first mate

Walking in the park today I was struck by how much bigger the footprint of the event looks and how that will impact the park. I guess it is only when you see it all being cordoned off that you realise. It feels like all the playing fields will be impacted to some extent. There is another area being cordoned off at the other end of the park, close to Harris Girls. Does anyone know if this is temporary and to do with the event delivery juggernauts (so green, so environmentally friendly) or something unrelated?

Thanks Penguin. And I guess I have to agree with Earl that the current consultation system is not fit for purpose, in that the questions as designed by the council are clearly weighted and therefore the whole thing is flawed. From what you say though, not sure what other options there are, except perhaps mandating council consultations are independently designed. Quite apart from that, I go back to an original point that at least three of our councillors, one being the cabinet member for streets, are on the record stating CPZs would not be imposed without majority local support. To date, given the consultation majorities against CPZs, what is the council evidence to show they have that majority support? Also, since the process is weighted for results favourable to the council, doesn't that further highlight and underline the strength of opposition.

Those branches are going to get chopped...again. All of this shows the central paradox at the heart of Southwark's greening the streets policy. What is the good of planting trees in tarmac if you are simultaneously wrecking large sections of the park and stopping locals using the park? It just does not make sense. Cllr Catherine Rose should be made to answer for Gala conduct, if they are already flouting the terms of their agreement.

We are going to need more of that given the huge development planned for that area, which will put a lot more pressure on existing drainage infrastructure.

I know. Now the weather has been better for a few days, that whole area has been well used by people sitting out in the grass and just enjoying the peace and views- mainly young people too! Now all that will be lost for the rest of the summer as the grass does not recover until autumn.

The Judge said the document was impressive and detailed; I cannot remember if he used the word relevant. I think he did. Aside from that, it seems a bit odd that Lambeth had no means whatsoever to show they had taken the document into account. Does seem like they just ignored it...not a good look.

The problem with all this is that we have multiple councillors saying on the record that traffic management systems, like CPZ, would only be introduced if they had majority local support. Where is the evidence for that support?

But you could argue that anyone that gets involved in anything is self selecting. Are you saying those who object are self-selecting but those in support are not? Penguin knows a lot about market research, so I would defer to him on how suitable a representative sample would be for the purpose of LTN and CPZ resident/ local business impacts feedback. Also whether this is even realistically achievable.

But surely a community stakeholder panel would comprise groups like Southwark Cyclists, Dulwich Roads, Clean air Dulwich etc.. Expert advice would be from people like Rachel Aldred. I looked at how a Southwark citizens jury is formed and run; discussion is 'overseen' by a panel "It must be acknowledged that the Oversight Panel consisted of members from various professional backgrounds including the local authority, private sector, academia, the voluntary sector, and environmental groups [2]. The aim was to establish a panel of diverse experts, whose duty was to create an impartial process that would meaningfully engage all the participants." It feels like many of the above already have sway within the council and its decisions. I am not convinced. What it might do is remove some pesky, dissenting resident voices from any process.

If you don't see cycling infrastructure being well used then you may begin to question its value. If the councils and TFL were not complaining about lack of money then the 'build it and they will come' rhetoric would stand, but with lack of funds it is less easy to justify. You may have hard data that shows usage of the cycle lanes referred to that proves they are well used. Feel free to share.

Malumbu said " I would rather you said that you wanted the status quo and don't believe or care about poor air quality and climate change rather than some sort of moral high ground." Objectors have said that the LTN does not improve air quality for the majority and makes it worse on boundary roads, so your point does not at all reflect their motivation or what they stand for. Rashmipat said: "I support serious climate action — but badly implemented LTNs actually increase pollution. Lambeth’s own data, along with TfL’s, proves this. And yet, the council continues to press on, ignoring the facts and the concerns of residents and businesses.

Why is it interesting? We have posters(cycling activists) from Lewisham who 'advise' on these forums on all kinds of Dulwich-wide issues, especially LTNS and the like, they have also responded to the ED CPZ consultation. On that basis, what is your point about Richard Aldwinkle?

But it does not reflect well on the council who repeatedly claimed they were receptive to resident and business views. It also gives the lie to the claim it is a vocal minority who are unhappy with the LTN. It is difficult to know how this council managed to 'ignore' a 53 page objection document- which the judge said was impressive and full of relevant detail.

@Malumbu You put words into another poster's mouth and use that to accuse them of the 'crime' of labelling, then you conflate this alleged 'crime' with the behaviour of "populist politicians", all in all making another of your inferences ( about another poster's political leanings. Can I just point out that you are also labelling...big time. You preach peace, love and harmony but what you actually do comes over as rather divisive and underhand. Well it does, you need to dig the road up to widen the pavement... Yes, I think I established that...

The only thing is, pavement widening does not involve tarmac, other than digging it up, does it?

I always thought the 'council March' big spend was to ensure every last scrap of available ring-fenced money is spent, to avoid it being cut for the next budget round. Is there not some truth in this? My own take is that councils do not have much to play with or to make an impact that separates them much from another party ( it remains to be seen what Reform get up to) so they have to spend what they do have on 'eyecatching' 'upbeat' and (groan) 'vibrant' agendas like digging up pavements and landscaping them. Mending potholes in the road is not 'sexy' or 'eyecatching' but, as a cyclist, I think it might save a fair few from some nasty tumbles and injury.

Hmmm.

Wasn't it two ancient oak trees that the contractors were insisting had to be removed to work on the bridge? This was to make movement of heavy vehicles easier. Locals resisted.

If it causes disruption I very much doubt Rockets will be the only one to be bothered by it. It feels like this area has only been disruption-free a short time too.

Is this a pedestrian crossing? Is it so those with visual impairment can cross safely?

Meaning what? Or is it just casual interest in another poster?

The issue is not the gas works per se, it is about this happening simultaneously with all the other large scale works. If these large scale gas works have literally only come to light at the last minute, then fair enough. However, if there was some forewarning then perhaps the pavement widening, non-urgent, but politically expedient, stuff could have waited. Anyone know for sure how long these gas works have been in the offing?

But it is not just one journey is it? This is weeks, if not months, of potential disruption on roads all around Dulwich. Others will have to state the degree to which other modes of transport, like buses, are impacted.

Ex Dulwicher said "non-essential" - excellent, I'm glad that you can determine how essential these are. Can you share the Rocket's Scale of Essentiality? I assume it's based on all manner of calculations such as government funding, road safety, traffic management, contractor availability, weather, school holidays, neighbouring work times, complementary utility works and the council pipeline of schemes? Given all those variables is it not odd that all the works are going on simultaneously?

Thanks ED. I looked at a different source and it shows fat red lines on most major routes into ED. We all understand the need to deal with vital utilities upgrades, but, for instance, could the non-urgent pavement widening work around Melbourne Grove etc.. have been postponed until other works, including work on crossings right the other end of Lordship Lane, South Circular, have waited? Perhaps I am missing something but to have all going this on simultaneously seems poor management, and the Council does have a coordination role.