Earl Aelfheah

Not much detail, but has to be better than the massive car park that takes up most of the area currently: https://www.canadawater.co.uk/

I think it’s great that they’re replacing a huge expanse of car parking with housing. Just hope the design is decent and that they manage to incorporate some mixed use (hopefully with a new bowling place and a cinema) into the scheme.

You used to be able to drive through the park. It was actually one of the reasons the Dulwich Society was first formed (to campaign for it to stop). People could drive through from Dulwich Common to the Village entrance as well (not just court Lane). [edited to add] according to Wikipedia cars have not been able to drive in the park since 2003 (?!). That seems very late and I’m sure you couldn’t cut through / use the gates then. My dad certainly remembers driving through from the south circular, but can’t give you a timeline on that. Would be interested if anyone does know when it stopped. Like I said above I thought it was the 60’s or 70’s but could have been later.

…you might be right about this, I wasn’t actually sure when they closed it to through traffic. Still furious though 😡

... oh yeah, I had forgotten about Sea Cow. Another good place (plaice?.. no sorry).

I have to say, lovely as the nostalgia is - I do think East Dulwich is in many ways better today than it has ever been. Not least the fact that surrounding areas have also improved / become more interesting. Plus the introduction of the east London line and (controversial I know) Lime bikes, have made it easier / more convenient to get around than ever. Whilst it's true that we don't have a gun shop anymore, we do have lot's of other, lovely shops and eateries.

? Do you mean 'Liquorish' or was it actually a place called 'International Cocktail Bar' (in which case I definitely don't remember it)?

Of course. And there was no consultation. I blame the LCC. They hadn't broken cover / didn't officially exist then, but we know that they were still pulling the strings behind the scenes. Don't think we're moving on after only 60 years

I'm still furious that they stopped cars driving through Dulwich Park in the 60s.

😂 and there you have it: ”give me money to stop some changes” ”what changes’” *silence*

…But would waste more on reversing it 🤔

Imagine still being fixated about a change of road layout and the creation of a small pedestrian space outside the shops / cafes (enjoyed by nearly everyone) more than 4 years on… oh we don’t have to 😂

This has taken me down a little rabbit hole. Target’s are still operating online. Seem to import all manner of weapons. The ‘about us’ bit of their website states: ”Our motto is : we always behind our products because “we are manufacturer and exporter”.number one choice for those who seek guality “Target Arms”” Nothing screams quality like several typos and the misspelling of ‘quality’. Really liked inside72

I kind of thought they might have sold real ones, but it sounded improbable looking back. Was it all strictly legal? I guess you must be able to purchase guns legally for sport. Seems even weirder! 😂 Found a picture of it online

I remember a shop selling replica guns / air pistols up the far end of the lane. Weird.

Not so much a vocal minority as a slightly pathologically obsessive minority. Imagine still being fixated about a change of road layout and the creation of a small pedestrian space outside the shops / cafes (enjoyed by nearly everyone) more than 4 years on. You complain about the cost, but it's largely the result of all the ridiculous obstacles that the council has to navigate to try and appease the network of 'One' groups, and associated online 'war on motorist' fanatics. Indeed you’re now calling for a change to the whole system of local government and referenda on all local decisions - perfectly rational 🤣. And again on the cost, you would have the whole thing ripped out so that a pleasant pedestrian area can be replaced by a line of idling cars? I genuinely think you may need to consider moving on. There are some more important things in the world than your 'right' to shave maybe 3 minutes off a car trip to the village. Perhaps just suck it up, or like many others, switch to walking or cycling to the village instead.

Oh for crying out loud. The filter was put in place over 4 years ago. I don't believe for one second that replacing the square with queuing traffic would be an improvement at all. Why on earth would we hold a referendum on taking space away from pedestrians and reallocating it to cars? Just drive round, it takes a few minutes longer.

Yeah, ridiculous to expect someone asking people for money to support legal action objecting to something to detail what it is they're actually objecting to 🤣

Yeh, but it's boring. You're pretending not to understand the difference between a consultation and a referendum and again going on about road changes in Dulwich - a subject you have droned on endlessly about for years and started multiple threads for already. It would be good if the OP on this post would simply clarify what their objections are to which elements of the three proposals in Lambeth before asking for people's money.

You're on the wrong thread.

Eh? I thought this was about three schemes being proposed in Lambeth? The road layout changes in Dulwich are over 4 years old - having trouble moving on?

I personally think East Dulwich is a great place to call home. It's not cheap, and yet plenty of people chose to live here, so I can't be alone in thinking so.

You may not like it, but this is exactly why we live in a representative democracy - People will agree on a desired outcome, but endlessly disagree on the means. That's why you need people whose full time job it is to consult with a variety of experts and stakeholder, review data and make decisions on behalf of those they represent (decisions which would otherwise be mired in disagreement and inaction forever). A system where you hold referenda on every scheme, is one where nothing ever happens. As Malumbu says above, you would never get any new infrastructure, no nuclear power stations, no new housing developments, no new roads, bike lanes etc. If you don't like the decisions they make, or they fail to deliver their objectives, you can vote them out.

That's your belief. But the fact is that they stood on a manifesto entitled 'Greener, safer, fairer' which is very clear of their intention to address issues of road safety, health, environment and sustainability. They were elected on that basis and under a representative democracy that means developing schemes that deliver on those commitments. If the electorate feel that, given a reasonable opportunity to improve things, that they have failed to do so, then they get to vote them out. That is our system. The idea that any time they want to trial something, or implement a new scheme that they have to hold a referendum is a way of ensuring that literally nothing every changes. You're calling for a NIMBYs charter of permanent inaction. Which of course you know.

Did you read their manifesto? It was literally called 'Greener, safer, fairer'. Page 17 'Clean air and healthy streets' talks about car free streets, and creating 'healthier, safer and greener streets for walking and cycling' ...amongst other things. Whilst it's true that it doesn't list every individual scheme it might seek to trial in future (which would obviously be ridiculous) - it's intention to address issues with car dominance is made quite clear.