Serena2012

Thoughts are with the young man?s family.

Just to reiterate James, having spoken to people at both ends (village and Lordship Lane) of East Dulwich Grove today, none of us have received the leaflets. I can?t help but think that this is a deliberate attempt by the council to skew the results of the consultation, and not for the first time!

It?s important to bear in mind the behaviour of the Goose Green ward councillors on this issue. I still find it incredulous that James McAsh, Charlie Smith and Victoria Olisa justified the closure of Melbourne Grove, Derwent Grove and Elsie Road off the back of the following self-serving survey, addressed only at the residents of the streets earmarked for closure, which used incendiary language referring to these closures being necessary to prevent car numbers rocketing on the closed streets as lockdown measures eased. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSec3c3OCsSboVdTnBrOScgFUz6YjVpU1l7GTdYobFNKZCYdvw/viewform The corollary being that it was perfectly acceptable for those very same car numbers to ?rocket? past a day nursery with capacity for 90 preschoolers, what will soon be the main entrance to Charter East Dulwich (currently used as the entry point for years 10 and 11), the main entrance to the Tessa Jowell health centre, the front of Goose Green Primary School, the front of Harris Primary Academy East Dulwich, a care home for vulnerable adults, Goose Green park, the main shopping thoroughfare on Lordship Lane; at least 12 bus stops, and significant social housing. The Goose Green ward has been a Lib Dem stronghold in recent history so there is definitely scope to vote the current incumbents out. I for one am hoping that lots of independents stand.

According to the pub?s Instagram feed, a Guinness advert was being filmed there...

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A zebra crossing would maybe work, but cars often > just ignore the fact that a pedestrian is on the > crossing. > > Also, on busy days, cars would never get over the > crossing! It?s far from straightforward, which I?m guessing is why it?s been debated for years and yet no panacea has been identified. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the feasibility study.

Just to add that I don?t think the introduction of a signalised crossing at this junction is guaranteed. When presenting this, Charlie Smith implied that they were also contemplating a zebra crossing. Whatever ends up being proposed will need to be discussed with TFL and is likely to be subject to public consultation.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's weird, because if memory serves they have > being saying for years that it was not possible to > have a crossing there. > > I can't remember their reasons. This is where (according to a Google search) they got to last time. I suspect the consultation was canned due to Covid-19. Many of the previous issues re: visibility of the crossing; the fact that the lights on Lordship Lane, South of the junction are in the wrong place; the narrowness of the pavement & TFL objections in view of potential delays to bus journey times are likely to persist, hence why a feasibility study as opposed to a solution is what is currently being proposed: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/status_of_request_for_pedestrian

I listened in on the relevant meeting and understand that it?s a feasibility study that has been commissioned on the EDG/ LL crossing (which they can?t meaningfully do until the tail end of the year when decisions have been taken on the local LTNs). The amount of money allocated in the recent round of funding is far short of what they would need to install a crossing here.

Based on the attached variation of permissions request on the Southwark Planning website it looks as though Gail?s are still interested in the old Brick House site on Zenoria Street. Lots of work appears to have been done to the premises already. I?m sure I read on the forum previously that the landlord is Parkhill (but I could of course be wrong): https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=QLQUZRKBKB700&activeTab=summary

Dear James While I am aware that the junction of East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane is hazardous for pedestrians and that putting in place additional safety measures is warranted, I have significant reservations about the prudence of such drastic action being taken on (potentially) a shoestring budget without proper engagement from highways experts; the emergency services; TFL and the residents/ business owners of the stretch of EDG running between Lordship Lane and Melbourne Grove as well as the stretch of Lordship Lane between Ashbourne Grove and the Goose Green roundabout. As this FOI (not my own, and found through the brilliance of Google) evidences, this issue has been examined previously. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/status_of_request_for_pedestrian?unfold=1#incoming-1454501 However, as a local resident I am acutely aware of the pressure that the Dulwich and East Dulwich LTNs have placed on the stretch of Lordship Lane leading up to the Goose Green roundabout; the stretch of East Dulwich Grove between Melbourne Grove and Lordship Lane and the stretch of East Dulwich Road running past Goose Green Park. Something that I never thought I would see, but which happened a lot between September and December 2020 following the implementation of Phase 2 of the East Dulwich LTN was the Goose Green roundabout at such a point of saturation that traffic attempting to get off the roundabout in order to travel onto Lordship Lane was unable to do so. This led to tailbacks in every direction. It is imperative therefore that the design of any crossing must take into account likely future traffic flows (including what would happen if Matham Grove was closed as part of an extension of the East Dulwich LTN). Given that this is a key bus route as well as a key route for emergency service vehicles, the design must ensure that any risk of tailbacks stretching onto the Goose Green roundabout are factored into any crossing design and fully mitigated. Failure to do so may cause more risk in terms of danger to life than that currently posed by the crossing itself, not least given the importance of the Goose Green roundabout as an access route to and from King?s college hospital (a significance that is currently pronounced given that ambulances cannot currently access King?s via Melbourne Grove). Moreover, as a community that is very poorly served by public transport, the last thing we would want is for this section of road to become so nightmarish as a result of a poorly designed crossing that TFL removes the 37 and 42 bus routes from East Dulwich Grove (a road on which over 3000 schoolchildren are educated), leading to even more reliance on private vehicles to transport pupils to and from school. In view of the above, grateful if you would confirm that before any changes to this junction are implemented, there will be a proper consultation of local residents and businesses on any crossing design, as well as TFL, the emergency services and highways experts. Local residents and businesses are, after all, better placed than most to opine on the likely impact of these changes on the roads on which we live and work. As an aside, I was left speechless earlier today when a consultation letter relating to the proposed installation of a bike hangar on Tintagel Crescent, complete with a free-post return envelope landed on my doormat from Southwark Council. I don?t quite understand how something as innocuous as a bike hangar merits letters through every door in the neighbourhood, complete with a detailed explanation and map, and yet changes such as LTNs and (potentially) road crossings can be implemented with far greater knock on impact in terms of safety; air quality; noise pollution and home enjoyment for those living and working in the immediate vicinity, and yet not warrant a single piece of correspondence.

In the aftermath of the Ella Kissi-Debrah inquest, I think Southwark need to be very careful here. They have tried hard not to create an incriminating audit trail by steadfastly refusing to monitor air quality as well as refusing to identify displacement routes (the latter being a requirement under the emergency legislation used). But the fact remains that the Streetspace Guidance for Boroughs dated May 2020 contained a hyperlink to a list of schools situated on roads where NO2 was at illegal levels in 2016. Unsurprisingly JAGS, Alleyn?s, DVIs, Goose Green all made the list (as would Charter ED and Harris Primary ED no doubt had they been fully operational on their current sites in 2016). It doesn?t take a rocket scientist to work out the displacement routes, and if challenged by experts therefore I suspect Southwark?s defence would crumble. They have recklessly displaced traffic onto school streets and residential main roads which were already illegally polluted, which to my mind is untenable.

Southwark have scheduled a couple of community meetings next Friday (27 November) to discuss the East Dulwich LTN. All welcome, as long as you register by next Thursday. The registration details are found in the ?news bulletin? section of the East Dulwich Streetspace page. See link below. Questions can be fielded in advance by emailing [email protected]: https://eastdulwichstreetspace.commonplace.is/news

Southwark have scheduled a couple of community meetings next Friday (27 November) to discuss the East Dulwich LTN. All welcome, as long as you register by next Thursday. The registration details are found in the ?news bulletin? section of the East Dulwich Streetspace page. See link below. Questions can be fielded in advance by emailing [email protected]: https://eastdulwichstreetspace.commonplace.is/news

Southwark have scheduled a couple of community meetings next Friday (27 November) to discuss the East Dulwich LTN. All welcome, as long as you register by next Thursday. The registration details are found in the ?news bulletin? section of the East Dulwich Streetspace page. See link below. Questions can be fielded in advance by emailing [email protected]: https://eastdulwichstreetspace.commonplace.is/news

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My guesses: > by > 1. via Eynella or dovercourt / townley etc )LL/ > EDG/village way/ half moon lane. Alt is south circ > / croxted/ herne hill? But norwood road is already > a car park in the morning so would be crazy to go > that way. > > 2. Turney/ burbage/ gallery / alleyn park / alleyn > road IF its possible to exit burbage onto the > Burbage road roundabout about and turn right? I > think you can based on the drawing? But you'd have > to do the return trip a different way - probably > via park hall road / croxted road - and then park > your car somewhere in turney or burbage until > restrictions ended. Not much parking around there > though. > > 3.croxted / / norwood road / herne hill (actual > Herne Hill, the road). There was at one point a > petition for a time closure on turney at the > croxted end, if that happened I imagine you could > get out but not back in.. Thanks Legal. I had been under the impression that Turney was getting planters at its junction with Croxted, but it may be that that plan has been scrapped (not least because residents would struggle to return home in that scenario). The council are very lucky that we?ll be in lockdown when these changes go in as it?s going to be absolute mayhem.