Earl Aelfheah

Great to finally see some pavement widening outside the fish mongers. Would be good to get something done by M&S. The metal barriers need to be removed and the pavement widened.

R number in London is now 0.8 - 1.1

I wasn?t aware of this, but it sounds good. I wonder whether they?ll do anything along Lordship Lane or North cross Road.

Here is what Wandsworth have been doing to help businesses and to create space for people. Compare and contrast with Lordship Lane:

They should have put plastic barriers up in order to widen the pavements, months ago.

Jakido Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would appear that no schemes are being put > forward for aiding social distancing / widening > pavements / increased bike racks / reducing > traffic flows on the lordship lane: > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHo > me.aspx?IId=50023147&Opt=0 Yep, the main shopping street in the area and the council has absolutely nothing to help people social distance, or make it easier for businesses to reopen. It's actually pretty negligent.

ed26 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just adding layer upon layer of complexity doesn't > improve the streets for anyone. The council should > go back to the drawing board for the whole area > and think about what they really want to achieve > post Covid-19 rather than adding to the maze. I'm not sure any of the changes can really be said to be a response to COVID-19. If enabling businesses and workplaces to reopen whilst allowing for social distancing is the main priority, then we would be widening pavements along Lordship lane and creating segregated cycle lanes to connect into town. This can be done cheaply and quickly with cones and some temporary signs (as has happened in other boroughs).

Thanks for the tips

The question about the prioritisation process for these schemes is a fair one. I'm in favour of what they've done in the Village, because we desperately need to reduce pollution, and the number of road casualties. The allocation of public space is massively skewed to giving priority to cars over people and anything which moves us away from this and starts to redress the balance, has to be positive. But it does seem that on the whole, the Council's approach is to allocate funding towards small, vocal resident campaigns, who are demanding less traffic on 'their' road, (or in the case of CPZs, easier parking outside their houses). Whilst I don't criticise these campaigns for trying to improve their immediate environment, this doesn't seem like a very strategic or joined up approach from the Council when deciding where to invest. In practice it means that poorer, typically high pollution, high density areas, (often where car ownership is low), get a smaller proportion of the funding in favour of more affluent, lower density neighbourhoods. I would dearly like to see an approach, which prioritised interventions based on the principle of reducing pollution and road casualties and creating public space *where it is most needed*. Funding is limited, so it needs to be directed to where it will have the biggest impact, not just where there are the loudest voices.

Does anyone know of any good, (ideally lesser known) spots not too far from East Dulwich where you can swim?

The assessment went like this. A small but vocal group living on Melbourne Grove petitioned councillors to close their road. A small but vocal group living near the junction of duulwich village / Court lane lobbied the council to close their road. The council responded to the loudest voices, with little reference to the wider area and seemingly no strategic plan. I actually support both schemes believe it or not, as I have come to realise that Southwark only progress through small tactical interventions and that?s better than nothing. But it?s far from how I would like this stuff to happen.

The idea that if you don?t like people playing loud music into the early hours in a residential area then you should ?get a life?, or ?move to the country? is ridiculous. Better advice would be, if you can?t live considerately alongside others, you shouldn?t be living in a city.

The planters have gone in today and look great. Now we need to get something done to make space for people in ED. Whilst I support the measures in the village, why Southwark have identified one of the most affluent and lowest density areas as the priority for creating more space for people is questionable. Let's see some work done over the border quickly please.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Car parking is the lowest use of public space ever > devised. Free car parking, doubly so. Totally agree. The amount of public space we give over to motor vehicles and long term car storage is a joke. With typically two lanes of parked cars and two lanes of moving traffic on most residential roads, there is little left for people. That said, CPZs only entrench the idea that cars have an unquestionable right to dominate public space. Personally, I would like to see a lot of space reallocated away from car storage, to prioritising bikes and people.

.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrahrah - it looks as if the school didn't want > one - or certainly not where the council wanted to > put it. Quite pointed that the council seemingly > hadn't consulted the school prior to these plans > being drawn up which seems ludicrous to me - and > demonstrates the haphazard and knee-jerk approach > to these things by our elected representatives. > > What do they say about the 6 Ps of > planning/performance......;-) I certainly wouldn't defend the councils approach to 'healthy streets', or consultation in general.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although it was once implied by one of the cycling > advocates on here that if you couldn?t cycle to > your place of work that perhaps you should > consider moving! Well if someone who owns a bike said something once...

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You could always move. Yeah, anyone who wants any change in the area, even a single bike lane, should probably move.

It doesn't, it's just that if we're not going to make room for people here, Southwark could at least give us a single route out of the borough where we can connect to an area where they have widened pavements, installed segregated bike lanes, installed hire bikes, created low traffic neighbourhoods and where there is a tube station.

I love the fact that people who constantly call others 'snowflakes' have run off to join Parler, because they're upset at people holding different opinions / challenging them. Personally, I feel pretty sorry for Hopkins, she's appears deeply damaged and unhappy to me. Will probably do her some good to be away from Twitter.

How about creating a segregated bike lane along East Dulwich Grove to link with the good cycling infrastructure over the border in Lambeth (if Southwark aren't going to improve things here).

Please put a barrier on Heber Road if Goodrich residents don't want one.

It is a public park, but people shouldn't be there making excessive noise late at night and they should tidy up after themselves. It's not really that difficult, it's just about not being a selfish dck.

SnakeFilth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mary123 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Would the fact that the Police have attended and, > in your own words, 'just give advice to the groups > to keep the noise down', make you think that in > fact people gathering in a public space to have a > few drinks and enjoy themselves is perfectly legal > and it may just be your intolerance and possibly a > misguided opinion that you are entitled to perfect > peace and quiet in a major urban area that is the > problem here? There are many, many parts of the > country where you will achieve this without > needing to twitch your curtains, email the council > or call the already overstretched Police force who > are understandably wary of attending such scenes > without contracting Coronavirus and taking it back > to their families. Just because something isn't strictly unlawful does not mean that it is not selfish / thoughtless.

Any chance the bin men could not wake up the entire house at 5:30 by shouting their heads off?