Earl Aelfheah

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 🤔

The issue is to create healthy streets. To do that you have to reduce car journeys. I agree we need analysis and I have not been a massive fan of the councils general approach As I have said before. But the idea that all car journeys are essential and that you can reduce traffic whilst not inconveniencing any drivers, is for the birds. No one has at any point said that there are not journeys that need to be made by car. But neither can anyone seriously suggest that there aren?t journeys which are currently made by car which couldn?t be done in foot or bike instead. If you believe that all car journeys are essential, then say so.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2km each way on foot is a long, time-consuming > journey for most people. Less thank 2km. There are lot's of people who jump in their car just to get a coffee. It comes down to whether you think we need to reduce the number of car journeys or not. Or perhaps you think all care journeys are essential.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This is ridiculous. Now we?re suggesting the > > schools won?t be able to recruit teachers, > because > > of a 5 min diversion. > > At least you finally concede this won?t reduce car > use and will simply push traffic elsewhere on a > five minute diversion (generating additional > pollution). I think it will discourage a lot of short local journeys which could easilly be done on foot / by bike. I don't think it will lead to teachers quitting their jobs, or recruitment problems.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrahrah - I am merely challenging you on your > hyperbole - you often quote things that have > little grounding in fact. Example?

... so there is a lot of opportunities to encourage fewer car journeys locally. Also, if you?re driving from Sevenoaks to Chiswick, the changes at this junction are really not going to make much difference to your journey

Again, not every journey can be done by foot or by bike. No one is looking to ban cars. But 35% of Car journeys in London are less than 2km.

Serena2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t know the answer, but they have a planning > application to build a separate house in the > garden outstanding. In fact, this is one of a > number of planning applications in recent years. Sounds like rogue developer. No doubt it'll fall into such a state of disrepair that they'll eventually get the go ahead from the council. Personally, i would like to see the council use compulsory purchase orders where houses are left derelict like this, as a way of pressuring planning departments.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would probably work out cheaper to buy an old > flatbed truck and an annual parking permit. > > Then put the skip in the back of the truck and at > the end of the build sell the truck to the next > guy in the street doing an extension Ha! Admire your creative thinking.