Earl Aelfheah

Can't imagine dog walkers are getting much business with lockdown. Having a reason to leave the house seems to be one of the most attractive things about owning a dog right now.

Do adverts for banks actually increase the number of customers they attract? Who opens an account off the back of a TV advert featuring a horse riding across a beach?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Those of you who want to end low traffic > > neighbourhoods and allow cars to use side > streets > > to save time cutting between main roads - Do > you > > have anything that you would like to see > replace > > them? > > One way streets with half the road a cycle lane > and half for motor traffic. Create a good one way > system and this nonsense would be unnecessary. Sounds like a great idea

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hear hear. > > To everyone who doesn't understand it and suffers > from a COMPLETE LACK OF EMPATHY like rahrahrah > here: move in to a flat/house on Lordship Lane - > and see for yourself how it feels. Would you like > it on your road 24/7? > > And multiply this by a hundred as it is quieter > now because of the lockdown. > > > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yeah there?s a few roads in ED that are now > main > > rat runs compared to previously, the problem?s > > just moved to other people?s streets since the > > LTNs. I live just off Lordship Lane. It's a main road. I don't accept that it was traffic free ever. I do have empathy for those who live on main roads, but also for those who want safer routes for walking and cycling. I'm in favour of creating a small number of paths through and around the area which are 'relatively' free of traffic. To suggest this shows no empathy is ridiculous. I accept that 'rat running' is an emotive phrase (albeit a well understood and commonly used one) - I'll rephrase my question: Those of you who want to end low traffic neighbourhoods and allow cars to use side streets to save time cutting between main roads - Do you have anything that you would like to see replace them?

Those you want to encourage more rat running by removing the LTNS - do you want to replace them with anything?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As Julie demonstrated as part of her > > council-sponsored/encouraged deputation the > goal > > appears to be to turn Dulwich Village into some > > sort of inner city rural idyll for the benefit > of > > a few of Southwark's wealthiest residents but > at > > the expense of everyone else. How dare we stand > in > > the way of this noble quest!!!! > > Poetry readings in "Dulwich Square": There was a > young woman named Greer, who wanted life for > cyclists to be freer............. > > But getting back to reality, our area is all > joined together and what hits Dulwich Village hits > all of East Dulwich and Croxted Road, so the > answer is to make sure these closures of any type > or timing, are not made permanent. It may be the > elections next year will be the only chance, but > in the meantime sign your objections to the East > Dulwich road closures and think about your > children walking down those polluted streets full > of traffic whilst one or two skip and scoot with > their Instagram mummies down quiet unpolluted > streets. What are you proposing in their place?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As a pedestrian I spend half my time having to > > walk in the road. There is so little room for > > those on foot or on bike. You look up and down > > most streets and can see how much space is > given > > over to car storage and car lanes. Cars are > > literally everywhere. I can?t understand who > > thinks that too much space is being allocated > to > > cycling and walking and not enough to motor > > vehicles. > Your post doesn't make any sense! Only > pedestrians should be on the pavement and if a > little deference was given to each other, as > happened in the first lockdown, there wouldn't be > a problem for you. I wasn?t suggesting people should ride bikes on the pavement. I?m suggesting that cars dominate almost all public space to the detriment of people either travelling by foot, or bike, who inevitably get squeezed out. I don?t get who thinks cars aren?t currently given enough priority over public space.

As a pedestrian I spend half my time having to walk in the road. There is so little room for those on foot or on bike. You look up and down most streets and can see how much space is given over to car storage and car lanes. Cars are literally everywhere. I can?t understand who thinks that too much space is being allocated to cycling and walking and not enough to motor vehicles.

As an aside, does anyone know who is behind all the ?one? campaigns? They seem to be connected and I would be very surprised if there wasn?t some astroturfing going on frankly.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even if only 10% of the 3,000 people who signed > that petition live near EFG and Lordship Lane, > that's still more people against these ridiculous > road closures than were for them in the local > consultation targeted at residents living in the > gated communities. ?Gated communities??! 😂

Didn't know it was being developed. Interested to know what it's going to be

You shouldn?t be driving out to Kent unless it?s absolutely necessary. Driving out of London to go for a walk is not a good idea and it is a breach of the regulations.

Lebanums Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am also a little nervous of dogs having never > had any growing up. I manage with friends dogs but > I don't want strange dogs running & jumping up at > me. It's not a case of let them approach you. > > It's complete disregard for other park users. > > Another issue is not picking up after their dogs, > there is so much poo on the streets at the moment. Yep, dog owners should keep their pets under control and stop them harassing other park users. I've had more than one picnic upset by a dog running across it, jumping all over everything, only to have the owner amble over casually and say something like "ah, I think he likes you" as I try to wrestle it off me and protect my lunch. Not everyone likes other peoples dogs as much as they do.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is something Southwark Council needs to be > congratulated for..... more trees please 🌳 Here, here!

As people say, there way a lot of work undertaken to deliberately divert and hold water in Dulwich Park. This was to reduce the risk of flooding in the village and ensure their premiums didn't rise too much. It's not helped by all the people concreting their front gardens for yet more car storage - the drains can't cope with all the run off.

'Feasibility study into the potential to create safe cycle lanes on the East Dulwich Road / East Dulwich Grove (A2214) and beyond.' This would be great. A safe cycle lane linking up with the Railton LTN and Brixton station would be great.

Lynne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know what, they could turn it into a postal > sorting office Another good idea

There are a significant minority of people who have zero regard for others. Some of them have dogs. It's a bad combination.

That messaging from the council is so confused.

jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear all, > > Thanks for all your comments > > Privatisation > I enjoyed reading this debate. Privatisation, by > its nature, leads a service to be run according to > the needs of the market. This can often mean > making cuts if parts of the business are > insufficiently profitable. Clearly I do not think > that workers should be expected to endure unsafe > conditions but the solution to inadequate building > space does not need to be the total removal of the > service! Totally agree with this. How much money will be made by redevelopment of the site? Where has that gone and could it not have been used to fund a new, more appropriate location for the service? Re. the junction with EDG x Lordship Lane - I really hope something can be done about this. It's so dangerous.

Not really lobbying. More expressing an opinion on a local forum. One Dulwich is actually lobbying.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A Social club? Great idea

I remember the Drum. I liked that place

Remember Inside 72, but not SE22 tbh. The former was a good bar

It?s great. A really positive use of a previously derelict space. Everyone should support it imo.