Metallic

Today the whole area has been affected by circumstances outside the camera zone. We cant help accidents or roadworks but we could help displacing all this traffic on to what amounts to residential roads. It is totally disgraceful.

James Barber I think you may be missing the irony here? Fundamentally, and getting back to the EDF narrative rather than Dulwich Village, I would say that the share of the council coffers to such a rich part of the Borough is really appalling considering they had ?3000 to give to a mystery group. I would rather it had all been added to the money made available to East Dulwich or Peckham. But then I'm a real socialist.

Great ideas - so I'm not alone in wondering. Personally like the social housing idea as there is not enough in the Ward. The S G Smith site would be perfect for the new Almshouses which many people have been saying for a very long time. It is brownfield so there are no excuses for greening it up with a park(let), so maybe twenty flats plus the Almshouses would see us being able to feel we are doing our share for the wider community. I forgot to say, hence edit, that the junction area really should be a road again, with a nice turning circle for a new local bus service to link us all to Herne Hill and East Dulwich.

So, no names for who these lucky ?3,000 recipients are as yet? Are they afraid to come forward? Not proud of their achievement in screwing the money out of a council already paying for the ACTUAL Dulwich Festival? Come on, own up, I am contributing towards this with my Council Tax, or had you all (if there is more than one of you left) forgotten this? I have every right to know.

How about this? messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3 Posted by Metallic Today, 10:28AM James McAsh is not my councillor but he says a lot on behalf of the council, and says things our councillors in Village Ward should expect to say to us their ward constituents, discuss with us and for us to see them acted upon. October 14th 2020. I'm copying in almost all of it as it appertains to any area with LTNs and traffic building up on the roads that have to take the overflow. Councillor McCash writes: " .......They cover the intentions behind the scheme, the process by which they have been implemented and what I think should be the next steps. It is also an attempt to honestly acknowledge the mistakes and shortcomings on the part of the council, and indeed on the part of us Goose Green councillors. It's useful to hear the wide range of perspectives. ----------- WHAT DOES SUCCESS LOOK LIKE? In my view, we need to look at the effects across the whole area but also on individual streets. The two key criteria are air pollution and traffic volume. Put simply, if these two measures are not reduced across the whole area then the scheme has failed. It is not enough to displace the traffic - we want to reduce it overall. But even if air pollution and traffic volume decrease across the board, it matters how it is distributed. I want to see a social justice approach to the analysis. No matter what we do there will inevitably be some pollution and traffic. I want this to be shared equitably: protecting schools, nurseries and hospitals above all else; and not allowing the negative effects of air pollution to fall on those least able to bear them. We have a new Leader of the Council, Cllr Kieron Williams, and this approach is already reflected in his leadership team. Instead of creating a post for ?Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?, he appointed Cllr Radha Burgess as Deputy Cabinet Member for ?Low Traffic Southwark?. The shift in emphasis is important: we want to reduce traffic across all of Southwark, not segregate ?low traffic? and ?high traffic? neighbourhoods. (To be clear, this is not the intention of LTN measures, but if they do not work properly this can be the outcome). WHAT NEXT? I have spoken to Cllr Rose and Cllr Burgess (the Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet members with responsibility for this area) to request that these measures be evaluated as soon as we can. I have further requested that the evaluation considers the following factors: - Overall levels of pollution - Overall levels of traffic - The ?social justice? implications of how pollution and traffic are distributed (i.e. who lives on the more polluted streets?). We will learn more from this evaluation process but here are my initial thoughts: - Local businesses on Melbourne Grove, Grove Vale, Lordship Lane and elsewhere need support from the council: there should be a joined-up approach between councillors, the highways team and the local economy team. - Matham Grove and Zenoria/Oxonian Street are clearly experiencing problems which can and should be remedied, probably fairly cheaply. - The junction between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane has long been a problem, and this has only got worse. - Nurseries, schools and hospitals should be considered ?vulnerable hubs? which we prioritise for protection from pollution." So now I'm asking, in all humility, what has happened? This is damning for Councillor McCash and all his fellow councillors, because we in the south of the Borough know what has happened: NOTHING.

James McAsh is not my councillor but he says a lot on behalf of the council, and says things our councillors in Village Ward should expect to say to us their ward constituents, discuss with us and for us to see them acted upon. October 14th 2020. I'm copying in almost all of it as it appertains to any area with LTNs and traffic building up on the roads that have to take the overflow. Councillor McCash writes: " .......They cover the intentions behind the scheme, the process by which they have been implemented and what I think should be the next steps. It is also an attempt to honestly acknowledge the mistakes and shortcomings on the part of the council, and indeed on the part of us Goose Green councillors. It's useful to hear the wide range of perspectives. ----------- WHAT DOES SUCCESS LOOK LIKE? In my view, we need to look at the effects across the whole area but also on individual streets. The two key criteria are?air pollution?and?traffic volume. Put simply, if these two measures are not reduced across the whole area then the scheme has failed. It is not enough to displace the traffic - we want to reduce it overall. But even if air pollution and traffic volume decrease across the board, it matters how it is distributed. I want to see a?social justice?approach to the analysis. No matter what we do there will inevitably be some pollution and traffic. I want this to be shared equitably: protecting schools, nurseries and hospitals above all else; and not allowing the negative effects of air pollution to fall on those least able to bear them. We have a new Leader of the Council, Cllr Kieron Williams, and this approach is already reflected in his leadership team. Instead of creating a post for ?Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?, he appointed Cllr Radha Burgess as Deputy Cabinet Member for ?Low Traffic Southwark?. The shift in emphasis is important: we want to reduce traffic across all of Southwark, not segregate ?low traffic? and ?high traffic? neighbourhoods. (To be clear, this is not the intention of LTN measures, but if they do not work properly this can be the outcome). WHAT NEXT? I have spoken to Cllr Rose and Cllr Burgess (the Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet members with responsibility for this area) to request that these measures be evaluated as soon as we can. I have further requested that the evaluation considers the following factors: - Overall levels of pollution - Overall levels of traffic - The ?social justice? implications of how pollution and traffic are distributed (i.e. who lives on the more polluted streets?). We will learn more from this evaluation process but here are my initial thoughts: - Local businesses on Melbourne Grove, Grove Vale, Lordship Lane and elsewhere need support from the council: there should be a joined-up approach between councillors, the highways team and the local economy team. - Matham Grove and Zenoria/Oxonian Street are clearly experiencing problems which can and should be remedied, probably fairly cheaply. - The junction between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane has long been a problem, and this has only got worse. - Nurseries, schools and hospitals should be considered ?vulnerable hubs? which we prioritise for protection from pollution." So now I'm asking, in all humility, what has happened? This is damning for Councillor McCash and all his fellow councillors, because we in the south of the Borough know what has happened: NOTHING.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nothing to do with the thread but some light > relief - the 'governors' control over Dulwich > Village, my fave was no cashpoints (I expect the > former Barclays was one of the few in the country > without one). How quaint! Hope nobody proves me > wrong on cashpoints as went to the Dog maybe ten > years ago and they didn't take cards and had a fee > cashpoint inside the pub so we didn't bother. Barclay's Bank was in a listed building so could only have one inside which presumably they thought was a waste of money.

Maybe you additionally need to live in one of those sweet little closed off roads - like Gilkes Crescent or Calton Avenue, right by the bijou little square.

I loathe nimbyism. I don't live anywhere near there, I don't have a share in the current nursery business, I just think the risks of allowing that more expensive nursery, more staff working there and much larger, will probably see the end of the existing one. That would seem a shame wouldn't it?

vmdgg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I do feel vitriolic towards people who NIMBY > their > > lives away without a thought for others, > socially > > those less able to afford an expensive nursery, > > BAME residents with extra traffic already > outside > > their front doors, you know, those sort of > people. > > Those closed off roads were done at the > beckoning > > of a few people who don't understand joined up > > living for the many, not the few. > > At the risk of stating the obvious... does angrily > protesting this new nursery not make you a massive > NIMBY? NO! I am concerned about traffic, pollution, little lungs breathing in toxic air, you know, things that matter to people.

I do feel vitriolic towards people who NIMBY their lives away without a thought for others, socially those less able to afford an expensive nursery, BAME residents with extra traffic already outside their front doors, you know, those sort of people. Those closed off roads were done at the beckoning of a few people who don't understand joined up living for the many, not the few.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sounds like a good idea (the Square not the > T-shirts). I'm all for reclaiming the streets and > look forward to a good party. How do I join? Do > I need to live in SE24 (I'm just down the road). > I'll bring my Levellers records with me and party > like it's 1985. I'm afraid you will need a visa and passport to get in to Cloud Cuckoo Land.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t think they?ll proactively publish the info > (Cllr Leeming has said as much on Twitter, citing > GDPR). That?s assuming that the application was > put in by individuals and FoDS isn?t a separately > constituted organisation. > > You could put in an FoI request. In terms of > individual names, there?s not a blanket exclusion > on release of personal data in response to an FOI > request, you?d need to head off a response relying > on GDPR by making some arguments about legitimate > interests and necessity (see about page 17 of this > ICO document > https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documen > ts/1213/personal-information-section-40-regulation > -13.pdf, and see what the Council decides. > > Worth noting that where individuals (as opposed to > organisations) apply for funding they have to > specify a properly constituted organisation to > receive the funding on their behalf, as Southwark > won?t pay money into individual bank accounts. So > information about the identity of the organisation > put forward to receive the funds should be > disclosable without any GDPR concerns arising. > (Info about this is in the guidance notes for the > application > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/10382/N > eighbourhoods-Fund-guidance-notes-2021-22.pdf) > > Depends how much people really want to know! > > > > > Bicknell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > so @legalalien do you know if people can ask to > > see details of who is behind this project? the > > councillors must know so isnt this public > > information?also if something depends on > whether > > or not they get a license, what happens to the > > money if the license is refused? Names will just be redacted.

lameduck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Funny you should mention gentrification, as the > > more council things you read or watch the more > > this comes up as an issue. I was reflecting > > yesterday on the contrast between the council?s > > proposals to take away community green space to > > put more houses on the Priory Court Estate (the > > one involved in the recent Cabinet member > Twitter > > scandal), and its enthusiasm to create more > > community space in a wealthy area already > > well-endowed with parks, sports fields and > > gardens. > > > > Perhaps some infill housing on ?Dulwich Square? > > might be appropriate if the closure stays in? I > > doubt that has crossed anyone?s mind. > > Looking at Priory Courts planning proposition > I have lived near here for years > and was told that apex Stuart and Cheltenham rds > was a burial ground [ why it was never built upon > ] > this may be a myth, but surely any traffic coming > down Stuart road would literally have to pull into > cheltenham rd > to see if road was clear, I think that is > dangerous. I saw on twitter that it is open land that has never had a ny building on it since the late 18th Century, at least.

legalalien, great job. I'm not very impressed by failing to be open about anything, by anyone, when things happen/are planned to happen, where we live and travel. Good example - a knife incident in my road which everyone knew about but the police would not comment on other than to say it happened. "Don't worry! The kind of people who were involved are not like all of you.............." kind of message. So an anonymous group are awarded ?3000 by councillors who seem to enjoy the fact our whole community has been split, and are actively encouraging one side against the other. Good luck at the 2022 elections you two. I'm certainly not voting for you because you are failing to represent ALL your Ward.

Indeed heartblock. The integrity of all councillors is called in to question when you consider how Leo Pollak has behaved towards the residents of Priory Court. I say this as so many of the powerful councillors are sad he has had to resign from being Cabinet Member for Housing. When I read about this in the Southwark News it got me wondering about what else he has been up to - or any of the councillors for that matter. Anyway as long as the citizens of Dulwich get an extra scratch at the Festival I suppose it doesn't matter about profligate waste of council funds going down the drain.

Iloveeastdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lived here all my life, where on earth is Dulwich > square! Is it another newly made up pompous name? By Harold George and the graveyard.

No one has come forward, shy little petals. Bet that two or three of them, base Court Lane and Gilkes Crescent dwellers, just can't believe their luck at all that funding.

Being as how this group managed to lift ?3000 of council grant to run a two day festival at what I still call the junction, during the actual Dulwich Festival, maybe they would like to say who they are? The day after this grant was approved along with ?6000 for the Dulwich Festival, I and many others received a begging tweet from the council leader saying they needed funds for "Laptops for Learning" for students and children in Southwark. So far raised ?100,000, need another ?50k. 2,500 children in Southwark are at risk of falling behind at school, which is why they need the laptops. How I wish Southwark could have paid all that money they gave out the other night on people that really need help!

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?3k for that thing in ?dulwich Square?. Cllr > Leeming feels the need to point out that neither > he nor Cllr Newens have ever called it that and > that it will be subject to appropriate licensing > and social distancing. Except we all remember Councillor Newens calling it that on twitter when the planters were vandalised...................

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For Dulwich LTNs to centre themselves in the > richest part of South Southwark is against > everything Labour stands for. > Love cycling Hate LTNs And people living in the LTNs didn't ask for it. Once the coaches were re-routed the problem disappeared except for the hour when children go or come from school. School Streets? Maybe!

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Red Bounty bars or blue ones? In the hope that > the debate may split along different lines for a > change - I am firmly in camp red. Red. I inadvertently sent this one word reply on a private message. Sorry!

Well now, seem to be getting clues about real names. However, if I see one more thing saying everything one side posts is anecdotal, and that the other side only post facts, I may have to eat three Bounty bars to make myself feel better.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did anyone catch Ella?s mum and Little Ninja on > TalkRadio last night (think they were discussing > LTNs and the Simon Still/ LCC Twitter thing? I > missed it. Can?t seem to find it online, just > wondered how it went. Yes I heard it all. Mostly the campaigners we all know, and Ella's mother, and the pro lobby supported by that great Extinction Rebellion activist, Donnachad McMarthy. Still it really aired the issues, exposed the racism and the snobbery that comes from 'the middle class know best- paternalism of the Mums for Lungs types'. Take over an area, price out real people, and gentrify with some twee plans to let your kids scoot about - who cares about those people on East Dulwich Grove or Croxted Road? Their houses go up in value, they are living in quiet enclaves, whilst the rest on the main roads put up with pollution and traffic jams.

Rockets Wrote > > Everyone should lobby their local councillor to > ensure the review is an area-wide review and data > is collected and presented from all the roads that > are being impacted - that is the only way a proper > decision can be made and ensures the LTNs are fair > to all. Fat chance of our councillors doing anything at all to help. They are imbedded in the council line and wouldn't know how to help people who actually disagree with them or their plans. They are councillors to a few people, most of the people they support probably don't live in the ward anyway.