Earl Aelfheah

How is a CPZ a 'threat to our wonderful high street'? I don't feel very strongly on this CPZ either way, but this seems like a hyperbolic and completely unevidenced claim.

What's the issue you're objecting to? No disabled parking has been removed. To travel from the end of court lane to the disabled bay on calton avenue is 0.2 miles (less than one minute) via Dekker road. Previously one had to turn through the junction, which was roughly the same distance but also heavily congested. I would wager it's quicker now. Plus the pavements are considerably wider / there is more room in front of the shops and the number of pedestrians being injured in collisions with all vehicles has reduced. If you want additional disabled bays, ask for them.

This insistence that there is a huge danger to people walking on the pavement posed by cyclists just isn't born out in the data. There is however, a significant risk of being injured or killed by a motor vehicle. Your previous suggestion that there is no point widening pavements or improving road crossings because of dangerous cyclists is just ridiculous. You've railed against cyclists over many, many threads. We get it. But this is not a reason to lobby against improvements to pedestrian areas as well. Unless you're arguing that we should only invest in car infrastructure / schemes encourage more motor vehicles? We can't all drive everywhere. Some of us want to be able to walk or cycle in reasonable comfort and safety.

There was never disabled parking on court lane (although agree it would be good to have some put in - perhaps write to the council?). There is disabled parking outside the shops. The only change is that you can't drive through the junction - which applies equally to everyone. There is a lot more room now if you're disabled or in a wheel chair to actually navigate around the shops. I do not get this point about there not being clarity about right of way between bikes and pedestrians. The is a road is now filtered to remove motor cars, is narrower (making it easier to cross) and has been curved round to slow the remaining vehicles; but there is still clear separation between the road and the pavement / pedestrian area.

Hard to shop if you can't walk or wheel? How? There is disabled parking right outside the shops. I defy anyone to say look at those before and after shots and say that it's not a nicer space now for pedestrians. Whether you'd rather prioritise people driving through is another matter, but for pedestrians, it's objectively a better space.

Many of us manage to navigate the streets perfectly well without inadvertently driving through bus gates, in bus lanes etc. I don't think there is any great conspiracy by the council to trick people. That said, I agree with the points about signage in this case. If you do too, respond to the consultation and raise it? Generally, I think these proposals look decent. They make is safer for cyclists, quicker for buses, give more space to pedestrians and make it easier to cross the road. And the idea that there is no point in new pedestrian crossings, or widened pavements because of cyclists, is just silly.

Then why do you think that directing this small amount of traffic up the west side would cause tailbacks all the way to where the road splits and beyond? If heading south along the west side of the rye there is a very small diversion turning right and going round, instead of left and straight on. If travelling north it makes no difference. If travelling east you’d go via Nunhead lane as now. It’s a tiny difference, to a small number of private journeys, in order to speed up buses carrying a far greater number of people How is this altered by these changes? You don’t say and I don’t see it.

I don't think anyone is claiming that ULEZ is the only reason that air quality is improving. But it's clear that it's contributing. It has removed a lot of the highest polluting vehicles off our streets. Which I think is something everyone should welcome personally.

We've already established that is not a simple solution, because bicycles don't have speedometers, don't have number plates, and generally aren't registered. To make this change would require primary legislation and without the aforementioned mechanisms to effectively enforce the new law, it would be very unlikely to pass even the early stages of parliamentary scrutiny; Neither would it with them, as they would be disproportionate and counter productive. In short, it is definitely isn't going to happen. Despite the perception of some that push bikes travelling over 20mph is a significant issue, in reality it is not and our law-making processes assess evidence, and consider the unintended consequences, costs vs benefits and proportionality of imposing new regulations. ....and just a reminder that (according to the DfT) 85% of car drivers drive faster than the speed limit in 20mph zones. A much, much bigger problem. Tackling this would be a far better use of resources.

It's pretty clear that the ULEZ has improved air quality in London. Like you say, the idea that it's about revenue generation doesn't stack up (it's cost a lot to implement and the revenues will recede with time). The usual suspects, who vehemently oppose anything that seeks to limit or mitigate the negative impacts of motor vehicles, will not be happy whatever the data shows, or how you present it. But it's pretty clear that the ULEZ has been a success.

Looking at the link @hfoster posted above I think it is a matter of law, but obviously most people wouldn't see as any kind of issue for kids under 12 months. Once some busybody makes a complaint though, the cinema probably have little choice but to apply the strict letter of the law.

I suspect the cinema management had little choice once a complaint is made. But why someone would feel the need to complain to the council is beyond me.

XL Bully's are meant to be muzzled and kept on a lead at all times in public places I believe.

I have not seen any stats showing air quality getting worse in London. Data show the exact opposite, air quality improving, both across the capital, and in SE22 specifically. Could you perhaps provide the sources you're referring to? Here is the official air quality monitoring data (NO2) for the local area: SDT Location 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 139 Lamppost (2139 - L29) Grove Lane 33.2 24.1 27.5 18.6 136 Lamppost (2160 - L12) adjacent to Dog Kennel Hill School 33.8 20.2 23.9 22.3 20.1 138 Lamppost (2127 - L11) Pytchley Road 31.1 24.7 27.4 25.9 23.4 114 Lamppost No 1 Goose Green / East Dulwich Road 37.4 31.6 33 22.6 25.2 25 21.8 161 Lamppost 2120-02 adjacent to 8 East Dulwich Grove 29.2 25.3 162 On the southern downpipe at Harris East Dulwich Primary School, Lordship Lane 23 22.1 151 Junction of Townley Road & Lordship Lane Lamppost ( 2300 - 01) 28.6 18.6 22 20.1 17 97 Barry Road 37.5 37.3 32.5 24.3 26.8 24.4 23

Yes, I agree. But I don't think this is an argument for needing bigger, heavier, higher fronted 4 wheel drive vehicles across London (which seems to be what you're implying?). It's more than a little ironic to suggest the answer to climate change is more SUVs and cross over vehicles.

A 4WD is clearly essential in inner London due to … rain? You can drive what you like, but come on. Let’s be serious.

An example of an exceptional occasion where you got stuck in an unforecasted snow storm (really?) is not evidence that a 4WD vehicle is important for ‘safety’ in London. SUVs and cross over vehicles are 8 times more likely to kill a child in a collision than a standard saloon car. You can make any choice you like, but don’t pretend it’s a safety issue in London. Look at what happened in Wimbledon. We don’t need off road vehicles in built up areas.

To claim that 4WD is a necessary safety feature in London is laughable. Larger, heavier, higher fronted vehicles which easily mount verbs and pole through barriers are not safer in a built up area. The fact that 4WD once allowed you to drive in snow and ice (when advice was not to), is not evidence that it’s the responsible choice

Here we go.... Look, if you think that bigger, heavier, higher fronted vehicles are no more dangerous than smaller ones, fill your boots. It's clearly not the case though. And there is plenty of research to prove it's not. And putting safety to one side, it can't be sensible that half of new cars sold in the UK are too big to fit into the average parking space.

Most of the research I've seen broadly defines SUVs as including cross over vehicles. There is no doubt that vehicles have got bigger, higher, and heavier, year on year in the UK. The semantics of what you call this trend for bigger vehicles is irrelevant; It is not a good one for road safety. And in built up areas it really is undesirable imo.

The high bonnet, 4 wheel drive vehicle has absolutely no place in London imo. They’re unnecessarily heavy, capable of easily mounting curbs / plowing through barriers, and are much more likely to cause upper body injuries, posing a ridiculous danger to pedestrians, particularly children.

Nope. There is multi-year data across a number of local sites. All showing pollution falling. You have dug out two examples of data for a six- month average covering the first half of 2023 (clearly marked as unratified values without bias adjustment / subject to change in 2024), which have subsequently been updated to provide the full year figure. On the other hand we have a claim that pollution has trebled. With no source, and completely at odds with official data. So is that just made up? Is that fine? If we're playing that game, I'd like to point out that every Dulwich resident has got 3 inches taller and seen their income double as a result of the changes on Calton avenue. Now show me data on height or income and I'll try to pick it apart. That's how it works right?

Run by some lovely people. Really nice place.

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/air-quality-london-2016-2024

Do you think the meeting will achieve anything? Exactly. We agree