AlexandHelenC

Thanks all, I managed to find one!

House prices in Dulwich rose faster than anywhere else in England from 1995 to 2017 - double the average increase even in London (see attached). If you were lucky or wise enough to have bought property here 20 or 30 years ago, the money you’ve made will now buy you a much better house than you could have bought at the time in any other area.

Does anyone know where to get hold of a hard copy of the artists’ open house brochure?

We’re near Goose Green and every few days a police helicopter has been hovering overhead for about half an hour at a time, usually at about 9 or 10pm. It’s happened maybe 5 or 6 times over the last 2 or 3 weeks and is really loud and annoying! Anyone have any idea why they’d be doing this?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's presumptious. Okay, perhaps many should be > > less reliant on cars but on the other hand some > > are extremely reliant. I wonder how these > > activists decide who should be on the receiving > > end of their actions or is it just completely > > random? For those who are disabled or who have > > very ill relatives and might need to get to a > > hospital in the early hours, this is beyond > > inconsiderate and, as you say, potentially > > dangerous. > > They target SUVs as I understand it. It's pretty > difficult to argue that people need to drive > massive SUVs in London. Is it conceivable to you that people that live in London might use their car to drive outside London? We have a medium sized SUV. It?s really practical for transporting our baby, dog and all of the luggage that they need when we visit family and friends around the country. It?s also a hybrid so we travel through town on battery power. When travelling in London I exclusively walk, cycle or use public transport. It?s an obvious point, but I wonder how many of the activists truly practice what they preach. Vandalising family cars isn?t a good look if you still take flights anywhere, for example.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So Rocks, the question I posed, which as you know > I have done fairly regularly over many months, is > how would you reduce traffic? Ask people nicely?? > No matter how good you make public transport and > the alternatives many will not switch; it has to > be a hard intervention unless you or others know > better. The LTNs don?t reduce traffic or pollution. They make public transport (buses) much worse.

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?given that definition and given 68% of people > responded saying remove the measures can you tell > us how the council arrives at the conclusions they > have? To me it looks clears the council has given > a small minority of the community the opportunity > to influence the decision......which is not what > consultations are supposed to act upon.? > > I am unable to find the official figures but from > memory just under 30,000 people were invited to > participate in the consultation of which 7,000 > responded I.e. just over 25%. Of this 25% it?s > been said that two thirds were against the LTNs > which brings the percentage down to 17%. Can the > opinions of this small minority be allowed to > influence the decision? The council has listened > and made sensible tweaks with the exception of the > DV junction which they wish to remain closed which > in my opinion is a mistake - the concept and > execution of Dulwich Square is just tacky in so > many ways. Now had this been a referendum, what > this 17% wanted would have carried more weight. > But it wasn?t a referendum, it was a consultation, > they work differently. > > And to the person who accused me of being a troll, > this is a very good example of the belligerence I > was talking about. It might be a good idea for you > to check the meaning of the word troll as well. Following this thinking, only 8% of the community voted for the LTNs to stay. ?Can the opinions of this small minority be allowed to influence the decision?? Quite. But clearly this is completely flawed logic - it would be like contesting the result of any election because you assume that those that didn?t turn out to vote would have been on your (losing) side.

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Listening is not the same as having to accept the > respondents? views to remove all LTNs which, let?s > remember, formed a very small percentage of those > consulted within the area. > > Once again, the anti LTN belligerence and threats > of voting Labour out of office which is the aim > and sub text of this entire thread. Well, we?ll > see. A far smaller percentage of those consulted within the area said they wanted to retain the LTNs.

There?s lots of information on the Local Government Association website. Here?s their definition: ?Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set.?

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Reminder: > A consultation is about HOW a proposed action is > carried out, not IF. By advising their followers > to say they wanted all restrictions taken out, One > Dulwich really shot themselves in the foot as > their followers missed the opportunity to put > forward more sensible solutions. What a strange comment. That?s not what a consultation is. Reminder: A very large majority of consultation respondents want all of the restrictions removed.

sim1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I find the most depressing of all this is the > "rip it out and start again" narrative. Now, I > totally get that some?people?living on certain > roads don't feel they benefit from the Dulwich > measures, and some even find it's worse than > before. I get it. But the thing is, the current > schemes are benefiting a huge amount of people, > and many people - us included - are now relying on > these small stretches of safe routes.? > > Fair enough some don't agree with the current > measures, but I think it would be absolutely awful > if everything would just be ripped out without > other safe measures having been put in place first > (whatever those may be?!). That would be like > throwing people who have made a positive change to > active travel under the bus (or more likely a > large SUV in the case of Dulwich). > > The Council's plans to reduce the timed > restrictions to 4:30pm across Townley / Dulwich > Village / Burbage Road and Turney Road in December > are really depressing for starters. Looks like > kids coming home from after school clubs and > people cycling home from work, visiting friends, > family, or cycling home from the shops will soon > have to battle against lots of big metal machines > again. In the middle of winter when it's pitch > black by 4:30. Not that it's perfect now (the > Council should have stuck to their original plans > of filtering Burbage and Turney, for example), but > I can still remember what it was like before the > timed restrictions went in and despair of the fact > we will soon be faced with it again. > > There was a time when I was seriously hoping that > we might finally be on the cusp of starting to > plan for a network of safe routes, but recent > announcements of rolling back measures is just > making me feel really down. We will probably still > be fighting over a few square metres in Dulwich > Village by 2040, when the rest of the world is > burning...? > > I get some people don't like the current scheme, > but ripping it all out without having a safe > alternative in place? It's incredibly sad...? This is at least an honest statement - some people are suffering because of the LTNs but you believe that?s a price worth paying for others to benefit. The refusal by some parties to even accept the fact that boundary roads have been so badly impacted is exasperating. How can that even be disputed?

peckhamside Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > can we come and demonstrate in favour of the LTN, > I can't see the issue for local business as it is > only through traffic that is impeded surely, it is > probably easier now to go to bottom of Court Lane > of Carlton Grove now and park than it was before. > In fact last time I went through there, on my > bike, there was loads of cars parked on Court > Lane, for an event but they could also be using > local business. Great idea. You could arrange a pro LTN march along East Dulwich Grove if you can bear the pollution, whilst taking care to avoid being knocked down by the numerous cyclists that have taken to the pavement to get past the traffic.

I'm in your ward, Cllr McAsh. Your dismissive, 3 sentence response to a matter of such importance and concern to your constituents is pretty insulting.

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > East Dulwich Grove and the houses were built as > a > > residential road for workers on the trains, > nurses > > and soldiers circa 1880 - 1886, it is a narrow > > road with trees all along it and was not built > as > > a super-highway ? > > Take a look at this extract from an OS map > surveyed in 1863. You will see that most of what > is now called East Dulwich Grove is laid out and > there are very few houses. Perhaps the section > east of Green Lane (Greendale) was built in 1888 > but most of the road had already been built as a > thoroughfare long before the houses. North Dulwich > Station is at the bottom left hand corner. Exactly. The argument that the (late 19th century)roads are ?taking the traffic that they were built for? is incomprehensibly stupid.

The mentality of the protestors on the M25 is quite revealing. They freely admit that most people profoundly disagree with their methods but sincerely believe that they're on the side of the righteous and that history will judge them favourably. I suspect that Southwark Councillors and officers have a similar outlook. It doesn't matter that the LTN policy has been resoundingly rejected by their constituents, nor that it is completely ineffective in achieving its stated goal of improving the environment. They see the impact on residents of the roads that have taken the displaced traffic as a fair price to pay to 'solve the climate emergency'. If (when?) the local councillors lose their seats next year, they'll feel like martyrs to a worthwhile cause. It's very difficult to reason with people that have such a mindset.

There is hope! https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ltns-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-london-review-protests-b953938.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ealing-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-remove-resident-referendum-b951179.html

Can't actually believe that people are saying it's cool to funnel traffic onto roads that kids need to walk along to get to school and nursery every day so that the most privileged people in the borough don't have other people's cars driving along their streets. But each to their own.

Good for them. Hope they got some attention from the press.

Completely agree, heartblock. Some people are of the view that ?something is better than nothing?, irrespective of whether that something is actually making things much worse for at least some of the local population.

Absolutely infuriating responses, Raeburn. Let?s consider the possibility that the LTNs do not result in a substantial reduction in overall traffic (which seems to be the case after nearly a year of the measures being imposed) - would you find it acceptable that the residents on those A Roads suffer the consequences of the displaced traffic indefinitely, while others enjoy the benefits of their roads being closed? It?s a simple question but one that the LTN supporters consistently avoid.

It is a great article and I?d guess is representative of the vast majority of people?s views.

Thanks, James. That?s an impressively detailed and thoughtful post. I?m very skeptical about the scheme but am open to a persuasive case if one can be made. I?d also urge you to help the businesses that have been impacted as much as you can. I can?t imagine many officials working in Southwark?s highways department have ever put blood, sweat and tears into building a business and may not understand how even the smallest drop in takings can be the difference between them surviving or not. You can give those businesses a voice in Tooley Street.

It is truly astonishing that the Council is openly and unapologetically ignoring the concerns of the emergency services.

Exactly! From the day that this scheme was imposed the traffic along the displaced routes has dramatically increased and shown no signs of abating. Funnelling polluting traffic to pass by a nursery and along high footfall areas like Lordship Lane is a terrible thing to do, especially with no prior consultation. Businesses in areas that have had LTNs in place for longer periods have suffered, compounding the impact of Covid (and in our area, the additional impact of the CPZ). Surely the extension of the ULEZ area, along with some incentives for switching to lower emission vehicles over time would be a more progressive way of addressing the pollution problem and wouldn?t hammer some unfortunate residents and businesses overnight with poorly thought through ?blunt instrument? measures.