and out of Islington without the need for a car. Take a look at Islington's PTAL score map - the outer reaches of the borough around Finsbury Park (both Victoria and Piccadilly tube line access, Overground and National Rail) have PTAL scores of 6a and 6b - it's probably one of the best connected London boroughs for consistently high PTAL scores. Southwark is very much not with huge swings in PTAL scores from north to south of the borough and yet Southwark treats some, and wants to treat all of it's constituents, as if they have the same transport choices as those in boroughs like Islington. And, despite your claims of Islington charging more, the charge for a regular sized family car there is £235 compared to Southwark now charging £225. I find it incredible that during a cost of living crisis that the council would be so blinkered as to nearly double the CPZ charges - it's utterly tone deaf but exactly what we have grown to expect from Tooley Street.

Earl, they are asking for another £100 a year for a CPZ permit - how can that be justified during a cost of living crisis - have their costs to run the CPZ gone up so much that they have to pass on that huge increase? Nope, I doubt it. So it's clear it is a financial war on car owners - a stealth tax. One wonders how much they really want to charge people and where the price increases will stop. Southwark will always remind people that 40% of Southwark households do not have access to a car (as if owning a car is something people should be ashamed of) but I suspect many of those 60% who do have access to one are living in the southern parts of the borough with the lowest PTAL scores and often with the longest journeys for work and play. I can't help but think that Tooley Street's view is distorted because their HQ sits within the northern part of the borough, huge swathes of which are blessed with PTAL scores of 6b. The council should be spending time trying to improve PTAL scores before hitting car owners with yet more costs - but public transport is getting worse the further south you go in the borough. Interestingly enough negative impact on PTAL scores was used by the council in their lobbying of TFL to not cut bus routes that travelled across the borough when TFL had their funding crisis.

Here is what the report actually says: The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich. This is confirmed also by more general DfT accessibility statistics which show that, in general the area has a lower public transport accessibility level than the remainder of Southwark whilst by car it tends to be on par with the other parts of the borough or somewhat higher for hospitals, particularly due to the proximity of Dulwich Community Hospital. The council's intention is to roll the CPZs across the whole of the borough - surely given the low PTAL scores across the Dulwich area surely it is unfair of the council to target car users in the area the same as they are in the north of the borough? So much of the transport make-up of the area is determined by public transport accessibility and it is not good in the Dulwich area - people own cars because they have to as the other options are severely lacking, and as Penguin points out - public transport is getting worse not better and I suspect if the council ran the report again the PTAL scores would be even lower.

Earl, with all due respect I refer you to the councils own traffic management report from April 2018.....have a read, it's quite enlightening....especially in relation to PTALs (P.S. anti-car and pro-LTN lobbyists hate this report and hate the fact it exists as it demonstrates a pragmatic approach from the council before the madness set in!) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjHnMeK2df-AhUEbsAKHfhHDakQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2TVoXhGyqSCzaMl7HGk3TT

It's what happens when you conflate school streets with other timed restrictions - it causes confusion and confusion is profitable for the council! 😉 It is utterly ludicrous that these restrictions apply on bank holidays.

Could it be, per chance, that there is lots of space for parking cars because, well, people have a need cars in this area? Let's not lose sight of the fact that Dulwich still has "poor" PTAL scores and public transport is getting worse not better and is one of the main reasons cited by the council for the higher car ownership levels in the south of the borough. And the measures put in by the council to help create the need for CPZs (extending double-yellows etc years ago) is the sole, and single, biggest contributor to increasing parking congestion in the area - at a time when, don't forget, private car ownership is decreasing. This is just another blatant attack on car drivers by the council because the council's narrative is that anyone who can afford a car must be some super-rich, million-pound bonus receiving fat-cat and deserves to pay more for the right to own a car or words to that effect! ;-). It's amazing how quickly they forget their mantra about the evils of the cost of living crisis and are happy to add to the misery if it supports their own ideology. As I said before hypocrites and just the tip of the iceberg and one-day those who support the council in these actions will see through the blah blah blah....the adage never let the truth get in the way of a good story comes to mind!

I presume your bin has already been collected by the council after the subscription expired? I would just ask a neighbour, the weekly collections ensure it will be emptied soon.

Wow, how on earth can the council justify that increase? Honestly, this comes as no surprise, the council continues its war on car owners with stealth tax upon stealth tax. And remember, their plan is for borough-wide CPZs as a matter of course. Amazing how they offer soundbite after soundbite about the cost of living crisis yet turn a blind eye to it when it comes to their own grand plans and ideology....utter hypocrites... But, some were smart enough to realise what the grand plan was when they floated the "commuters from Kent" blah blah blah to justify the first CPZ in the area. They did it again with the "socially distanced LTNs"! They are just bare-faced liars and should not be trusted...but with their majority they can pretty much do as they please.

The current connection is ADSL and apparently, in some cases, they can get the fibre connection to a home via the old copper cable run from the street but for a lot of victorian houses the old cable run is too small or degraded for the fibre so they have to re-route it and bury it somewhere else. One of the engineers said that the problem is happening a lot in the Dulwich area due to the older houses and only a specialised Openreach engineer can run the new buried cable so we have a fibre box/landing point in the pavement in front of our house, a fibre box on the outside of the house and are wating for the specialised Openreach engineer to run the cable from the pavement box to the house box via our front garden.....and we are waiting...and waiting...and waiting...and waiting. Openreach keeps heralding the number of houses they "pass" with fibre connection but that just refers to the pavement having fibre running to the and from the cabinet...the big challenge is the last mile and getting the fibre cable to the front of the house and Openreach is really struggling with that element.

From very painful experience just because they have fibre in the pavement doesn't mean it will be easy to get it to the home. We placed our order for fibre in September of last year after receiving an email from BT saying it is available on our street and we are still waiting, some 7 months later, for OpenReach to connect the bit from the street to the house as the old copper that connects to most houses needs to be replaced and Openreach are utterly incompetent. They have sent numerous engineers all of whom failed to complete the job. And when I look at Trustpilot it seems the majority of people have the same issue - BT take the order for fibre, Openreach fail to connect and then BT says..not our fault it's Openreach who can't do it. I think BT are under government pressure to connect as many homes as possible so are taking the orders for Fibre knowing full well they can't get people connected - our BT bill shows we have had fibre since when we placed the order (yet we are not being billed for it) yet still no sign of when we will actually be connected. Same issues with Sky apparently as Openreach are the only company who do the connections and cannot keep up with demand due to their lack of trained engineers.

Such a shame to see Hisar go - was a the go-to place back in the day but has felt very tired for a while. Probably inevitable given the plethora of eating choices now on the Lane and the arrival of so many chain restaurants forcing the prices up - but tend to agree with a previous poster that I wonder whether part of the allure for the chains is the delivery market and having a delivery option hub in an area they are not well represented by their outlet.

The view from, or of (as I think the building is iconic and I love the way it sits overlooking East Dulwich) Dawson's Heights is always a good one. I have always also loved the juxtaposition of Peckham Rye on a summer day with the masses of people flocking to it from the urban conurbations encircling it on each side The Queen and her Corgi's artwork. The William Blake mural in Goose Green.

So, I can't see from the photo, but the first sign says 4pm and the second sign says 4.30pm - is that correct? Wow, if that is the case then surely there is an ambulance-chasing lawyer who would want to take the council on over this and represent anyone who got a fine between the hours of 4pm and 4.30pm? I wonder how many people have fallen foul of this - yet another embarrassing moment for the council - someone get some good pictures before it is too late and send them to Southwark News - they'll love it!

Oh no....I wish I had never asked.....how many nail bars does one area need?

Sorry if I missed it but anyone know what's being done with the old Tandoori Nights - lots of people stripping it and working on the interior?

Poundland is going to win awards for this marketing campaign, absolutely superb.

Agree - very simple - if everyone follows the rules then everyone is happy. You can't focus on, or give any leeway, to any one group. Many cyclists think the rules don't apply to them and the videos posted from Dulwich by Barby illustrate that very clearly. And there is enough material for a whole other thread on elements of the Highway Code that cyclists seem to happily/wilfully ignore that goes beyond cycling on pavements and jumping red lights - Rule 74 seems to be a particular favourite - but let's not go there for fear someone calls me a name! ;-)

Malumbu - every time you try desperately to make things personal I just take that as proof that I have posted something you are incapable of responding to in a considered, adult way. It's almost a daily occurrence... sticks and stones and all that....

Does that mean that you get charged £2 for parking somewhere outside the bays and these bays (which I presume the cost is reduced to 50p), are they in addition to the ones the council are planning to install? Again, all well and good if people are actually using them and I am reminded that us Dulwich'ites are Southwark's greatest walkers so is there a demand? I know a lot of European cities are grappling with e-bike usage patterns - especially outside the main city centres.