Earl Aelfheah

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.

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?