Metallic

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s almost as though Southwark Councillors in > areas where there are LTNs have a private vanity > project rather than a global view of the area. > There is very little evidence that LTNs improve > pollution across the borough, in fact idling > traffic creates more. Unfortunately they really > have made up their minds and are unable to listen > to any one else. > > ?Wait until it?s bedded in? , ?it?s because there > are roadworks? > > Only solution is a campaign and the courts. Sue > Southwark for making certain roads toxic to > residents and endangering health. There is always an excuse. I am totally against the schemes because of the traffic displacement and resulting pollution - WHEREVER it is. These small minded people who are advocating all these changes are basically parochial. They have no vision of others having bigger lives than shops 500 metres away, the doctor round the corner, the mini supermarket a kilometre away. These people need to wake up. This is part of a city, not some village surrounded by farmland. I'm sorry to say that any communities blighted by LTNs or displacement will all suffer when the businesses they depend on go to the wall. In Dulwich Village we could all eat a tile or a house because those two sorts of businesses will survive and Simply Fresh will fail - no loading area, no parking 5 hours a day for drive through customers, and their stock being even worse than it already is.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (at the risk of being slightly off topic - I think > 2(a) should refer to ED Grove not ED Road. They > might need a new sign... > > Question: is there a reason why they couldn't > move the barrier at the GV end a bit further > towards EDG, so that there is parking outside the > shops that can be accessed from GV but no through > route? Because that would seem like an obvious > compromise. (Doesn't fix the problem of traffic > on EDG but not sure how much of that is caused by > these closures as opposed to the Dulwich Village > ones? It shows they don't know what they are talking about. At least proof read for goodness sake!

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm confused, I thought people moved here because > the schools were so good. Perhaps if the schools > are better elsewhere then parents will move from > the area, making housing more affordable and as > the majority of kids will then go to local schools > less traffic in the morning. Would you really be > that insane to drive your kids to Croydon and > beyond each morning? > > > > > > Malumbu - you miss the point. Many of the > > independent schools that run bus services > through > > the Dulwich area are schools much further > afield > > than can be walked of cycled - schools like > > Trinity, Royal Russell, Whitgift, St Dunstan's > and > > Colfes etc. The fact that some are considering > > cutting Dulwich from their routes should not be > > heralded as it will inevitably lead to more > people > > using their cars. If your kids are educationally able, then of course life is perfect. But Royal Russell specialises in teaching dyslexic children. Trinity and Whitgift have good scholarship programmes. Not everyone wants to live in Croydon! And St Dunstan's is a good second choice if your child doesn't get in to the so-called elite Foundation Schools.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it is maybe a function of the structure of > councils and the fact that councillors look after > the interests of their wards (as they perceive > them based on their social group within their > wards)rather than looking at the big picture - > although presumably that?s the job of the cabinet > / the various committees. With so many councillors > from one party it feels like some of the checks > and balances are missing as it would be human > nature for Labour Councillors to trust that other > councillors would do the right thing in terms of > the big picture. That?s just a suspicion. I think > it might be dawning on some people hence the good > questions that some councillors from other wards > have been asking. May be worth emailing them > (Cllrs Burgess and Werner) directly.. have been > pondering doing that. But then there might be a > ?closing ranks? effect. I?m not sure what to think > any more. > > One thing I have concluded is that it?s important > to keep local media healthy and we should maybe > all spend more (some!) time reading local news, as > they do report on stuff. > > See https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/ > > https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/category/south-lond > on-news/southwark/ > > > > > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Thanks for voicing my concerns, it is > unbelievable > > that a Labour Council is putting in schemes > that > > benefit the wealthy streets with fewer schools > to > > the detriment of the poorest streets with the > most > > schools. I don't think for a moment local Ward councillors hold any sway on behalf of their Wards. They do as they are told, vote for what they are told to vote for, and although may have personal misgivings that they voice, it doesn't make any difference to what they do in council. They will find out though, in May 2022.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Ex- the council appears to view the ETROs as a > licence for stupidly...take a look at the > attached...who thought this was going to be a good > solution at the DV/EDG junction? You can only > presume the person who planned this is 1) really > stupid or 2) looking for ways to create so much > congestion that people choose another route. > > Who would have had to have signed this off? There > appears to have been gridlock in DV today as a > result - who is being held to account? We keep > hearing from councillors let it bed in, we need > time to assess but in my mind if the council > continues to do things like the attached they > should lose the power to do this. > > Any sane person can look at that photo and predict > what will happen - you don't have to be a planning > genius to see what will happen. This is why the > council are under so much pressure and why the > majority of residents are up in arms about these > closures - they're just stupid. The local cyclists asked for the protection and lo, it came.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Calton road, no schools, houses 2-3 million, lower > than the national average of BAME residents. A car > park for the wealthy. I imagine those Chelsea > Tractors, Mercs, BMWs drive down EDG... A car park for the Alleyn's teachers actually. Most on Calton Avenue have off street parking.

smooch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > now there's an idea. > walking thru the village this morning around 11.30 > and the main road was completely chock full > towards east dulwich grove - across the junction > with turney. i just don't get it? would love to > hear what all the residents of Dulwich village > actually feel about it. > > Should also add that the road was completely > blocked at around 2.30 on sunday afternoon so > clearly nothing to do with the school run - again > tailing back to the mini roundabout. > > some residents and businesses on east dulwich > grove have already expressed their serious > concern, but I suspect the council is unwilling to > actually 'hear' them. Councillor James has bravely > made some conciliatory noises but is not in a > position to do anything. Everyone I know hates the plans in the Village. And the few cyclists who actually LIVE in Dulwich Village are probably countable on your fingers and toes. I wish people would stop meddling in the life of our community. The ruination of Lordship lane and Grove Vale businesses, the closure of Melbourne Grove, I bet there are very few people who want our district to go down the drain.

Two traffic guys will always be kept busy, often they are in Dulwich park at the same time.

So Dulwich Safe Routes win an award from London Cycling. Big deal. Self congratulatory back slapping from all of them, Leeming and Newens as if this is all that matters. I reckon the two e petitions show what the majority think and we are sharpening our pencils ready for May 2022. The majority of residents do not like this enforced change to their life in a free country. Life in the microcosm of home and school. Some of us have bigger lives than that or are older, more frail, or who have people they want to see and engage with outside this wretched perimeter of cameras.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That is really interesting. Can someone tell us > whether this is unusual, especially given one of > the stated aims of Clean Air for Dulwich in their > submission to the council for money was to > campaign for LTNs (see below)? > > Isn't this a little incestuous, using tax-payers > money to fund a group that you then use as a lobby > group to help push through your own proposals? > > Makes me wonder, in the application of balance and > fairness, whether the council would fund a group > to investigate how they handled the implementation > and consultation of the LTNs.....;-) > > > Clean Air for Dulwich Council Funding Submission > > Work to improve air quality for all, encouraging > active travel, directly addressing causes > of air pollution via targeted campaigns and > promotion of low traffic neighbourhood. > Needed targeted campaign on air quality > specifically rather than as part of a wider > remit as air quality continues to worsen > especially with independent school traffic. > Our campaign is to work more directly on this > targeted issue and with the community > as a whole rather than just via the schools > network. Those affected by pollution aren't > limited to people in schools and therefore getting > wider engagement will be critical to > changing this quickly. > > We will also work to campaign for low traffic > neighbourhoods, building awareness > amongst local residents for the benefits that can > be gained through this approach. What makes me furious about this and other campaigners is that they do not recognise we don't want to live in a silent ghost town - that is what it feels like in Court Lane, Woodwarde and side roads. And to make it even more cut off.

I don't know, I go away for a few days and when I get back there are poles everywhere ready for the cash registers, sorry, camera warning. Read the piece about Lewisham, I'm sure Southwark thinks what not to like about millions coming in? In the meantime the presentation to the cabinet which was very interesting, showed Dougie and Lianne putting the council in their place. Wonder if they have heard anything from the Cabinet member?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree I think what the Dulwich Village RA stated > was a very good plan and something that everyone > could live with (although I am not sure Southwark > would agree to area-wide resident permits as I > think they think Dulwich residents are the > problem). > > Nimbyism is a huge issue. Over the summer my wife > met a friend for a drink in Gail's in the Village > and the table next to her were talking very loudly > about the closures. My wife described the people > on the table next to her as "too posh to wash" and > one of them stated very loudly "We pay a premium > for our houses in the Village so why should we > have to deal with the traffic". Unfortunately this > is the view of many - happy to see their road free > from traffic but not giving one jot for what > happens at the end of their road. That's awful. The trouble is there are too many people here for a shortish time, for schools, and the numbers of people who dig in for a long haul will dramatically decrease if this shut off goes ahead as a full scheme once the trial is over.

I think the Burbage Road camera 2 was an after thought probably because the Burbage residents are split in two about extra traffic, with one end protected by the original plan, leaving the Village end taking the brunt of the traffic that has nowhere to go. I'm appalled by the nimbyism and would gladly have gone along with the idea that Dulwich Village RA set out in the meeting, at least it shares the pain out and helps the traders, whereas this plan is going to see the end of yet more businesses. I bet the estate agents do well, everyone will be putting their houses on the market to get out of here, and fast. Coupled with the TfL announcements and Khan being under orders to make more money from us Londoners, this leaves us all very much out of pocket if it all goes through. Congestion, extra rates tier, ULEZ and these cameras, what's not to like about living in fortress Dulwich where we can't afford to go anywhere outside it for anything.

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For anyone that wants to watch the presentation - > it's available here: > Dougie can you check your private messages please?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think the council has done anything other > than push out a survey during lockdown (and no > doubt encouraged their supporters on Melbourne > Grove to fill it in). The only non-emergency or > public utility service group that has been > consulted during this process is Southwark > Cyclists. There has been zero effort to engage > with the majority of residents who are impacted by > these changes. I bet we hear from all of them when 2022 dawns and local elections loom.

I wonder when it is all going to kick off? There should already be warning notices up. The number of people who still go in to Court Lane and Calton Avenue, ignoring the road closed signs, somehow tells me it will not be believed until penalty notices come through the letterbox. Talking of letterboxes, has anyone anywhere in East Dulwich and Dulwich EVER had a leaflet about all this rubbish since the first closures were announced for Melbourne Grove, Calton Avenue and Court Lane? Yes we have had a clean air one, and a couple from One Dulwich in my road, and Cllr McAsh posts on here, but I am talking about Southwark Council and/or our local councillors messrs. Leeming and Newens.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Metallic - to be fair there's not a lot on the DV > RA website that makes me think their concerns go > much further than the "hardship" the residents in > DV are having to endure....their thoughts are > outlined below and they are lobbying to get Phase > 2 put in quickly to close DV to traffic...which of > course makes the problem a lot of worse for others > outside of DV. > > Here is a clip from their website; > > In summary, we expressed the following views which > reflect the balance of opinion among the 40+ > residents we have spoken to: > ? the junction closure has caused significant > issues and in some cases real hardship for > residents, particularly those living on Dulwich > Village > ? the phase 2 measures are needed to fix a problem > which Southwark should not have created in the > first place > ? the key issue for our residents arising from the > phase 2 measures is access; in combination, they > mean that during the restricted hours, it will be > very hard for residents on Dulwich Village to > access their homes by car from the south, or for > residents on College Road/ Woodyard Lane to head > north (for instance to Kings Hospital) > ? this raises many issues around carers, > deliveries, hospital visits, mini-cabs > ? we also pressed for increased frequency of the > P4 bus, though in practice steps being taken by > TFL are likely to reduce access to the P4 > > > It also makes one wonder whether other RAs from > across Dulwich are attending the meeting on Oct > 20th and if not why only the group in support of > the Phase 2 closures made the list. It will be > interesting to see if their "delegation" is called > upon by the council. > > What the council seems to be avoiding is a > cross-area public meeting on this. I very much > hope Oct 20th is a democratic event and not > something that just appears as one-sided and > biased as other council actions around this issue. I don't think you read all of it? There is a poster like picture on there which is long and addresses some of the issues you just have to scroll through it. And they are being much more pro-active than One Dulwich about the rest of the area so read it properly....I think it will be a positive impact for us in Area B as well as helping Area C with all the extra traffic they are enduring. The council website is where everyone should register, it is the only way to know what is on the cards. It is no use jumping up and down afterwards because you missed the boat. In normal times there is the Dulwich Community Council or whatever it is now called, where we could hear what the councillors have to say. Nowadays it is imperative to register for those emails because for sure they are not going to waste money on leafletting.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well this makes interesting reading. The deadline > for deputations was 14th October. Two deputations > will be heard re road closures. > > 1. Dulwich Village/College Road and Woodyard > residents associations (road closures) > 2. Clean Air for Dulwich (road closures) > Is anyone aware of a petition by Clean Air for > Dulwich? If so, where can it be viewed? How many > signatures. > > Thing is, what about all the other road closures? > Where is the representation for those? How is it > these bodies who will have deputations got wind of > it? > > The One Dulwich petition is mentioned as item 8 in > the public agenda pack, but there seems to be no > deputation and it seems as though the council has > issued a written point by point response. Can > anyone shed light on the process here? Why does a > smaller residents association and a pro closure > lobby get a proper hearing but not a 2,500 > petition. In terms of the latter, is that now it > as far as council process goes? You register with the Council for all news on meetings and get emails about business and planning stuff. You delete it for years then suddenly wham!! an important meeting about something that affects us all. It is not devious or secretive play by LB of Southwark, for people who are interested in the borough beyond their backyard, they have been watching for years. The bloke who started the e petition says somewhere on EDF that he can't make the meeting and therefore you will have to trust that whatever is presented to the Cabinet bu the deputations will embrace or address what he has found support for. Get the name of your councillors and start tweeting or emailing them if you don't like what you hear. They will be listening if they want a forward career in local government after May 2022. Let's see how the DV RA get on because I'm pretty certain they will be largely echoing the views of many of the signatories. I have a friend in College Road who told me to read their website. I already had - but maybe people on here spouting conspiracy theories ought to have a look themselves.

Tuesday 20 October 2020 4.00 pm, Cabinet Venue: Online. This meeting will be livestreamed on Southwark Council's YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/southwarkcouncil. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6663&x=1 The agenda is posted online, it is on there that there are several deputations applying to be heard, with uploaded documentation in support of whatever they want to say. There is nothing from One Dulwich but it looks like the RA from Dulwich Village has applied to be heard, along with one of the "pro-closure" groups. I'll take a look but I would think it is a good idea to watch the live feed to see how the councillors discuss the mess that has evolved in Lordship Lane, Melbourne Grove and environs, Dulwich Village (here after known as East and West Berlin as we all can see, that silly square should be known as The Wall), and generally how they make a huge decision based on a few minutes from those making deputations followed by their discussion. Boy there is a lot on there to read. However if we are all to get our roads and freedom to choose how we travel back, let's hope there is going to be some commonsense attached to the discussion. It is probably rubber stamped; this is the pretend consultation. Just like Quietway 7 consultations and Mr Hargrove I think it was. Meanwhile thanks to the water main, the lower part of my road, Townley Road and Calton Avenue are all full of u turners who don't believe a red sign that says 'road closed'. I'm not going to support the Labour Party locally ever again unless they undo this rubbish set of decisions, with worse to come when the other bits go live.

Just had a walk down to DV. The sight of a car transporter coming down College Road, round the traffic island and then turning in to Gallery Road, to presumably get back to where he started, was extraordinary. Everyone pipping their horns, people shouting through their car windows, and then thank goodness, to get back to the peace and tranquillity of that pollution-free road, Court Lane.

Maybe they are short because the driver can't walk that far, or has too many kids to handle plus shopping, come on, it was a free country and now it isn't. I visit old friends of mine during the day as I am now retired, but really trying to even get to Sunnyhill Road is an expedition now. Anyway rahrahrah, I feel better for the rant.

Rant: I guess if you want to live in Utopia, not go further than a couple of miles for your food, entertainment, schools and doctor, this life must be OK for you. But I reckon if you have a wider lifestyle, family and friendship circle, catching Covid on loads of buses to get where you want to be, or standing in the rain waiting for the fewer trains, is not much fun. Not everyone has small children at school a few hundred yards from home (I did once, of course) but horizons do widen and I for one need my car. I do not want to be looked down on by a load of cyclists because I am actually driving it. Not everyone has the luxury of working from home. The reason the roads have so much rush hour traffic is that people are trying to earn a crust, they have to travel with or to work, they have to build, paint, mend your roof, put up your scaffold, mow your lawn, deliver, whatever, to other people. Other people like you. Some people are old. Before the junction closed, life was much more straightforward, but it seems that for the hour or so a day that the children go in to school, we are all to be inconvenienced forever by massive traffic jams no matter where you would like to go. A train journey involving three changes is probably quicker than driving these days, but I don't want to sit by Mr or Mrs Covid thanks.

Closed until late Sunday but more likely Monday.

My surgery is doing both.

cwjlawrence Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Slarti, > Good question - I fear that I'm not going to give > the answer that you want though :-) > > I'm not pro closure but I am extremely pro a > massive reduction in pollution. You may have read > my post this morning about the pollution I was on > the receiving end of on both Carlton Avenue and > Hillsboro - it was disgusting and poisonous - and > these are streets that should have benefited from > the road closures! I personally feel incredibly > guilty about the amount that I have used my car > over the last 15 (approx) years of living in East > Dulwich. I am trying extremely hard to now not > use my car at all - and yes - it is very difficult > to do so but it's all I can do, to reduce the > amount of driving that I do and hope that others > do the same. > > I may be a bit stupid, but the problem I keep > coming back to is that cars are so amazingly > convenient that to get people to avoid using them > is extremely difficult. Take this morning - I > cycled back along East Dulwich Grove and there > were people sitting in the lights at Alleyns/JAGs > crossroads with their engines idling. If people > are thoughtless enough to keep their engines > running at a junction of 2 schools then what hope > of getting them to get out of their cars? > > My personal view is that it is necessary to make > car driving not so convenient and other forms of > non-polluting transport more convenient. I would > do this through a number of measures - but > unfortunately, I think they amount to the same > thing - making it less easy to drive. Having > grown up outside of London, I can see that we are > blessed here with really good public transport and > there nothing stopping us (apart from ourselves) > to reduce traffic. Of course, there are very good > reasons why people need to drive, but if I can > reduce my car journeys by over 95% then I think > that the majority of our community can too. > > One thing that I hope we can agree on is that the > road closures certainly are making us all think > about our communities more and I dearly hope that > the result will be a longer term set of strategies > to reduce driving and make East Dulwich a nicer > place for my family and of course yours also to > live in. > > Best wishes, > Chris Everybody!!!! It is spelt CALTON