Earl Aelfheah

I agree with the above. Paying higher rate tax doesn?t give you ?priority access? to public services, not should it. The same is true of any other form of taxation. Don?t know if anyone has done this for London https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/jun/11/copenhagenize-case-urban-cycling-graphs But I imagine the basic conclusion (that car journeys are a net cost to the taxpayer) are probably similar.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. > > > 5 minutes more pollution each way - it all stacks > up....we are presuming you were unable to cycle on > this journey! ;-) And remember, if the council > have their way you won't be able to use Townley > either so how much more time would that add onto > future journeys? Going to sussex. If I had to go down lordship lane and then East Dulwich Grove, or South up Lordship Lane, it would still add little more than 5-6 minutes realistically, when compared to going via Calton road. It?s really not that big a deal imo.

I drove from townley/ EDH up through the village to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5 minute diversion at most.

It's so difficult to navigate the planning application and the hundreds of associated documents. @YTC - thanks for trying to clarify what's being proposed. I am not sure I fully understand what the development will look like. I'm very happy if it secures the clubs future, but can't help resenting Meadow getting their way after their awful behaviour.

EDguy89 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > @James McAsh - 'an estimated increase of 50 or > so > > journeys per day' - how many extra car parking > > spaces are there going to be created please? > > Planning application seems to state 19 car parking > spaces. > > here: > https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applicati > ons/files/1FC901E7608249AD99623811998914E9/pdf/19_ > AP_1867-GROUND_FLOOR_PLAN_WITH_LANDSCAPE-889541.pd > f > > Here's a more pulled-back view of the development: > https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applicati > ons/files/DFD16C3D564419392D9AFD6383221242/pdf/19_ > AP_1867-SITE_PLAN_WITH_LANDSCAPE_-_GENERAL_ARRANGE > MENT-846159.pdf > > If those links don't work, search 19/AP/1867 on > Southwark's planning portal and review the > documents specifically looking for site plans. > Those will give the proposed end result. Thanks for this Just realised that the documents have been removed.

@James McAsh - 'an estimated increase of 50 or so journeys per day' - how many extra car parking spaces are there going to be created please? To DHFC fans (I am one myself) - do not for one minute think that Meadow care about the club, or can be trusted in any way. The Council should have moved ahead with compulsory purchase in order to secure the clubs future. Meadow locked the club out of their own ground, trade marked their name and used every underhand tactic possible to bully the club into supporting their planning application. The council should be absolutely ashamed if this goes through. Greendale is well used and has been particularly busy since COVID. It's valuable outdoor space and supposedly protected Metropolitan Open Land. There is no reason to make a special exception to the usual planning rules for Meadow. The council have given in to a bully.

@James - are there any further plans for creating some space outside shops on Lordship Lane? You almost have to push passed the queue outside M&S and there are plenty of other pinch points too. It's great that the council are creating more space in the most affluent and lowest density neighbourhood in the borough (The Village), but a little help in ED would be appreciated too.

An overseas property company who treated the areas with absolute disdain when they tried to trade mark the name Dulwich Hamlet Football in order to stop the club using it. They've behaved so, so badly. And yet they're allowed to put up tower blocks on metropolitan open land. @James - can you clarify how many extra cars are being added please.

Can anyone work out how many extra cars there are going to be? There are over 400 documents on the planning portal and it's almost impossible to navigate them (by design I'm sure). There are 219 new residencies with 'associated parking'. Does that mean a couple of hundred extra cars are being catered for?

What is the point of designating areas as 'Metropolitan open land' if the council are going to wave through development? The outrageous behaviour of the developers in this case will have been rewarded. Seems that in planning matters, bullies prosper.

Does anyone know if there are any plans to reduce traffic / pollution in ED (other than Melbourne Grove being closed to through traffic). Anything to improve Lordship Lane?

Mrs D Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would love some more focus on public transport > in order to reduce car usage. I agree with this. The problem I guess is that it doesn't feel that there is much the council can really do (it's more of a TFL thing?). Pulic transport in SE London generally is pretty underwhelming compared to the rest of the Capital.

This thread seems to contain a lot of very binary thinking - you must either be 'pro car', or 'pro bikes' (or 'anti car' or 'anti bikes') or whatever. In reality most people walk, cycle, drive, get the bus... They do all these things. The only question is how best to design our environment and allocate public space, to accommodate these activities in a way that maximises the benefits for the greatest number of people. There is nothing hypocritical with accepting a role for the car and yet still think that the dominance we give it in most public spaces is unbalanced, or even damaging. This is not an argument for 'banning' all cars. something which is so obvious, it shouldn't need constantly repeating really.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > who cares who they are for, it's gross hypocrisy Not necessarily. There is a difference between providing some limited parking for staff and encouraging parents to drive their children to school.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The council can;t possibly care about walking to > schools because a significant number of their > schools have on site car parking. Presumably for staff?

Blimey. Hope everyone is OK

I do think there are legitimate questions about how Southwark are prioritising certain schemes over others. It seems that with Melbourne Grove and Carlton Avenue + the school street closures, they're mainly targeting walking routes to schools. I'm supportive of this, but would also like to see them look at doing something to improve Lordship Lane and to create a safer cycle route for those travelling into central London, or connecting to the tube at Brixton.

I am sorry that there are people thinking about leaving the area. But we are talking about the closure of Carlton Avenue to through traffic on a trial basis. I would encourage you to wait and see how it pans out. I would be very surprised if the impact of this change on your life is quite as severe as perhaps you imagine.

People should go and check out Northcote Road. It?s been utterly transformed.

Yeah, it's a real shame... Was a great neighbourhood restaurant.

Terrible. Thoughts go out to friends and family of the victim.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t understand how anyone can fervently > support the current measures and yet still own a > car and continue to drive when they feel like it. I assume this is aimed at me. I don't drive 'when I feel like it'. I drive when I need to. I'm in favour of measures which encourage people to use their cars less, this is not the same as suggesting all cars should be banned. So I do not see any contradiction, unless one is being completely binary in their thinking. > It seems likely a lot of traffic is generated by > school runs but we keep being told how vital it is > to reduce pollution and make roads safe, > especially for children and schools. What are > school governors and parent groups doing to change > this from inside the schools? Again, it is simply > unbelievable that children are allowed to drive > themselves to school, seemingly with the schools' > and the parents? blessing. I think one of the things they've been doing is campaigning for measures such as these to make it safe for children to walk and cycle to school. This is the whole point.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the main issue is local residents needlessly > using cars then we should expect to see massive > gains very soon. However, if the main issue is > through traffic then things may get very much > worse as traffic becomes concentrated along a few > routes and, yes, I do then wonder what happens in > emergency situations and to bus services? > > Through traffic suggests journeys that are not > local and are to some degree necessary. > > > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ... so there is no practical alternative to the > > car? What any of the time, in any situation? > But > > you are definitely supportive of healthy > streets > > 🤔 Fair enough. We will see pretty soon. I think traffic through the Village will remain fairly high, as it was before the changes. I expect there will be a drop in some local journeys and a significant reduction in traffic on some residential streets, with a greater number of people walking and cycling to Dulwich Hamlet school in particular (you can already witness this). But like you say, we will be able to see. That's the point of this pilot as I understand it.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In reply to the comment there is no move to ban > cars... > > Are we sure about that? When members of certain > cycling pressure groups, with it would seem > enormous influence with the council, start > suggesting that people who cannot cycle to work > should consider moving, you do wonder how far they > are prepared to go. There is no move to ban cars. Car drivers (and I speak as one myself) are a massively indulged minority. Making a few streets no through roads is hardly some kind of purge.

... so there is no practical alternative to the car? What any of the time, in any situation? But you are definitely supportive of healthy streets 🤔