first mate

No, it is not funny and it is awful for anyone registered with this abomination of a practice. If GPs are not available then how can it call itself a GP practice? Nurse practitioners are highly qualified and great but they are not qualified doctors. I must underline how crazy it was that the awful money-grabbing company that owns the practice was ever handed one of the best sites in the borough.

No it is about the appalling state of local pavements, but the comparison with Dulwich Square is relevant since I bet the paving there won't puddle or produce trip hazards. How has the council found 5 million to spend on that very small area in a wealthy area and get that work done pronto, yet swathes of East Dulwich paving is cracked and falling apart. Priorities?

And always goes into massive uk-wide generalisations. We've said, so many times now, that the focus of the forum and a thread on the ED traffic section on the forum should be about ED and the Dulwich area, specifically. Unless some are trying to get the thread lounged by taking it off course (surely not)? All that said, I am not denying there is a problem with dangerous/ careless car driving. I have real contempt for those that flout 20mph...no excuse. But can we try to stick to the growing issue of cycling on pavements and start thinking about what can be done to stop that locally?

Yes, fair enough, but I would not compare local residents use with that of a tech giant.

Genuine question. Can the moped 'victim' check to see if you are insured and then take action anyway? Plus would there be implications for the driver in stating they are not insured when they are? Might another course of action be to hold tight and insist on calling the police - who probably would not come out- before releasing any details?

Well, I know of three people that have tripped walking along Lordship Lane because of uneven paving; two of them fell and suffered bad fractures as a result. That is just in the last few years! There has been work on the pavements over the years but, as others have noted, the work is so badly done it never lasts. Look at the state of Northcross road paving too. Parts of that are now very uneven.

The pavements are a disgrace and often present a danger to those with various physical impairments as well as the able bodied among us. Quite how the Council squares this with its much heralded aim to increase and support active travel is the question. Councillors just need to apply themselves to the boring and 'unsexy' work of getting the basics right.

Listening again to Lime at the Scrutiny session, I think Lime want to fund marking out and 'capturing' space on every street, but I think the spaces would be shared use. In principle this sounds a good idea but I cannot see anyone just leaving their privately owned bike standing in a space. I am wary of even leaving mine chained up. I think it is probably okay to have a space on every street because you can probably fit 5 Lime bikes into one car space. I would not want to see demands for more than two or three spaces maximum per street as that would exceed likely demand. It occurs that Lime/e-bike spaces could probably be placed in double yellow line space. Those were suddenly increased for debatable reasons. However, using that 'extra' space for e-bike parking would still inhibit cars without reducing sight lines.

Look at the Council scrutiny sessions on housing. There has been huge mismanagement, possibly bordering on criminal, and I believe this sector of the council is under some sort of investigation. I would seek legal advice as the sort of money you are being asked to pay is extraordinary. If you have only recently bought the property it might also be worth asking why charges of this nature did not come up in searches?

Suggest we invest in improving the pavement we already have, as per the OP, rather than widening. The paving round ED is very slapdash and soon degrades; as RCH pointed out, it is often not well laid in the first place. I wish councillors would focus on the boring detail of our basic infrastructure and less on grand (some would argue unnecessary) projects, like Dulwich Square and 'parklets'. Nice to see you back RCH. Your perspective is most valuable and a welcome change since you have real experience/expertise in some of the threads under discussion.

I don't think so but Lime stated at a Scrutiny meeting last month that they would like parking space on every road in the borough set aside for e-bike and scooter storage. I believe they would fund identifying and marking out of the space, don't know if they would then 'own' those road spaces or lease them or just be given them. They would be negotiating with the council as well as TFL. My guess would be they would fund 'policing' by wardens (also doing their CPZ rounds etc), and that way Southwark would get a valued money making resource funded indirectly.

A tangential point, but between Lime and Voi the branding colours are really full on and when scattered around look a mess. Forest bikes are a much better colour, at least.

Still odd to describe London as super flat, or whatever she said. I'm thinking about areas like Hampstead, Highgate, our own area of Dulwich with Forest Hill one end and Dog Kennel Hill the other.

The PO is open again, as far as I know.

Well, no but it is or was a major access route into DV, hence the negative impact on those with mobility issues.

This is really seen as adequate justification for spending millions on the space? As for people across the borough visiting. Really? I just cannot see people making Dulwich Square a must see destination. They will pass through to go and visit the shops, the pub and restaurants, the parks, and the famous Picture Gallery. They will pass through because many will have to, it is one of the routes into DV. DKH, it is the council and Cabinet member in charge wot make the policy therefore they are accountable, you cannot really get away from that, no matter how many "lols" you post 🙂 You still have not revealed the identity of your "Mr One Dulwich"? I have asked quite a few times now?

But with so many local venues, not to mention the large parks replete with free seating, just a few minutes down the road, you can't seriously mean there was a pressing need for this space?

Apparently the PO on LL is closed? There is a handwritten sign in the window saying closed owing to technical issues. There is no phone number or way to check when or if it will open again? If anyone from the branch reads this perhaps they could post and update us? It might save people time and effort. It might also be useful to update the website, which says the branch is open. If this is only very temporary and already open again then I apologise.

Hmm, I think it they are referencing that great Wings hit "Let em in" (Someone's knocking at the door, somebody's ringing the bell"etc..). They may not have considered the suitability of the title for your particular thread 🤣 I think and hope it was little kids playing knock down ginger. Teenagers booting people's doors for a dare not so excusable.

Surely you are not suggesting I have the same power, reach and influence as Cllr McAsh? Cllr McAsh is, for now, the Cabinet Member in charge of the Streets for People policy, so it is legitimate to comment on how he handles the decision making process and optics around that. I think a number of us wondered why he had changed from describing himself as Marxist to socialist? It is relevant to know what ideology may be driving his political decisions. Anyway, you still haven't revealed who"Mr One Dulwich" is? You and others have referred to this mystery individual a number of times. I am surprised you are keeping his identity under wraps.

I think this is known as "playing the man and not the ball". Plus, the implication that if you so much as dare to question or criticise the council, this is proof you are a gas guzzling, Tory. Come on DKH. I do find it odd in a cost of living crisis that our Labour Council can find millions to spend on the creation of Dulwich Square in one of the wealthiest parts of the borough. I would be less surprised but equally questioning if this had been the decision of a Tory council. It is the council that decides and who are accountable for those decisions.

But surely the time to say 'no' to a specific issue is when that something goes out to consultation? In general, people do not vote at elections on single issues, although, as we have said before, quite incredibly some local Dulwich residents did just that. I think those in favour of LTNs, CPZ etc, have to stop framing it as a left/right thing. I think for those of us against, it is about the validity and situation of certain traffic schemes and transparency and honesty of process. As has also been said before, Southwark Labour were quiet in their campaigning on LTNs etc.., so the idea that they have a mandate to go ahead with their various plans is not the case. Not sure I would refer to residents with mobility problems as vested interests?

Well you seem to know who this 'Mr One Dulwich' is, so tell us. I genuinely don't. The fact that you do, or say you do is interesting. As for your sensitivity about criticism of the council- who else are we to hold accountable for management of LTNs, CPZ etc?

I don't think I have forced anything, just expressed an opinion and, also relayed what Southwark Council have said. As for whether the Council spin their call for world car free day/ street closures for fun and play, let's wait and see. We've closed the street for a party for a number of years, just not before as a call to action by the Council.