alice

Not sure if those beds should be prioritised.

?3000 for an unpublicised event?!

socialrent %total builds built tower hamlets 1204 14% lewisham 508 11% greenwich 861 15% Southwark 84 1% Southwarks social rent building is abysmal [ this is 2014/17] something like 4000 empty homes anyone got more recent data.

Perhaps then the bus stop could be moved temporarily to the picture house. There?s a bay there to wait.

Rah3 when you search for increasingly smaller details to be ?proved? correct or otherwise you are missing what?s important about the discussion. And that is that the Location of the Dulwich LTNs is faulty. Everything stems from that fact.

There are some narrow streets to the northeast of peckhamrd where cars could not pass each other without pulling in etc some of these are now LTNs. And it?s made a difference. but DV has wide streets together with many sports grounds and a park but very little pt so not the right place at all for LTNs.

Exactly these LTN spaces are tiny so unless you want to cycle in circles they are useless. Just serve as Dulwich?s villagey illusion.

The long and expensive redesign of that junction increased the problems there. Which suited some who always wanted a more 'villagey' suburb. Unfortunately because of the local geography, parks, golf course, sports grounds, private playing fields The effects of that small closure had knock on effects that spread like ripples on a stormy lake, affecting many many more people than benefited. Simple solutions say calton using gilkes to exit onto Dulwich village thus simplifying the village junction, Allowing P4 to use court lane for faster transit nearer more people, Coaches and parents having drop off points with freshair walk to school, having actual bike lanes, banning on road parking etc etc

doesnt her mum live on calton? when the review comes we need people involved with a fresh objective eye.

There is nothing wrong with the principle of LTNs. It is the location of their implementation in Dulwich which is at fault.

I was blocked for counting the number of cyclists in one of their pro photos.

They block you.

The only reason for removing all Dulwich LTNs is that tweaking will not work. It needs a fresh eye and approach. Perhaps not centring on that Village Junction. R3 Your language is becoming more emotive.

Maybe you were in the hall of mirrors

Loving the longer grass

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mellor was the story - but I don't think it was > ever a real thing - an concoction by Max Clifford > is my recollection not untrue. I can remember seeing the photo

I am a woman and you do not advocate for me.

Nobody under 30 reads this forum.

D.C. traffic has intensified at edg ll junction tweaking won?t work. A new plan with this junction at the heart of changes opening the village.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Alice Dulwich Village / Court Lane is central to > 20 schools in the area with people travelling > through from all directions to all schools. You > seem to want it opened up to cars and lorries > making it dangerous and polluted again? a > All those people walking or cycling through now - > what would they do? Go back to driving? DC The East Dulwich Grove junction with Lordship lane is central to 20+ schools, nurseries, Hospital as well many bus routes. It also has higher density housing and a much lower % percentage of homes with gardens. Why not start from there.

Tweaks won?t work. The central conceit of the Dulwich LTN was flawed from the start. Dulwich Village/Court Lane junction cannot be the centre of the new plan

When you are not listened to or your words changed to suit others then it is natural to become exasperated.

this stress on great agreement on principles is a way of avoiding the strong criticism of measures.

My gut was majority LTNnegative

Anyone struggling to get into the southwark zoom ltn meeting?