richard tudor

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hang on, I think we need to do a factual accuracy > check again... I'm not entirely convinced that the > petition for the barrier actually constitutes a > clear majority of residents. > > In the deputation, they stated that they had 128 > signatures which they claimed represented the > majority of registered voters on the relevant > section of Melbourne Grove. So, as an ex cllr, I > got out an old electoral reg and counted approx > 126 voters on the Village ward side alone (i.e. > the west side), which is only HALF of the relevant > part of Melbourne Grove - the other side being in > East Dulwich ward (the east side). > > I don't think people realise that Melbourne is > actually the boundary between two wards... so, if > the Vil ward side has 126 voters, would the ED > side have roughly the same amount? This would mean > that the total number of registered voters on the > relevant section of the whole road is closer to > 250, which then casts doubt over the claim that > the petition represents a clear majority. > > This number also sheds a bit of light on the > volume of traffic using the road... if there are, > say, 200 car owners on Melbourne coming and going > every day, to say nothing of the immediate side > streets feeding into it, you can quite quickly get > up to 1000 journeys a day between going to and > from work, school runs, shopping, after school > activities within a thriving community. > > As intexas says, the volume of traffic is > increasing everywhere... and especially in the > Dulwich area as the public transport is so bad. > > So, it would be nice to know what the actual > number of residents on the relevant section of > Melbourne is... and how many drive cars (although > those of us who don't drive also get a vote!) > > Having said that, I don't think these figures will > change the concerning displacement issue of a > barrier. It just puts some of the stats being > kicked around into perspective. Thank you for the above. Surprised that the local Cllrs did bring it out into the open. But then they support the closure. Level playing field?

IF and it's a very big if residents wanted this after the study has been published and we had decided to consult on that as an option I would support a road closure. It would make many local streets fully residential again. If not then as a minimum I'd look for full width road humps to try some level of traffic calming. Have I misunderstood?

What is quite interesting when one reads these thoughts is you could equate the content to the script of the film Independence Day. Residents went to bed one evening happy that their local area was a haven of peace and tranquility free from the stress of the modern world and next morning instead of a spacecraft cars had invaded their beloved haven of peace. Traffic has existed before and been factored into ones daily living it did not suddenly appear. This should have been thought of before one moved into the road. . I have been using MG both by car and on foot and have never considered it a problem road. LL is completely different and will only get worse. How many houses/flats/residents are there in MG and how many of them, actual numbers have signed the petition. Once again a well established road is being used to inflate and maintain house prices. Cllr Barber says he supports the closure does that mean those against will not get the same support?

Sounds pretty close to the truth

A notice will go up on a lamp post which most residents will miss if they are not in the loop and it will get through. Most people have to work to survive and not have the time to promote things like this things whilst others have plenty of time to push their own agendas

What is Cllr barbers take on all this? Will he sit on the fence and go with the minority that exerts the most pressure? Will be interesting

If a small number of residents collar the local Cllr and push it forward without the majority of residents hearing until it is to late it will happen. Why do new residents always want to change things once they arrive. If Southwark can push the 20 mph through as indicated on page 7/10 last paragraph under healthy living of their manifesto they can do anything without people having any idea. Camberwell Grove tried to install a tollgate years back to turn the road into a cul de sac. It was thrown out.

Hands back brown teddy?

Like most of the comments on this matter from the start

Really. The whole thing M S vs Iceland is pointless. Why do we need M & S because people want it I use Iceland all the time. It all comes down to who will pay the most for the lease. If it means Rye Lane I will forget it.

Their food does not make your s..t stink like Iceland food. You will fit in seamlessly

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Qwe and Edhistory > > This is genius research! My kids love the idea of > the stocks - they've always asked me about them on > the way to school. It would be great to get some > replicas up, and what better pretext than > maintaining Dulwich's Village status? I think that > if the Estate were so inclined, they could really > help create a community feature, which I think > would also help local businesses. It would be yet > another part of the landscape for people coming > from other parts of London on a sunny weekend. Are you trying to consolidate the value of your property. Let Southwark buy the whole development area and provide Social Housing. I do wish people would be more honest.

It appears all your posts relate to this subject. Out of interest have you just bought a property close to this building project. I don't think I have read such rubbish about a stone Plaque.

Would people accept a development along the the lines of The Dog Kennel Hill estate. All social housing. Would indicate a willingness to embrace social housing problems

Could anybody recommend a veneer specialist to re fix or replace veneer that has bubbled from table top Any recommendation would be appreciated. Many thanks

Not her who thinks like me but the new Stepford Wife's/family arrivals.

If you are paying ED prices you don't want shabby chic but right on expensive for all to admire.

Ms Blueberry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a derelict site which negatively effects > everything around it and it's not the right thing > to let a property go to rack and ruin. If you close one eye it will appear half as bad.

What ever happened to Errol? Who used to work in Home Ownership and posted on the Forum. He started to reveal the inner works of Southwark Leasehold Management and suddenly disappeared of the face of the earth. Was he getting to close to the truth

Peacocks on Chadwick Road. Ask for Paul. Top man

davidk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > spider69 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > bobbsy Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Please don't force more rat running onto > > Underhill > > > Road. Even with traffic calming measures most > > cars > > > exceed the limit. > > > > > > Potential idea - close Underhill halfway > along > > so > > > its no longer a "through" road, and residents > > can > > > access from the appropriate end? > > > > > > Why? If people have paid their car licence they > > are entitled to use the road. > > > > > What's this "car licence" you speak of? > > The general movement to strategically close roads > in certain places is mainly because people are > sick of selfish, rat running motorists bringing > noise, pollution, death and destruction to > otherwise quiet residential streets. I hope we > see a lot more of it in ED. was this a location film set for Mad Max. Magic. substitute Vikings for motorist and you can see things have not changed that much

If its the new locals that find this horrendous perhaps they might embrace that old and tested method of walking to Bellenden Village, LOL, and the traffic effect will have mo meaning. The amount of traffic that uses this road has not changed during my lifetime of living here. The street has always had parking on both sides.

The problem is not the number of cars its the attitude of drivers who can see another car coming but still keep moving forward. The road has not changed but the people have. Me Me Me

What do you teach your children regarding cyclists?

Surely local Cllrs should have pushed the view that most locals had? And not how many people wrote in. They represent local views or am I wrong?