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.

Can someone, ideally with greater brain capacity than me, summarise the practical impact of the next phase of changes in Dulwich on the following hypothetical scenarios. I just want to make sure I?ve understood correctly. This might help me figure out where the displacement will occur: 1. Someone living on Woodwarde Road wanting to get to their GP on Burbage Road during the timed restrictions (i.e. how would they get there and back once restrictions are implemented v. how would they have done so previously?) 2. Someone living on Boxall Road whose year 2 child has a broken leg and so realistically needs to be driven to and from DPL in West Dulwich? 3. An elderly disabled person living on the stretch of Turney Road between Burbage and Croxted needing to get to King?s for a 9am appointment? How will they get there? If by some disaster it?s a lengthy gig and they?re not released from King?s until 3.30. How do they then get home?

You?ve hit the nail on the head. Personally, I think it?s reckless of the council to trial this sort of experiment in a live environment with thousands of schoolchildren and local residents as unwitting guinea pigs. We should have had proper, transparent modelling from the start. When I wrote to Richard Livingstone over the Summer to voice my concerns about these schemes (all of which invariably materialised), I was repeatedly reassured that if things were as bad as I anticipated (they?re actually worse), the council would tweak or remove the schemes. Months on, it is clear many of these LTNs are failing to deliver benefits to the community as a whole; whilst also causing huge amounts of additional pollution on the area?s main roads, yet rather than stepping back and acknowledging that things aren?t working, there seems to be a drive within Southwark to keep chasing the displacement when it?s abundantly obvious that all that will do is make matters worse on the area?s biggest school streets. It beggars belief. I?m also really struggling with how a Labour council can think it fit to devise traffic schemes that benefit 3 of the 5 wealthiest streets in the entire borough, whilst dumping the traffic onto poorer streets with significant amounts of social housing, schools and struggling families. My trust in politics on every level is completely shattered. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Another pic > > > My goodness. This is either utter incompetence on > the part of our council or another deliberate > attempt to throttle traffic. > > This is absolutely why Cllr Newens was pushing so > hard to get the timed closures in place last week > as she knew the tailbacks through the village will > be far worse now. > > Let's see how it is for the next three days as > schools go back and before the lockdown hits. I am > not a betting man but I would hazard a guess that > the council will use this next lockdown as an > excuse to roll out more closures - if any of them > are working of course! > > This goes to demonstrate clearly that moving > forward there needs to be more consultation on > such projects. Without any form of consultation > Southwark have utterly mismanaged this process. > Any trust and respect they had left with their > constituents is likely to have completely > evaporated now (bar the usual pro-closure > suspects). Our council and councillors are an > utter shambles and I suspect people will want to > scrutinise everything they do more closely now. > > Legal - your work uncovering so many of the items > the council has been keen to bury and deliberately > overlook during this has been brilliant. Thank > you.

Welcome back Robin! I?m also very interested to understand what the recommendations were, particularly as the current status quo is failing the community so badly. I?m also interested to know whether you have visibility on any previous analysis of what could be done to improve safety at the Lordship Lane/ EDG junction. I have a vague recollection that many moons ago it was looked at with the conclusion that it was too complex to resolve, not least as TFL would not sanction traffic lights on this junction. James Barber has suggested a zebra crossing more recently, but I genuinely don?t think motorists turning onto EDG have sufficient visibility of the crossing beforehand to make this safe. The upshot however is that if, as James McAsh has foreshadowed, the ED Station LTN is expanded to include Matham Grove, all motorists on this section of EDG wanting to travel up Lordship Lane towards Northcross Road will have no option other than to undertake the 100m detour around the Goose Green roundabout (which incidentally, as predicted, is now completely saturated, causing tailbacks in every direction).

James: Thanks for the update. I have another query. You?ve mentioned your concerns about the incredibly dangerous junction between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane previously (which has become a congestion hotspot following the implementation of the local LTNs). Is there an update on the council?s thinking in relation to this? The current situation is untenable long term given high pedestrian footfall, and no doubt another serious, if not fatal accident waiting to happen. Conscious there are complications here, (particularly given the proximity of the junction to the traffic lights on Lordship Lane and the Goose Green roundabout) but I would hope that safety at this junction is a key consideration when deciding the future of the East Dulwich station LTN as well as future traffic planning on Matham and Zenoria. My concern, having witnessed a significant rise in driver aggression and breaches of the Highway Code on this stretch of EDG since the ED Station LTN was introduced (including a driver travelling in the wrong direction up EDG to avoid tailbacks on the other side of the road; frustrated drivers U turning in the middle of the road, and drivers reversing along the road) is that there needs to be holistic thinking about this junction as well as how to service those vehicles wanting to turn right onto Lordship Lane. The danger at present is that if Matham were to be filtered, drivers will seek to avoid the Goose Green roundabout and make the illegal right turn regardless, which will be incredibly dangerous unless this is properly thought through and mitigated in advance. The alternative (pushing even more traffic into a 100 metre U turn involving the Goose Green roundabout) is also unattractive given the added pollution and congestion this will cause on a stretch of road that is already saturated and struggling to cope with the volume of traffic it experiences.

James - I have another query for you. The current ED Station LTN results in all those living on Elsie Road, Melbourne North, Derwent Grove and Tintagel Cresecent; their visitors; delivery drivers; gardeners; tradesmen etc having to drive down EDG whenever they leave their homes. Bearing in mind that (even by your own admission, you are concerned about displacement of traffic onto) EDG, a road which has more schools; a home for vulnerable adults; a nursery; higher density housing; higher pedestrian footfall and more social housing than the roads that have been closed, has any thought been given as to how to disincentives those on the filtered roads from jumping in their cars and driving? As someone who lives round the corner, I have noticed no tangible reduction in vehicles travelling down these roads since the closures were introduced, which leads me to the conclusion that even if the ?rat runners? have been stopped in their tracks, there has been little or no commitment from those living on these roads to reduce their own vehicle usage. Indeed, in the 3 minutes or so it took me to walk one way down Elsie this lunchtime, I witnessed 4 residents of Elsie/ Tintagel in their cars. How is this acceptable? I have significant reservations about this LTN, not least as its very design displaces traffic onto what was an already highly polluted stretch of main road with significant vulnerabilities, including a day nursery for 90 preschoolers and a home for vulnerable adults. It also, given that it consists of 4 short parallel streets, running between 2 A roads, neither of which form part of the LTN, has none of the characteristics that you would expect to see for a LTN to succeed. However, without significant additional and punitive measures for those residents living on the filtered streets who choose to drive I genuinely don?t see how it can succeed. I caveat the above by saying that I am wholly supportive of school streets on Melbourne North until September 2021 when the main entrance of Charter moves to EDG (it is currently split, with years 10 and 11 at Charter entering from a stretch of EDG that currently going Southbound in the morning has bumper to bumper traffic in circumstances where this did not happen previously). I also support a permanent school street on Elsie and Tintagel, as well as a camera enforced closure of Melbourne South, which means residents and emergency vehicles can still access from both ends. This should also tackle the challenges of the Melbourne/ EDG junction, as well as a lot of the rat running along Melbourne North. To the extent that Melbourne North is to remain shut as a cycle route, it strikes me that it needs camera enforcement to avoid displacement onto EDG, with Derwent and Elsie becoming one way streets, so as to create exactly the same disincentive to driving as currently exists, whilst also reducing displacement. The current closure in Dulwich Village has had the no doubt desired by some impact of pushing huge volumes of vehicles onto the de facto school streets in the area (namely Lordship Lane, Grove Vale and EDG) and needs to be reversed, or at the very least, a more measured solution put in place with immediate effect. Southwark risks causing its very own health crisis involving the thousands of schoolchildren educated on these now far more polluted streets otherwise.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Serra I think she said schools AND the Dulwich > Estate.. am still watching the call to see what > happens on the clean air agenda item so can?t > check... Ah, ok. I might watch back later to check.

Well done Dougie. You put the points across very well. I?m glad this coincided with a day of annual leave so that I could watch! Re: engagement with schools, am I right in thinking that councillor Rose?s commitment only extended to engaging with those on the Dulwich Estate? That presumably excludes, Harris Primary ED, Charter ED and Goose Green (all of which are no doubt bearing the brunt of additional traffic on Lordship Lane, Grove Vale and EDG). I don?t think it?s at all fair to consult with the schools on the Estate whilst ignoring those elsewhere, particularly as we know that one of the big issues with the Dulwich scheme is that it is designed to banish traffic from the green leafy streets of the village and dump it elsewhere!

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is how one of the other local authorities > describes the process > > ?Once the consultation period has closed all > comments received will be reviewed and these will > be reported to the Ward Councillors and Cabinet > Member (where appropriate) for consideration of > the next steps. A decision will be made on whether > to continue the Order on a permanent basis. > > If formal objections are received they will be > considered by Officers but the final decision on > whether to proceed will be made by the Cabinet > Member (the elected Councillor whose portfolio > includes responsibility for parking) or Head of > Highways & Transport under delegated authority.? > > Mass campaign of objections, anyone? Do we know if it?s like planning whereby there are only specific grounds on which you can object?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Describes the LL portion of EDG, ?It can no longer > be acceptable for any transport schemes to be > developed which cause increases in traffic volumes > on other roads, particularly where there are > vulnerable populations like schools and hospitals, > and when we know those living in poverty, BAME > populations and residents in areas of existing > poor air quality are least able to cope with the > effects of diseases like COVID-19? So time to > rethink the gated community barriers and consider > some positive changes for all - protected cycle > lanes, easy to use cycle stores, public hire > bikes, better wider paving, better more accessible > local public transport, cleaner larger bus > shelters. On this basis, I simply cannot see how Southwark can justify closing a road like Court Lane, one of the most affluent streets, in the wealthiest ward in the borough (and indeed, based on my Acorn research, home to some of the wealthiest people in the country). A road where car ownership is eye-wateringly high (check the 2011 census data if curious); and to which none of the above vulnerabilities apply, only to shunt the traffic onto Lordship Lane and EDG, which have far greater levels of poverty; far more social housing; schools where thousands of children are educated; a nursery; a care home for vulnerable adults and a health centre. It?s not as if EDG and LL weren?t already suffering from poor air quality.

James - I have a question for you. In the modelling/ impact planning that Southwark undertook before deciding to close some of the significant East - West routes through the area, to what extent was there consideration of what would happen if, (as has happened three times in the past 6 weeks already), one of the area?s A roads is shut? This has now happened to Denmark Hill, Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common and the knock on impact on surrounding roads, including EDG has been utterly horrific. When I picked up my daughter from nursery this evening (on foot), Calton Avenue was gridlocked all the way to the junction with Woodwarde and beyond; Dulwich Village was at a standstill; Burbage and Turney were ridiculously busy; Townley was gridlocked and EDG had queues going Southbound stretching from the junction with Townley beyond Charter ED. This will only get worse as more and more local roads are closed. On a day like today, having Melbourne South and Court Lane open would have relieved a significant amount of pressure on other roads, many of which are also ?residential?. If this has not been looked at, I urge the council to start modelling, as in practice, it is unusual for a month to go by and for every A road in the area to stay open 24/7 during that period. Indeed, in the 8 years I?ve lived here, there have been significant roadworks on all of the area?s A roads, on average at least once a year, reducing the traffic (as a minimum) to single lane. The heavier the usage of these roads, the more frequent the upkeep will need to become. What contingency is there in place for these occurrences? The air pollution outside the schools on EDG this evening was horrific and in all likelihood will be tomorrow as well, as from what I gather, Dulwich Common could be shut for a while. Of the hundreds of vehicles I walked past in queuing traffic this evening, none of which were moving, I could count on one hand the number that had their engines turned off. In circumstances where idling traffic generates double the pollution caused by free flowing traffic, this is completely unacceptable. Causing gridlock is not the answer, but it seems that to date, the Streetspace initiative is excelling at doing just that.