Earl Aelfheah

Getting to LB is pretty easy on the train or by bike.

I think it is clear that Meadow are completely unscrupulous and untrustworthy and also pretty good at getting what they want. It's not a case of anyone doubting the motives of those running the club. I think the fear is that despite the best intentions of the club and the Council, Meadow will continue to out manoeuvre them in future. This may well be unfounded (I hope so). I don't know whether or not it would have been possible, but I would have liked to see the Council push ahead with compulsory purchase. As long as Meadow are in the picture, people are unlikely to feel reassured - and it's not a sign that they don't support the team.

Orange owl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As someone who has lived here a while and can > remember Sainsburys been built,I just can?t > believe anything the club/meadows says about the > future of the green dale area. In a few years the > goalposts will just be moved again,I > love the club and hope it stays but not at any > cost This is exactly my feeling on it. I hope I am wrong.

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would not call it a major town centre any more > more of a street selling cheap rubbish. It's used by many people and perhaps pedestrianisation may help it broaden it's appeal and encourage a greater mix of shops.

It's a major 'town centre' and so it makes sense to pedestrianise (most provincial town centres were pedestrianised back in the 80s).

I agree with you Fox, it seems strange. I think it's fair to say that the government stopped 'following the science' some time ago. Fingers crossed that their gamble will pay off and we don't end up back in lockdown (as has happened in Barcelona).

The Walworth scheme is great. Actually a much more strategic intervention. Will make a big difference not just locally, but to those Cycling into central London from south of the borough.

I really don't think this is about class war. We do need to reduce the number of car journeys and encourage active travel as much as possible if we're going to tackle, pollution, obesity and generally improve the environment for people and businesses.

ED Bird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Elusive Shadow Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Hope it'll be recreated > > > I heard the artist does plan to return with the > stencil to recreate it. > > I didn't think much of this wall art to begin > with. I'd prefer to see more by Atila... or the > artist who did the Kingfisher! I hope so, I liked the corgis too.

There is evidence that with the introduction of LTNs, it takes between 3 and 6 months for traffic on main roads to adjust, usually returning to previous levels quite quickly. Most of the traffic using Townley to cut through from EDG would have previously done the same, but come via calton I guess? Does seem a little heavier right now though. Overall, I haven't noticed a big increase in traffic along EDG or Lordship Lane, or through the Village. But this is of course just my subjective observations. Like I said, i did drive that way during rush hour the other week and it seemed OK. I hope that Southwark are actually monitoring this stuff, so they can publish some proper data on the impacts, both positive and negative.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Remember, the council has aspirations to close > Townley Road too in the not too distant future.... That would make sense tbh.

What I have noticed, is an increase in cars using Townley Road to turn on to Lordship Lane (presumably cutting through from East Dulwich Grove.

johnhinton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As someone who lives on Dulwich Village, I > wouldn't characterise the road closures as > creating a "gated community". What I see is that > the main road through the village creates a > highway from the South Circular to the north of > the borough, and that when the weight of traffic > eases, people speed along Dulwich Village. Do I > have to be anti-car or anti-cycle to see this as a > poor outcome? Apologies, but I'm not sure I follow your point here. Are you suggesting that the new measures will decrease the weight of traffic and so you're worried that speeds will go up?

MrsR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18590303.becken > ham-place-park-swimming-lake-reopens-public/ > > Beckenham Place Park swimming news This is great news, thanks for the update

I believe the school applied to be made a school street some time ago. jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi all, > > Let me look into the zebra crossing issue - agree > that it's very odd. > > As for Heber School, I'd be happy to get school > streets put in place on Heber Road if the school > wants this. I know there are currently plans to > adjust the road layout on the street to make it > safer, but school streets would be good too. > > Best wishes > James

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I dont know - im no expert - but if you dont > need to close a road day and night why do it? If > it makes life easier for people to have it open > some of teh time, why not? This is a reasonable question. I feel like the physical infrastructure and enforcement needed to do it, for the sake of a little more convenience for a small number of people at quiet times, might be excessive. But perhaps ?One Dulwich? could put forwards concrete proposal for how it might operate.

dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would house prices actually go down due to these > closures, surely a quieter road at the expense of > other roads would make the prices go up on court > road etc? Yeah, I would have thought so, although it's probably pretty marginal either way. Not sure house prices is really relevant to why people are supporting or objecting to the scheme.

The planters have all been fixed I believe.

Someone also tampered with the planters in the village. [Edited to clarify - I think this was last week. Someone removed the bolts that hold them down I think]

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrah why don't you getting the honesty ball > rolling tell us about how your car journey you > boasted about the other day was essential? > > "> > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > I drove from townley/ EDH up through the > > > village > > > > to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5 > > > minute > > > > diversion at most." I didn't say it was essential, or that only essential journeys are legimate. It would have been very difficult to do via public transport however, probably not impossible. Again, suggesting that we need to try and disincentivise car journeys (especially those which can be easily undertaken by alternative modes of travel, which one might characterise as non-essential), is not calling for a ban on car journeys. The idea that you are either 'pro-car' or 'anti-car' is an example of extremely binary thinking. Also, I wasn't 'boasting' about my car journey. I was pointing out that the diversion that was necessary in order to undertake it (even at rush hour) was fairly minimal. Your post just shows that you are not interested in actually debating the issues, but rather trying (poorly) to 'score points'.

The timed restrictions by One Dulwich are a red herring in my opinion. If a small diversion at times when the roads are quiet is really their issue, I would be surprised. When 'One Dulwich' say that they support the aims of the scheme (which are ultimately to reduce the number of car journeys)... well, the only way to achieve this is to make driving less appealing. Which means less convenient. In reality, this is what many of their supporters are against. I wish they would be more straight forward, because then we could have an honest conversation about convenience / benefits versus the inconvenience / costs of non essential car journeys.

Hi James, May I ask why Heber hasn't seen an accelerated 'School Street' scheme put in place under TFLs StreetSpace initiative (like Goodrich and others)? Is there anyway that Heber Road could look to be included? There has been a camera installed since a road traffic incident earlier in the year, but closing the street to traffic would be more effective in preventing such things.

Rockets Wrote: > Aren't they just saying that these > particular closures are causing huge issues > elsewhere and not dealing with the issue they were > designed to...infact they are making things > worse. How would the proposal from 'One Dulwich' for timed restrictions be better? Presumably the timed restrictions would include the morning and evening rush hours? This implies that the issue is a very brief diversion at quiet times? Is that what people are concerned about?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Ask cars to stop driving through a few > residential > > streets and people lose their sh*t. > > > But are they? Aren't they just saying that these > particular closures are causing huge issues > elsewhere and not dealing with the issue they were > designed to...infact they are making things > worse. Well not everyone, but certainly when people are saying that they're going to leave the area and others are vandalising the planters - it seems like a fairly hysterical / disproportionate response imo.

Ask cars to stop driving through a few residential streets and people lose their sh*t.