northernmonkey

Regardless of whether the appeal should be upheld, increasing the fine whilst the appeal is ongoing doesn't seem acceptable. Would echo getting in touch with your local councilor. Likely to be an admin error but can imagine the process is frustrating.

That is genuinely a picture of someone cycling from Grove Vale to Melbourne Grove and a lot of conjecture without any actual evidence. Not sure why looking at that would make you reach any conclusions at all? Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > exdulwicher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > There were reports on Twitter of groups of > > cyclists repeatedly cycling over the monitor > > strips (they were doubling back on themselves > > several times) > > > > This urban myth is popular amongst cab drivers > > too, not a surprise that the various One... > groups > > have picked up on it. > > This is one of the tweets that I think is being > discussed about cyclists trying to "adjust" the > count. > > https://twitter.com/GroveReopen/status/13757624616 > 47900674?s=19 > > I can't vouch if it's true or not, but equally I > can't dismissing as myth

'when you hear hooves, think horse, not zebra' Whilst I don't disagree that the monitoring strips process has been chaotic, I'm not sure I can jump to deliberate misinformation by the council. General chaotic processes more likely.

Reopen Melbourne has an agenda and along with One Dulwich, discrediting any upcoming data in case its not supportive of their aims helps this agenda. I've no idea if the strips on the roads count bikes as effectively as cars, sure someone else will know but the fact there aren't any inside 'Dulwich Square' indicates perhaps not? The 'evidence' posted by Grove Reopen seemed to be some people cycling on Grove Vale and turning into Melbourne Grove. Even they didn't claim that there were groups of cyclists travelling over 'several times' as is being stated above. Also @legalalien - the strips are down for a set period - so there isn't a 'count day' as far as I know. Finally - I'm a member of LCC (mainly for the public liability insurance / legal assistance you get when you join as I cycle on the road with my kids). Perhaps I missed the call to arms to cycle round the strips, perhaps it was a set group or perhaps it just never happened?

Objected or asked how it would be paid for - think it was the latter before the public lynching starts. I also think its a good point - if money is available, then great, but its a good question upfront before lots of time and therefore cash is poured into this.

Having watched it again, i'm even more confused. I wasn't necessarily paying much attention the first time, but it didn't sound like the Lib Dem proposal was for this to be a TFL project - so whats the plan, spend loads of cash on a working feasibility for trams, then take it to be told there is no money for it?

Are they putting tables in the carpark - there was something about that becomming easier and you'd think it would be a sensible move given that they'll be restricted in terms of covers to how much outdoor seating they have?

Are they putting tables in the carpark - there was something about that becomming easier and you'd think it would be a sensible move given that they'll be restricted in terms of covers to how much outdoor seating they have?

I think that its an interesting idea but there was no clarity as to where any money would come from - think Richard Leeming brought that up - eg TFL / Southwark don't have the funds to pay for it (even putting aside the logistics noted above), so where would the funding come from. I thought that the development of the OKR was the driver and link to funding for the Bakerloo Extension there, so its not clear where tram funding for East Dulwich and surrounds would come from. Separately - there is a map floating round twitter with a potential route and it looks to just replicate the bus routes already in place for E Dulwich, essentially going up DKH and down Lordship Lane to Forest Hill. All the discussions on PT issues locally seem to centre on EW transport, so unless there was a different route put in, I'm not sure how helpful it would be. If its the type of tram that runs in the road like in parts of Sheffield, then it would just get stuck behind traffic anyway!

I think that its an interesting idea but there was no clarity as to where any money would come from - think Richard Leeming brought that up - eg TFL / Southwark don't have the funds to pay for it (even putting aside the logistics noted above), so where would the funding come from. I thought that the development of the OKR was the driver and link to funding for the Bakerloo Extension there, so its not clear where tram funding for East Dulwich and surrounds would come from. Separately - there is a map floating round twitter with a potential route and it looks to just replicate the bus routes already in place for E Dulwich, essentially going up DKH and down Lordship Lane to Forest Hill. All the discussions on PT issues locally seem to centre on EW transport, so unless there was a different route put in, I'm not sure how helpful it would be. If its the type of tram that runs in the road like in parts of Sheffield, then it would just get stuck behind traffic anyway!

The timed closures for Alleyns were always a school street. Its the closure on Hillsboro that is being referred to. it isn't camera controlled - the school has staff who put moveable barriers across the road and move them back if anyone needs access who lives on the street.

Yes - that's exactly it! I don't want to accept what One Dulwich say at face value - I want to see the underlying data to understand the conclusions reached and see whether I agree. One Dulwich have a certain view and agenda that it suits to present information in a particular way. I do disagree with the 'analysis' conclusions reached by One Dulwich in their report on the commonplace map - but maybe we can shortcut all of this and in answer to the 'who closed Dulwich Village junction' question, then the answer is clearly Southwark Council as they are the only ones with any power to do so!

I think that one dulwich have had an interesting view of ?facts? to date so I?m keen to see the data!

Perfectly happy to- but won?t help in this scenario. So in the interests of the transparency that One Dulwich is so fond of claiming they?re trying to uphold, perhaps they could share the underlying data they?ve received. Also will stop any further FOIs being made and basing comment on different data! slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Northernmonkey > "the council should be much more transparent - > this should also include having an FOI log so that > once data is released via this mechanism it is > publicly available" > > I completely agree with you. Perhaps you can > write to teh councillors and the cabinet to > suggest this?

Agreed - the council should be much more transparent - this should also include having an FOI log so that once data is released via this mechanism it is publicly available. However, given they don't - and to avoid multiple FOIs of the same data (and associated cost) it would be useful if One Dulwich shared the data they have.

Until they release the underlying data you'll have to excuse me if i don't take their 'analysis' at face value. The 'report' they produced on the commonplace certainly stretched the limits of some of the words used, so would like to see the data they're basing this analysis on. Can't see that they've shared the underlying data though?

Bet we can all have a good guess which one it is though! If so they don't seem too bothered about perception sadly!

I'd suggest not worrying about bin stickers just yet - also the post issues noted above are well understood. If we get to the end of the year and they've not arrived then its time to raise it as an issue.

No sticker yet - but also not having issues getting the bin taken - so perhaps there is a grace period where if you have last year's sticker on they know that the new ones are being sent out? Is your only problem not having the sticker, or is your brown bin not being collected?

Seriously - one car caused 3 days worth of repairs?

A driver crashed into the Goose Green Roundabout at the beginning of the month causing a fair amount of damage. Conway are rebuilding it but because it needs a lot of work and i guess there is no where safe to do that from without closing the road, they've had to put traffic lights in.

Obviously schools are academy trusts and therefore set their own admissions policies, but it feels as though this needs a campaign to address. I think there is a not insignificant number of people who plan to move for secondary school and the increasing trend is to rent during year 6 for school applications for the eldest child, and then at some point during year 7 move into a more 'forever home' slightly further out. If its not an issue that we should be concerned about, perhaps the schools could indicate how many sibling places were awarded where the sibling lives outside the 'furthest distance offered' criteria?

I don't think its being considered for greening - my understanding was that the initial grant was towards repairing the stone planters at the bottom. I walked past the other day and they are in a terrible state. Don't think its anywhere near enough though!

Would definitely suggest bringing up via ward councillors - perhaps via residents associations if you have one. the fact that it didn't really come in until May feels like that should be the renewal date - suspect its just a coding issue!

Will she be the only one - no, will it be very hard - yes! If you want playdates to be a part of her life and not the whole of your weekend then i'd say it will be an issue. When she's 4 it will be fine - you will take her and pick her up / stay around. What about when she's 11 or at secondary school - are you going to let her travel on her own over to Dulwich and surrounds? Also once after school activities start it becomes a very long day.