Metallic

What rubbish. Inertia and a very hard knocking up of real Labour supporters.

I have had it for months. It is great to have a download speed of 400+ after BT gave me 11 at the most. For the first year you are discounted and then for my band it costs £28. Any difficulties you call the helpline and it is sorted remotely - I haven't had problems however.

The complete rubbish spouted at the first consultation meeting at Dulwich Library was an insult to our intelligence. (McCash wants to use parking places for parklets by the way - lovely seating that is backing on to a road, has rubbish and dope paraphernalia left in it - nice outside your house. And a few months ago I was told by the woman who is local chair of Police panel that crack apparatus was found by the Burial Ground.) CPZs are an inevitable move to get you from using your car and that is the most anti-social behaviour on behalf of the council who give not one jot about anyone living in non urban areas like Dulwich Village and West Dulwich south of the South Circular. We all have to travel to decent food shops and some of us are too old to walk and carry.

Catherine Rose of course. And don't forget in the early Our Healthy Streets plan for Eynella, they wanted to close the junction and make it people friendly.

And Rahx3 in case you can't/won't click through to it here is that it says on Page 6 of TFL's report: Root Cause of Delays Herne Hill is the best logical alternate route for northbound drivers who are otherwise unable to travel through Dulwich Village This has caused increased flows through this section of network resulting in increased congestion. Pretty compelling huh? I wonder how the councillors and pro-LTN lobby are going to try and spin their way out of that one....... Thanks Rockets, that's helpful. I'm pretty dubious of Southwark News reports on LTNs, as they've run a campaign against them that's included very misleading, sometimes false reporting. It's a shame that they quote the report out of context, and don't link to it, but not that surprising perhaps. Reading the report, it sounds as though the issues with increased bus times referred to in the Southwark News headline were prior to the changes Southwark put in place in March. Although it does sound that Croxted road Northbound (whilst improving), may still be experiencing increased traffic. So perhaps the headline ought to be - a very successful traffic reduction scheme isn't 100% perfect and there continues to be monitoring and some adjustments being made. That is pretty shocking. My friend who lives on Croxted Road is pretty adamant that your explanation is wrong. The traffic is as bad as it has been since the LTN system was put in, and she should know I think. The decreased timings have made it worse. Clearly no problems during the school holidays, however.

Sorry I haven't got the hang of this yet - I was trying to reply to Spartacus!

What has that to do with Southwark? Nothing!

The glut of people walking about in yellow high viz taking numberplates of legally parked cars made me wonder if Southwark are going to match the plates with DVLA details which they clearly have access to. Then leading to parking restrictions of some kind on these roads where the checkers have been seen.

All this adds up to, is that all the Dulwich LTNs imposed against the will of the people are rubbish, life-ruining things that have affected how many people live. Unless you are sitting in your quiet little enclave, which in some respects I am - but I care about people on the fringe who have taken the traffic we use to share. Bad design. Bad outcome. Bad.

I have had an agenda and last Minutes via Neighbourhood Watch friend not living in my road, for Dulwich Village ward meeting of the team with Safer Neighbourhood Panel next Monday at the Dog. Public meeting presumably. Anyone ever been to the one for Village ward? Goldilocks, if these meetings run on, I think it is important to start early, and after all, you could still turn up a bit later couldn't you?

Have you seen the double yellows and no loading signs that have appeared on Court Lane with no notices? Knee jerk reaction to that fire engine squeezing trough.

I think the two Lib Dems are wet behind the ears and think us residents are too if they believe they will go against their party policy on LTNs.

It is double yellowed both sides and up to Dekker. What will all those drop off mums do now?

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fire engine is at the DV end of Court Lane > facing onto Calton Ave. There is no built out > pavement there. > Court Lane has double yellows on both sides at > that end so looks more like it's illegally parked > cars that have caused the problem. > > Unless there is something very odd about the > perspective in the photo; as there is unrestricted > parking a bit further back allowing for parking on > both sides. But that predates the LTN, so not sure > how that warrants the headline/angle of the > story. > > The article states: The fire crew were hurtling > towards an incident in Eynella Road on 11 April, > > That appliance is facing the opposite direction > from Eynella. It's possible the driver overshot > and was looking for a way back, but there are a > further three or four right turns they would have > gone past to rectify by this point. Go and have a look - it doesn't have the problem any more.

SE22_2020er Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I'm certainly not voting for a Tory candidate > who lives in a proper gated community in Woodyard > Lane in Dulwich Village. The hypocrisy is > breathtaking! That's daft It's a cul de sac on the Dulwich Estate, I haven't ever seen gates there even when there used to be an old lady living in the original house. So it is no more gated than Townley Rd or Calton Avenue, or Court Lane. I suspect quite a few people who comment on the LTNs do so because they live on one, or sort of one in the sense the traffic is affected by cameras or planters. Just like me and most of Area B.

The Lib Dem leaflet has one mention in passing, of LTNs. One Lb Dem candidate neither works or lives in Southwark, which I saw on my postal voting information. At least one is a legal requirement. And why don't sitting councillors have to say where they live? I am very concerned that the next closure will be by the Library. It was once wanted in the old Area B Streetspace ideas. Then there will be issues over access big time. I saw on twitter about the fire engine the other day. There is also a person in Court Lane who was seriously compromised because the ambulance couldn't get to them - again seen on twitter. Winners and losers.

I think for Dulwich Village Ward, the Lib Dems seem to have virtually disappeared, and I cannot bear what Councillors Newens and Leeming have done with our lovely district. So I'll be taking a very deep breath and voting for the Tories. They are not anything to do with the national Tory cause anyway, and I would like to see some different people holding those Labour councillors to account. It is a one party borough, the Lib Dems don't have any feelings for anyone south of Walworth.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One day we will look back incredulous that traffic > was moved from the richest, greenest part of town > to create arid dead villages in the centre of a > major city. Yet this is what Councillor Leeming wants. A Village, dead from the neck up.

Administrator Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please, please, please stay on topic I was definitely on topic. More LTN roads will come if the Labour admin in Southwark is re-elected en masse. As for the ED streets closed there are plenty more with potential. Surely this IS the topic?

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "At times I've asked myself the question: is this > a straight debate amongst neighbours about the > best way to reduce traffic, or is it being used by > some to push a wider but concealed political > agenda?" > > I think exactly the same about the opaque Clean > Air Dulwich or Friends of Dulwich Square - have > the friends of the closed Dulwich Village junction > stopped for a minute to think how this closure > will affect their neighbours on South Circular or > Lordship Lane? Why is their need to have the roads > closed so they can cycle there is more important > than my desire to have rush hours twice a day > instead of all day long in front of my flat? I would say that none of them give a jot. If they did they wouldn't fight so vociferously for their streets to be closed. As for the residents living near the closed junction, on Calton Avenue and Court Lane - I have no words for their selfish behaviour towards their fellow Dulwich residents. I'm praying further closures won't hit the old Area B once the elections are over if Margy Newens and Richard Leeming are returned., because our district can't take any more of their vanity projects.

It?s correct that the Lib Dems did attempt to call in the Dulwich scheme in October 2021 - this is a link to the request and Southwark?s decision not to call it in https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102409/Request%20for%20Scrutiny%20Call-in%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20Review.pdf As you can see, the attempt to call in was made on the grounds, firstly, of inadequate/ insufficient consultation. This was easily batted away by Southwark officers, as the Lib Dems must have known it would be. The second grounds were a little garbled but seem to imply that the Council had not gone far enough! Also easily batted away by officers. What is striking is that in their 10 March 2022 ?position statement? on the Dulwich LTN, the Southwark Lib Dems cite longer car journeys, pollution displacement and unacceptable congestion on the boundary roads, as well as the impact of the measures on local businesses and emergency vehicles/ carers. These issues were all completely evident back in October 2021, and had been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Lib Dem councillors and candidates. If the Lib Dems really are concerned about these issues, why didn't they use them as grounds in their call-in request, which might have given it a chance of success, and when they could have really made a difference? I feel strongly about the businesses and more importantly the residents of all the boundary roads suffering and at the time sent in an email asking the Lib Dems to call it in and didn't receive any explanation as to why it didn't happen.

I hear the Conservatives are canvassing here in Woodwarde today. Get your questions ready about the dark and quiet roads of this LTN part of SE22.

jazzer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Foxy - hope you are doing better than earlier in > the year. > > Thanks for uploading this picture of Austin's, > brings back memories when it existed. Didn't they > have another shop between here and Queen's Road on > one of the back streets behind Peckham? Yes they had a really good overflow place on Consort Road near the railway bridge. Kept more of their real antique stuff there. I was so sad when it closed. As for the other on Peckham Rye, spent hours browsing there.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How would this differ for the Conservative > candidates in the village? At least the Lib Dems > would be part of a wider group in the council > rather than 1 or 2 lone Tories! The Lib Dems won't do anything. The news that the Tories have put up a solicitor and an accountant could mean trouble for a few committees. And they have promised us on the doorstep that they will fight to get the junction re-opened - the bane of all our lives if you live kettled here. Unlike you, who I believe live in a motor free paradise apparently and who actively campaigned for the closures that have also caused so much pain..

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Back on subject: Looks like Libdems are now > against Dulwich LTNs. Good. Don't be naive. Their Southwark policy will not allow them to do what they are claiming. Look at the northern Southwark LibDems!