Serena2012

I was sufficiently curious to look it up on the land registry. It was sold in March 2020 to what looks to be a developer. I haven?t seen a planning application on Southwark?s website, so I suspect they might be biding their time. It?s a huge plot, but (unless I?m mistaken), the building is listed, which may have a bearing on what they can do to it.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Transport for London's own analysis suggests that > 41% of *all* trips in London are easily cycleable > (less than 5 miles; no heavy load; traveler is > under 64; traveler has no relevant disability). > > If the traffic's bothering you, don't forget you > *are* the traffic. Walk or cycle. But what if (like our family); you don?t own a car, yet your lives are being blighted by a series of short sighted road closures; that have not only caused idling traffic outside our home for the first time, but are also threatening to make our active journeys to school and nursery more hazardous and more polluted? What about the health of the thousands of children educated along the area?s A roads? The reality is that it?s not that simplistic. Traffic can ?bother you?; and have a significant impact on lung development; mental health; likelihood of heart disease; severe morbidity and mortality from Covid-19 (the list goes on) even if YOU are not the problem.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I drove from townley/ EDH up through the > > village > > > to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5 > > minute > > > diversion at most. > > > > > > 5 minutes more pollution each way - it all > stacks > > up....we are presuming you were unable to cycle > on > > this journey! ;-) And remember, if the council > > have their way you won't be able to use Townley > > either so how much more time would that add > onto > > future journeys? > > Going to sussex. If I had to go down lordship lane > and then East Dulwich Grove, or South up Lordship > Lane, it would still add little more than 5-6 > minutes realistically, when compared to going via > Calton road. It?s really not that big a deal imo. Whether it impacts your experience as a driver positively or negatively is not the point. The issue is that what is masquerading as a green initiative is actually causing tailbacks. Idling traffic = double the air pollution caused by free-flowing traffic. Therein lies the problem. Not only are these initiatives displacing traffic (i.e. shifting it from one road to another; but they?re also causing queues of traffic in circumstances where these didn?t exist previously so they?re actually making the whole area more polluted).

To say I?m disappointed is an understatement. I can see why logically Melbourne North and Tintagel Crescent could be designated school streets (indeed, Tintagel is already), but in circumstances where there is already more idling traffic along the Goose Green end of Lordship Lane than I?ve ever witnessed before, and there are already huge problems with idling traffic along East Dulwich Grove caused by the initial changes, closing 5 other roads is just going to make the problem a million times worse. It wouldn?t surprise me if EDG is gridlocked for its entire length by the time the schools return in September. What a stupid thing to do to a road that has a nursery and 3 schools on it, particularly in circumstances where the pollution from idling traffic is double that from free-flowing traffic. It?s not as if closing a dog legged road like Matham Grove and Oxonian/ Zenoria or a short road like Elsie, Derwent and Melbourne North, all linking directly into what will be ridiculously over-congested A roads are going to promote anyone to engage in active travel. It?s simply going to create a number of exclusive enclaves surrounded by a sea of pollution, and cause the air quality at Goose Green Primary (which breached WHO guidance fairly recently), as well as EDG nursery to plummet even further. It will also make life a complete nightmare for everyone living on those roads should they, god forbid, ever want to drive anywhere. This was an inevitable consequence of a self-serving survey by our Goose Green ward councillors, directed at the residents of the roads standing to benefit the most from these proposals, and worded in such a way that it was difficult to object. The irony is that as a result of this mess, all properties on the roads that stand to ?benefit? that aren?t 50 metres from the junction of those roads and the A road with which they intersect will probably experience worse air quality. How in circumstances where the link between fine particulate air pollution (i.e. that predominantly caused by motor vehicles) and severe morbidity and mortality in the context of Covid-19 seems very strong, our local council seems hell bent on making changes that will invariably increase the air pollution in this part of the ward is beyond me. Given the life long consequences of air pollution on children, worsening the pollution on roads that house the majority of the area?s schools, to benefit the handful of people lucky enough to live on one of the new Labour-created exclusive enclaves seems negligent in the extreme. There will invariably be a negative knock on impact on bus journey times. I also have genuine concerns about the ability of emergency service vehicles to navigate what will no doubt be lengthy tailbacks, particularly on the Northern section of EDG where it?s impossible for two sizeable vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass each other without one of them needing to stop. It is inevitable that the junction of LL/ EDG which is already struggling to cope will become a death trap.

Sillywoman - Sorry these changes have made you contemplate leaving the area. I can totally empathise. I have to confess that I?m of a similar mindset, not least as I have lost all confidence in the council, and their willingness to listen to the legitimate concerns of local residents and act upon those concerns on this or indeed any other issue. The eagle eyed amongst you may have spotted this already, but the Dulwich Village Street Space page has now been updated to identify the traffic monitoring locations for the purpose of determining whether any further closures are necessary. Has anyone spotted the glaring omission?! I kid you not, there is seemingly no intention whatsoever to monitor the impact on traffic volumes on any of the area?s A roads. This is beyond appalling. I don?t understand how informed decisions can be made in circumstances where most of the roads bearing the brunt of these changes are eliminated from the data set. It?s as if the residents of these streets, the thousands of children educated on them and those who need (as opposed to choose) to drive along them simply don?t matter at all. I have never felt so disenfranchised: https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/about The reality is that if Townley Road is closed, the impact on East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane (both of which have far more idling traffic than hitherto as a result of the initial changes) will be catastrophic. I?m struggling to see why a road such as Townley, with relatively few residential properties on it; all of which are significantly set back from the road should be subject to a permeable closure. It?s a recipe for disaster for all sorts of reasons, including where on earth the school coaches would then park/ turn around.

I don?t know the answer, but they have a planning application to build a separate house in the garden outstanding. In fact, this is one of a number of planning applications in recent years.

The verdict is in (for the next 18 months at least): https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-streets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

And the verdict is in (or at least for the next 18 months). https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-streets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

wtj - very well said. I couldn?t agree more. Any road closures which divert traffic onto the A roads will inevitably cause many of the schools in the area to become MORE polluted, and result in a far greater number of people (including schoolchildren and preschoolers) being exposed to higher levels of air pollution than hitherto. I certainly don?t want to retain the status quo, but the proposals are fundamentally flawed, and simply shift the burden of air pollution from one part of the neighbourhood to another (which also happens to be the part of the neighbourhood where thousands of our children study!)

Bels - conscious that the barrier will be permeable to bikes and pedestrians, but unless I?m mistaken what is being proposed here is a physical barrier which means that no motor vehicles can pass. A barrier creates all sorts of problems that a camera based filter or indeed a moveable barrier, allowing Emergency service vehicles; deliveries; residents to drive through would not. Ultimately, the burden borne by the surrounding streets will be disproportionate; and in circumstances where the relevant sections of Lordship Lane or East Dulwich Grove are closed for whatever reason, traffic will literally have nowhere to go as a route that is secondary to Lordship Lane and accordingly plays a crucial role during diversions will be completely inaccessible.

I?ve messaged the council to voice my significant concerns about the knock on impact of the barrier including on: 1. Safety at the East Dulwich Grove/ Lordship Lane junction (which has been the location of some serious collisions in recent years). Increasing the volume of traffic at this junction in circumstances where it also doubles as a major pedestrian crossing is simply a fatal accident waiting to happen. 2. The Goose Green roundabout (which is already saturated at certain times of day). The no right turn from East Dulwich Grove onto Lordship Lane will invariably result in significantly more vehicles using the roundabout as a turning point, thereby leading to more idling traffic; greater air pollution and longer journey times 3. Air quality for the children at Goose Green Primary and Harris Primary East Dulwich, both of which are on roads that will bear the brunt of these changes. In particular, I find it hard to believe that the tailbacks from Goose Green roundabout won?t stretch back as far as Goose Green Primary 4. Bus journey times along East Dulwich Grove; East Dulwich Road; Lordship Lane and Grove Vale. None of these roads are wide enough for bus lanes in the sections impacted by these proposals, and accordingly increasing the volume of traffic will inevitably have a knock on impact on bus journey times. 5. The ability of emergency service vehicles to access those most in need quickly. 6. The inevitable road closures that occur from time to time along East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. Closing the only viable alternative route is somewhat perverse and will invariably cause practical and logistical headaches in the future. The response I received from Dale F implied that this is a done deal, and that any concerns will be taken into account when these measures are reviewed. That having been said, I would encourage those concerned about these proposals to make their voices heard. As others have said before, air quality should be for all and not the few. It seems unfair that measures that benefit the residents of one street should do so whilst compromising the safety and well-being of everyone else (including by reducing their air quality; making certain crossings and junctions more dangerous and making it harder for emergency service vehicles to get to them in their hour of need). Edited to add: I?m conscious that much is often made of the fact that Melbourne Grove is home to a number of young families. This is undisputed, but I should highlight that other roads that will bear the brunt of this including Tell Grove, East Dulwich Grove, Matham Grove and Zenoria are also home to a significant number of young families. Melbourne Grove certainly doesn?t have a monopoly on this, nor should the lungs of its children be spared at the detriment of others. Indeed, I am sceptical that the number of young families living on Melbourne Grove outnumbers the number of pupils attending the primary schools that stand to ?lose out? as a result of this.

To build our garden wall; install a new gate and (ideally) build a bed using sleepers, suitable for us to place plants at the front of the house. We are based near the Goose Green roundabout. Availability to start in the next few weeks would be ideal. Please do PM me if interested.

Admin - apologies. Please move to the classified section.

Admin - apologies. Please move to the classified section.

Mixture of Boden, Joules, M&S and Next. Collection from near the Goose Green roundabout.

Free to a good home. Collection from near the Goose Green roundabout.

Hi Emily I have a spare Baby Bjorn with bar that I?m happy to give away for free to a good home. Collection from near the Goose Green roundabout. Let me know if you?re interested. S

KidKruger: It is the council?s issue at the moment. It feels very unfair that every other road in the area has to suffer from more traffic, more congestion, worse air quality, as well as added inconvenience for their residents, simply so that three streets can become exclusive enclaves.

James - I have genuine concerns about the intersection of the Elsie/ Derwent/ Melbourne proposals and the (currently postponed) East Dulwich CPZ. On the assumption that if the permeable filters proposal passes, this and the CPZ will co-exist for a while, has the council considered the practical and logistical implications of this? Have you undertaken modelling to check that there are sufficient parking spaces on nearby streets so as to cope with the overspill? As the council should be well aware, there are parking restrictions along some of roads in the CPZ (including East Dulwich Grove) which means in practice, that there is insufficient parking on these roads for the number of households and accordingly, residents on these roads and their visitors (including carers; tradesmen etc) frequently have no option other than to park on Melbourne/ Derwent/ Elsie. If these proposals were to pass, has the council got a solution for this issue? I?m assuming that the only logical solution would be to set the permeable filters in such a way that anyone with a CPZ permit can park on these roads, as otherwise, I foresee a scenario whereby all other residential roads in the vicinity will quickly become overwhelmed, and those who are elderly, disabled or very young and accordingly cannot walk long distances will be significantly disadvantaged. Indeed, if the permeable filter proposals were to pass, there is a good argument that there should be a further consultation on the CPZ, not least as charging residents for the privilege of parking is one thing; but deciding before the CPZ is even implemented that three of the roads within it are going to become elite gated communities, where those within the CPZ can no longer park is downright outrageous, and essentially means that everyone else within the CPZ will end up dolling out significant sums of money for permits every year with no guarantee that they or their visitors can park anywhere near their homes. Edited to add: I may have misunderstood the implications of a permeable filter re: parking. Grateful if you would clarify whether the intention would be allow everyone with a CPZ permit to park on these roads. Further edited to add: even if everyone with a CPZ permit will be allowed to park on these roads, I am not in support of the permeable filters proposal. However, I?m just trying to understand fully its likely knock on impact, and to ensure that the council has considered this.

Sidhue - I can?t agree more. It is very important to remember that neither Grove Vale nor East Dulwich Grove are super highways, capable of carrying significant volumes of additional traffic. Indeed, the section of East Dulwich Grove between Lordship Lane and Melbourne Grove is incredibly narrow. In fact (although maps often imply that it is wider due to its A road status), it is no wider than Melbourne, Elsie or Derwent, which is precisely why cars are only allowed to park on one side of the road and even then, two buses cannot pass each other on this stretch without one of them stopping to let the other go by. The junction of Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove is also atrocious (and no safer than the Melbourne Grove/ East Dulwich Grove junction), so if the Melbourne Elsie/ Derwent proposal was to pass, the knock on impact would be to make the Lordship Lane/ East Dulwich Grove junction a lot more dangerous (thereby significantly increasing the risks of a fatal accident); to increase the pollution around Goose Green school (which educates 400+ children) and to make the corresponding stretch of Lordship Lane a lot more congested, which is detrimental to everyone shopping and working in this area. Roads such as Zenoria; Matham; Blackwater; Ashbourne etc would all suffer. In essence, the air quality would no doubt improve for the residents of 3 roads and decrease significantly for everyone else. There would also inevitably be a knock on impact on bus journey times (along East Dulwich Road, East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane), which cannot be in anyone?s interests, recognising that some people (including some key workers) have no option other than to travel by bus. Attempting to adopt a piecemeal approach to a much greater problem risks causing a much more significant headache. Bowing to pressure from those who shout the loudest at the detriment to everyone else, is not how a democratic process should operate.

I?ve just looked up the new Tessa Jowell Health Centre, (the GP part of which is due to open later this month). Its address is 72H East Dulwich Grove, and whilst it looks as though it will be possible to enter from Jarvis Road, it is inevitable that the vast majority of users will arrive via the East Dulwich Grove entrance (as they do currently). Indeed, there is a new ?Tessa Jowell Health Centre? stop along the 37 and 42 bus routes in anticipation of the fact that bus passengers are likely to jump off here for the medical centre. With that in mind, any suggestion that the northern portion of Melbourne Grove must be turned into a traffic free zone to protect the users of the Medical Centre is somewhat misguided.

EDAus - I think you nailed it when you mentioned that clean air is for the many and not the few. Any proposal which stands to benefit the residents of certain roads at the significant detriment to others, and where there are little or no discernible benefits to the community as a whole cannot be supported. Repeating here my response to NorthernMonkey on the now closed thread (with some tweaks reflecting further thoughts): - On the assumption that not all pupils attending Charter East Dulwich live on the Northern portion of Melbourne Grove, and will therefore almost invariably need to walk along Grove Vale or East Dulwich Grove in order to to get onto the relevant section of Melbourne Grove, I struggle to see how a proposal that threatens to displace traffic onto these other roads, thereby making them more polluted, and more dangerous for walkers and cyclists alike does much to promote active travel. If the social distancing of students is a key consideration, a far more proportionate response would involve turning the Northern portion of Melbourne Grove into a ?school street? (for the weeks of the year when Charter East Dulwich is fully open). In any event, I struggle to see why these closures should also be applied to Elsie Road and Derwent Grove, particularly given the issues the displaced traffic will invariably cause along Grove Vale, Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove(which arguably will have a much more detrimental impact on the community as a whole). I get why the Northern section of Melbourne Grove is in a somewhat unique position in this context, given the size of Charter East Dulwich. However, a proposal that allows other roads like Elsie and Derwent to jump onto the bandwagon at huge cost to the safety and well-being of those living, commuting and travelling along the other streets in the area cannot be supported. Nor does it make sense for traffic restrictions to be placed on three roads 24/7, 7 days a week when the perceived concerns relate to only a small section of ONE of the three roads, at certain times of day, 5 as opposed to 7 days a week, and only 39 weeks of the year.

Northernmonkey - on the assumption that not all pupils attending Charter East Dulwich live on the Northern portion of Melbourne Grove, and will therefore almost invariably need to walk along Grove Vale or East Dulwich Grove in order to to get onto the relevant section of Melbourne Grove, I struggle to see how a proposal that threatens to displace traffic onto these other roads, thereby making them more polluted, and more dangerous for walkers and cyclists alike does much to promote active travel. Even if the decision is taken to close the Northern portion of Melbourne Grove given the huge volume of school children using the road to get to Charter East Dulwich, I struggle to see why these closures should also be applied to Elsie Road and Derwent Grove, particularly given the issues the displaced traffic will invariably cause along Grove Vale, Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove (which arguably will have a much more detrimental impact on the community as a whole). I get why the Northern section of Melbourne Grove is in a somewhat unique position in this context, given the size of Charter East Dulwich. However, a proposal that allows other roads like Elsie and Derwent to jump onto the bandwagon at huge cost to the safety and well-being of those living, commuting and travelling along the other streets in the area cannot be supported.

Whilst the widening of the pavement on Lordship Lane is to be supported, the proposals regarding Melbourne Grove, Elsie and Derwent appear opportunistic; an example of extreme nimbyism and fail to address what will no doubt be a significant knock on impact of displaced traffic on surrounding roads. Indeed, the benefits for the residents of the area as a whole are far from clear, nor is it clear that the perceived issues that these proposals set out to fix (e.g. the challenge of social distancing on the pavements) is more pronounced on these roads than it is elsewhere. Indeed, I have encountered far more issues attempting to social distance on Grove Vale, Matham Grove, Zenoria/ Oxonian and East Dulwich Grove than I have on any of these roads. In terms of knock on impact on neighbouring roads, I have significant concerns about the impact of the proposals on the junction between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane, which is incredibly dangerous to pedestrians and has been the location of numerous accidents in recent years. Increasing the volume of traffic using this junction cannot be prudent, and is a fatal accident waiting to happen. There will also invariably be heavier traffic on the stretch of Grove Vale that runs past Goose Green Primary, as well as a higher likelihood of tailbacks at the Goose Green roundabout, which combined with the knock on impact on all other neighbouring roads, makes it hard to justify these proposals.

Thank you for highlighting these proposals. I agree that they appear opportunistic; an example of extreme nimbyism and fail to address what will no doubt be a significant knock on impact of displaced traffic on surrounding roads. Indeed, the benefits for the residents of the area as a whole are far from clear, nor is it clear that the perceived issues that these proposals set out to fix (e.g. the challenge of social distancing on the pavements) is more pronounced on these roads than it is elsewhere. Indeed, I have encountered far more issues attempting to social distance on Grove Vale, Matham Grove, Zenoria/ Oxonian and East Dulwich Grove than I have on any of these roads. In terms of knock on impact on neighbouring roads, I have significant concerns about the impact of the proposals on the junction between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane, which is incredibly dangerous to pedestrians and has been the location of numerous accidents in recent years. Increasing the volume of traffic using this junction cannot be prudent, and is a fatal accident waiting to happen. There will also invariably be heavier traffic on the stretch of Grove Vale that runs past Goose Green Primary, as well as a higher likelihood of tailbacks at the Goose Green roundabout, which combined with the knock on impact on all other neighbouring roads, makes it hard to justify these proposals.