northernmonkey

That certainly was 'through your own prism' Legalalien! Having watched the replay of cllr Rose's comments, I don't think that the takeaway from her comments was that 'the commonplace is less important now the comments oppose the scheme' - rather that it is a tool that reflects comments from people at a point in time and that some will reflect particular one off issues or things that have since been addressed, other will be more constant concerns and so it is raises issues that should be considered in the Council's review. I suspect that her comments were framed in relation to the frankly laughable way that the Dulwich Alliance 'study' has tried to use the data to infer an overall approval rating for the scheme! No one can tell whether 10 people left one comment, or one person left 10 (and that's just one of many issues with the conclusions reached) so attempts to use the data in this way are at best the equivalent of an amateurish school project or at worst a disingenuous attempt to manipulate to support their group aims!

St David's and Browns of Brockley are the same people aren't they? Anyway - upshot seems to be another good coffee option which is great. Also - you're right - Arapina is opening in the long empty Threshers - hurray!

Yes - i'd seen that in the past, but it makes no sense on an enduring basis. Also looking at the 'change of use' categories the former seems unlikely - also even with the restriction, i'd have thought someone would want to take it on. Such a shame as having long term empty units isn't great for the surrounding shops either. All the rest have refilled pretty quickly over the years.

The ongoing mystery is how come the As Nature Intended shop has re let, yet the old Threshers remains stubbornly empty. Its been empty for years its really baffling. Also haven't heard anything further about Gails opening up in the old Brickhouse premises, can imagine that opening a cafe with a large eat in area isn't so appealing at the moment though?

I think that I saw something that said the shop on the corner - Hirsts / Truly Scrumptions is going to be a branch of Browns of Brockley (nothing to do with Jones of Brockley as far as i know!). The old 'As Nature Intended' is going to be an Arapina Bakery - lots of vegan and free from options. They have a place in Borough and also do Greenwich market.

I agree this is how they should work. But the team working on them is a finite resource. I was interested to see how many were outstanding - but ones like the one quoted still have to be reviewed, responded to, deal with any follow ups. They can?t just say, you haven?t asked a coherent question. So it will take time away that could have been more usefully employed.

I'd imagine requests like this aren't helping. There's a pandemic. Some information may only be found by asking the council, but its probably incumbent on each and every one of us to make sure that requests are the type of thing that could be answered under the FOI remit and that requests submitted make sense! Dear Southwark Borough Council, Using an FOI request I would like to see any email communications, records of phone calls or online complaints about businesses and customers to businesses located on Melbourne Grove and Grove Vale SE22 to and from Goose Green ward councillors, Southwark Council Health and Safety departments officials, Southwark Council traffic and parking enforcement officers or Southwark Community Wardens for period Jan 2018 to 5 Nov 2020. I am aware some names/details of complainants may need to be obscurred/redacted but I would still like to request to see the number and nature of the complaints themselves. Yours faithfully, Mr B Round

I agree that the support for Dulwich Alliance comes from a wide number of people who think that they want something different - and that the key to the success of the Alliance is because they haven't actually suggested with any clarity what they are asking for. The official line is that this would be done in consultation with the community, but the reality is that there has been a constant theme through the One Dulwich proposals to introduce a permit scheme or other measures to retain local driving. It is easy to vaguely suggest that 'something else should be done' and to have widespread support. In much the same way that its easy to get support for 'we really should do something about the pollution and congestion in Dulwich' - this is unlikely to be something people wouldn't get on board with. However, the issues arise when its clear that the 'something' will result in restricting a previously held freedom or inconveniencing people from the status quo. In terms of the lack of community engagement point, i recall going to community meetings way back when the Dulwich OHS proposals were being discussed and they were so busy I couldn't get in the room - so I'm not sure its the case that there hasn't been consultation. I do think that there is always room to do more and that during covid obviously there has needed to be a shift in comms to switch to better quality online offering and that this hasn't been an easy or well travelled path, especially given what I assume has been reduced staffing at the council.

By this logic people are supporting One Dulwich because they are concerned about displacement onto other roads. If the One Dulwich /Dulwich Alliance plans are put in place to allow for timed restrictions with a permit system for local residents this will mean that residents can can pass through filters but no one else. How will this help? . For the permit system to address the concerns it must either mean that a) all the traffic people have concerns about relates to local residents from SE21 driving around the local area. or b) a much wider group of SE London residents believe that they would be eligible for permits too. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suspect that many of those supporting One > Dulwich and opposing the closures are doing so in > response to the traffic problems caused on > surrounding roads, rather than because they want / > need to drive through the LTN area - so their > personal entitlement (or otherwise) to a permit is > neither here nor there. > > > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It was heard at the last council meeting - > there > > was a thread on it somewhere. > > > > I'd imagine there is a lot of overlap between > the > > signatories and one Dulwich membership - and > > looking at the map of addresses, I do wonder > how > > many of them would get a permit under the One > > Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance plans? My initial > > sense is not many!

It was heard at the last council meeting - there was a thread on it somewhere. I'd imagine there is a lot of overlap between the signatories and one Dulwich membership - and looking at the map of addresses, I do wonder how many of them would get a permit under the One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance plans? My initial sense is not many!

Just to clarify for anyone reading here - I'm assuming that Pickwick road is the reference to the point on Dulwich Village (the road) where the infringement was recorded. The bus gate is south of Pickwick on the northbound carriageway. There are significant amounts of signage plus the words 'bus gate' painted on the road - i understand that when people drive a route frequently they can become blind to changes, but there are quite a few signs!

The question as to who would get permits is a good one and one in relation to which I can't see any information on the Dulwich Alliance site. Would this just be permits for people who live in the roads that either have the filters or between those who do? For those people who live on the peripheral roads or those just next to them would they have permits too? A lot of the support on the One Dulwich website comes from areas to the East of Lordship Lane - would those people be able to have permits to drive through the village - if not how does this address that concern? Mrs D Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In the Dulwich alliance proposal, who would be > able to get a permit?

We are still getting our bins collected in SE22 but later than normal - makes me think that they're short of crews and so having to do longer routes. There was something about how collections wouldn't always be on the same days but would be made up so worth reporting as a missed collection if this hasn't happened.

Its really only meant to stop people parking there and going elsewhere - not to penalise those who take over 2 hours to shop. I'd try to speak to the store in the first instance and then escalate if not sucessful.

When we were looking for good quality nursery provision it was extremely hard to find - especially with the longer hours we needed at that time. This new nursery looks amazing - its quite expensive but then the facilities sound good too so it would definitely have been of interest to us. They also look to do lots of extra stuff beyond normal daycare in terms of family activities. Whilst i can understand that EDG isn't overjoyed about it opening right next door, I don't think that it would matter if it was a couple of streets away either. If its within walking distance of East Dulwich Station and has good outside space its going to be attractive! It might be that the price differential with EDG is enough to be a differentiator, but no idea as EDG don't seem to have prices online. On the car free point - it needs much more cycle parking, for parents and staff, but i also think that what you expect when you sign up to a nursery really matters. Like if you take a place thinking that you'll be able to drive there and park nearby and you suddenly can't then thats a huge issue as your plans work having thought you would drive. If driving isn't an option, then you know that it needs to work in an alternative way. Also we need to assume that at some point people will stop working from home and go into offices again - and driving to the station, going home (as there's a CPZ near the station) and then driving back home to drop off a car and then walking back to the station isn't that likely!

So I?ve seen the new petition quoted upthread Isn?t this back to ?dulwich roads for (as yet unspecified) dulwich people only? All the comments here seemed to have been how terrible displacement onto other roads is. Then suddenly there?s a petition that suggests closing roads only at peak time (ie when the comments re displacement are relevant) and it?s a good idea? Doesn?t this mean that basically any issues on boundary roads that are found to exist continue AMD the areas within the restriction has increased local traffic?

So to further your desire of leaving the roads with the same issues you claim now during rush hours, you?re complaining about a Christmas tree? Yes, that is pretty ?Grinchy? Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I may be grinchy but as far as I can see this is > the equivalent of creeping suburbia. Once there, > these things will never go, and I am a supporter - > obviously, of the groups who would like the > junction open again with a camera to control rush > hour traffic.

For someone continually posting about these measures and specifically commenting on the Melbourne Grove planters, you don't actually seem to have seen them. All of these streets have removable bollards in the centre of them. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes good article and I think it is good that the > council is acknowledging that it hasn't done this > in a joined up manner but I also agree that the > meeting lacked any real answers. > > Let's see what the amendments are in the New Year > but I suspect they will likely be the removal of > immovable planters being replaced by movable > bollards to placate the emergency services. I also > suspect the council hopes it can ride out the > storm until June.

I love Jones of Brockley for things like amazing curry pastes, their Brindisa almonds and brilliant chutney range. Hop Burns and Black for an awesome selection of hot sauce and great beers, Mons is great for cheeses and some wine from Bruno's on Lordship Lane. Oru look to have some interesting small businesses selling directly who might have nice things for hampers too.

So would i be if the ones in East Dulwich didn't deliver at 2:30 am in a diesel van that they leave running and sort through their stock for ages on the street. Choose your milk supplier carefully if you think its a green option - seems they're not all equal!

The Commonplace link is specifically for the East Dulwich changes and not the Court Lane / Calton Ave, other Dulwich village changes. I imagine there will be further engagement on those too but haven't seen anything yet, but this one is purely for the East Dulwich station area changes.

perfect - thanks!

How did you order please - directly or via deliveroo or similar? zerkalo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I tried some take away from this new Georgian > restaurant last night. First ever customer > apparently. Food was very tasty. Prices were OK, > perhaps slightly high. I'd like to visit when > their restaurant is properly open (it's only take > away for now). Seemed to have a good selection of > wines as one would expect from such a restaurant.

Would still love to understand more about this green bus idea. Its all great everyone saying 'finally something we can get behind' and in principle its hard to object to improved public transport, but is it viable? Its sounding more like a fleet of busses are what people want and I'm not clear where the funding for that would be and it wouldn't be insubstantial. If this has been thought through though it should definitely be pushed and i'm pretty sure there would be widespread support.

I know that's what James said was agreed, i just hope that its what happens in reality! Anyway, as no sign so far, hopefully all good!