northernmonkey

If you would also view car theft in the same vein, then perhaps?

Just unpicking that The baseline used in the estimate was a DFT manual count. So a weekday and unlikely to be holidays. The council data is based on the traffic count tubes isn?t it? Which of these are problematic?

That is your view - but let?s remember you very confidently said there was no monitoring on under hill - whereas in effect there was. We would all like more granularity eg directional and timed, but overall my sentence is factually correct

This is your regular reminder that the council monitoring data showed that traffic was down overall and down on the majority of boundary roads. There is also a pretty significant case that the section of Ed grove where the most people live and the schools are also decreased as per the tweets shared above.

I anticipated that One Dulwich would inflate the estimated numbers, but was anticipating something along the lines of 500 given that the reality was more around 250 even when you include those from Hackney and other boroughs who are protesting in general rather than specifically re Dulwich. But 1000??? This really is just One Dulwich showing that what they say can?t be trusted really. Delusional! Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Latest OneDuwlich update....we made the BBC > News.....! ;&) > > Our protest against the Dulwich road measures > > An estimated 1,000 people living in and around > Dulwich ? young families, cyclists, older people > and those with disabilities ? took part in our > peaceful protest on Saturday 16 October. Thank you > to everyone who came. You can see coverage on this > BBC local news item here, and we will be putting > up clips on social media and on our website > shortly. Speakers included clean air campaigner > David Smith (also known as @LittleNinjaUK on > Twitter) and representatives from One Dulwich and > the Dulwich Alliance. > > Cllr Rose?s decision > > Just before our protest, we discovered that the > call-in by Lib Dem councillors on Southwark?s > Overview and Scrutiny Committee ? that is, their > request for Cllr Rose?s decision to be reviewed ? > had been turned down (see this report in the South > London Press). We have asked the Council to > explain why, and are waiting for their response. > As far as we know, this means that there will now > be a 21-day statutory consultation period before > the traffic orders can be made permanent. We have > written to Southwark asking them for information > about this ? so far, we can find nothing on their > website. > > What next? > > 1. We will be holding further protests in other > parts of Dulwich over the next few weeks, which we > hope will be good news for those of you who > weren?t able to come on Saturday because of half > term. Details to follow. Let?s double the size of > Saturday?s protest and get even more media > coverage. > > 2. We will also be asking you to respond to > Southwark?s 21-day statutory consultation with > very specific objections to all the measures over > the whole Dulwich area. Again, more to follow once > Southwark have provided details of the timeline. > > 3. Please keep emailing your local councillors, > decision-maker [email protected] and > your local MP, reminding them (i) that two-thirds > of those living and working in all three Dulwich > LTNs who responded to Southwark?s consultation > opted for all the measures to be removed, and (ii) > that the council?s current refusal to listen may > be reflected in the results of the local elections > in May 2022. > > 4. If, at the end of the 21-day consultation > period, Southwark continues to ignore local > demands for a fair scheme that fulfils all its > obligations as a local authority, we will ask our > legal team to advise on the best course of action. > Thanks to your generous donations to our fighting > fund, our legal team is reviewing all the > paperwork and stands ready to move quickly. > > Best wishes, > > The One Dulwich

Most displays in London don?t have bonfires, just fireworks. I too would like to see permit only displays. So large scale organised ones. If private individuals wanted them they?d need a permit with approval from the fire brigade re set up and safety (and would want a charge to be made for this) so the overall effect was private displays become the exception

The bonfire is fenced off- no one can get close anyway

I don?t think it should be either or. In answer to whether there are many wood burners in London- the answer is sadly, yes lots and ever growing in https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/16/home-wood-burning-biggest-cause-particle-pollution-fires tomskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If bonfires are going to be banned why not ban the > ubiquitous wood burning stove too? I'm sure they > spew out far more particulates into the atmosphere > all winter long than bonfires on one night.

I think it was one of very few remaining bonfires and it?s good it?s not happening any more. The amount of pollution bonfires cause is horrendous and they?re unnecessary. Fireworks not really green either so the green idea is overplaying the hand but less pollution is positive. Bring on the LED drones!

No data for Underhill Road - apart from on page 34 of the main report where there is monitoring data for Underhill Road? Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DC - two things: > > Firstly, the council stated in their interim > monitoring report that traffic was down 12% across > Southwark. So are we actually running at a 2% > increase compared to the borough average? > > Secondly, and perhaps more damning, is that the > council's monitoring data is incomplete - no > monitoring data has been shared or included for > Underhill Road, which, I am sure you realise, is > one of the key displacement routes for traffic > trying to cut the corner from Lordship Lane to > avoid the Grove Tavern/A205 daily traffic jam. > Anyone can see that Underhill's traffic has > increased hugely since the LTNs went in and it was > vital that monitoring should have been included in > the "area-wide" monitoring numbers the council > produced. > > The council didn't add them - I wonder why not? > The council was forced to add monitoring to > Underhill by irate residents who had seen they > were planning not to count there during the review > and promised to include the data in the review. I > wholly suspect that once Underhill is included in > the council's data that the 10% reduction quickly > evaporates and turns the area-wide decrease into > an increase.

How does your group differ from any of the other anti LTN groups out there? You seem to be trying to claim you're a new group but then calling yourself 'clean air for Dulwich' looks incredibly like you're trying to misappropriate the name of an established campaigning group so its difficult to see this as action taken in good faith. I suspect that the venn diagram of your new group and 'One Dulwich' is a wholly encompassed circle! P3girl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Maybe we should apply for funds for a Death of > > Democracy party, with some loud, dark band made > up > > with frightening make up to scare the bejesus > out > > of everyone. > > > We have formed a group call "Clean air for > Dulwich" which is applying for funding to > Southwark to promote various means of lowering > pollution in the following roads:- > Lordship Lane > East Dulwich Grove > Dulwich Village > Grove Vale > > We will run an awareness campaign about the > detrimental effects of concentrated pollution. > This will focus on electric and hybrid vehicle > awareness and promote their use. It will also > highlight the inequitable distribution of > pollution on young and vulnerable residents as a > result of LTN's. Plus the effects on local > businesses and protected minorities. > > This will involve educational presentations and > materials plus lots of other complimentary > activities. > > You might say "they won't fund that" BUT if > Southwark is sincere about democracy and fairness > they cannot refuse - given that they funded the > "performance$" in the $quare! > > If you would like to get involved with us please > send a PM. > > NB Southwark will dish out funds for:- > Hire costs ? Venue / Van / Play > equipment / Generator / > animals > Sports equipment > Radio / walkie-talkie > Music equipment, PA equipment and > sound equipment > Portaloo / Bunting/Marquee/barriers > Other > Sessions/ workshops > Volunteer expenses > Stationery > Food and Refreshments > Publicity > Events ? promotion / > Tents / Stalls / Gazebos etc > Removable goal posts and small training > equipment > Small hand held gardening tools > Consultants/professional fees > Tutors /trainers/consultancy > fees / sports coaches ; > Artists / performers

Dulwich estate own the freehold lane and make decisions as to which businesses to let to. I also wonder how many coffee shops Dulwich can support but for now it seems the answer is ?lots?. It will depend on how many people continue to work from home full or part time too I think.

Or grove reopen who block anyone disagreeing with them or clean air for all dulwich who cry ?misogyny ? if anyone dares suggest they say anything untrue you mean. Suspect this is more of the same, but if not brilliant. We need more people campaigning for clean air and genuine change!

Not sure what your neighbours have Nigello, but our bike shelter is only a little higher than the bikes. Unless they're being stored upright (and those hangers really aren't suitable for front gardens) then they're usually pretty low down. I think that the 'something horrible' is somewhat self policing as neighbours can complain to the council that planning wasn't sort if you build something super ugly at the front of the house. Though given the super ugly houses that southwark sometimes allows, maybe this is less of a deterrent than you'd think!

There isn't really a D lock that will withstand an angle grinder for more than a few seconds. I did see one being launched which claimed to be angle grinder proof - but will wait to see what the real world tests are.

Last mile logistics are a really interesting area and super critical for cities. Its not just the fuel burnt but the maximum capacity of our roads that means getting this right is key. Sadly for Southwark the last thing I saw from Cllr Burgess who had responsibility for this was a year into role her suggesting that she do some 'blue sky thinking' which was a disappointingly pitiful response given her responsibility. Legal you are right to differentiate between the amazon next day deliveries which clearly are increasing overall miles driven vs weekly shops in delivery vans, which depending on routes may actually result in an overall fall in miles driven.

Think this is true - technically Rockets position is correct - you need planning permission. But if you're not building anything horrible, not in a conservation area and your neighbours are supportive then the chance of any complaint is minimal and then in the event that retrospective planning was applied for it should be given in any event.

Not sure there is a way to stop this happening - other than a better registration system and policing that takes it seriously. Its great that there is CCTV - but how did no one hear an angle grinder in the leisure centre car park? Sorry to hear about your bike - if it was logged on bike register mark it as stolen, check out marketplace, gumtree etc. Stolen Ride group on FB is worth posting on too.

Not sure if you?ve been in an underground bunker, but there is mass panic buying of fuel with shortages and 2 mile queues reported. It?s nothing to do with LTNs and everything to do with Brexit and government incompetence! Lynne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone seen the jams all round the roundabout this > morning. Very healthy

Also worth remembering that Kingsdale isn't distance based - though it has a banding test and operates a lottery system to allocate places within each band. So you've no less chance of getting in there than someone who lives next door, although the statistical chance is quite low.

Thanks - will have a look at that too.

I think its the last sentence that's concerning me - I often have kids with me so anything that relies on 'setting off smartly' isn't dependable enough. The end of Lyndhurst Ave isn't great too - whereas the contraflow past the school and then the road past Lidl were a more reasonable route to the canal path. I'll give it a go when i'm on my own though - thank you!

I think that this is probably right - its not the weekly shop via ocado or equivalent thats necessarily a huge change in congestion - there have been things i've read in the past suggesting that the ability to plan routes etc cuts down on congestion and mileage vs each individual driving to and from the supermarket and also the deliveries from warehouse to supermarket from those online suppliers who deliver straight from delivery hubs. The amazon issue is however huge. The ease of next day delivery, scrapping of minimum orders etc means that the number of vans delivering single items is an increasing problem even before the impact on the high street is considered. Shopping local where possible is usually a better option.

Seems unlikely that the downfall of Aqua which by all accounts seemed to be a vanity project rather than a commercial enterprise would have any bearing whatsoever as to the success of the new cheese shop. The evolving nature of local retail really means that its increasingly difficult for those that can be undercut by online options, so that leaves specialist food retailers and coffee shops really. Heritage looks really interesting and different - they look to do tasting events and wine too so it will be somewhere you would want to go in person. Artemis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would be interesting to know on what data the > new businesses have based their forecasts, and who > provided that data. The fact that the opening of > the new businesses is as a result of other > businesses either failing or choosing to relocate > could speak more than forecasts of businesses who > have not yet experienced current conditions. Time > will no doubt tell. > > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Its true that if the LTNs threatened businesses > > then consideration should be given to what > could > > be done. Its not clear though that the effects > > quoted are actually as a result of the LTN (a > > bunch of people against LTNs saying' its > affected > > my business, definitely not the pandemic isn't > the > > same thing as showing demonstrable reduction in > > trade). Also suspect that the wording has been > > carefully crafted to date - where some > businesses > > like dry cleaners will be down lots, others > less > > so. > > > > Final point is that despite it being so > apparently > > dreadful for businesses we are in a position > were > > 3 businesses are opening up - one of them > directly > > onto Dulwich Square. I'm going to assume that > > they did their due diligence before opening and > > considered that the location would be good - > which > > does make the claims that LTNs are death to the > > high street difficult to reconcile. Whilst its > > clear that new businesses often get rent > > reductions / rent free periods, I'm also > assuming > > that they've forcasted on a future rent paying > > basis. > > > > > > > > Bicknell Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > but councilors should care if local shops say > > > duwlich ltns are threatening thier business? > > > shouldnt they? > > > if not why not?

Its true that if the LTNs threatened businesses then consideration should be given to what could be done. Its not clear though that the effects quoted are actually as a result of the LTN (a bunch of people against LTNs saying' its affected my business, definitely not the pandemic isn't the same thing as showing demonstrable reduction in trade). Also suspect that the wording has been carefully crafted to date - where some businesses like dry cleaners will be down lots, others less so. Final point is that despite it being so apparently dreadful for businesses we are in a position were 3 businesses are opening up - one of them directly onto Dulwich Square. I'm going to assume that they did their due diligence before opening and considered that the location would be good - which does make the claims that LTNs are death to the high street difficult to reconcile. Whilst its clear that new businesses often get rent reductions / rent free periods, I'm also assuming that they've forcasted on a future rent paying basis. Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but councilors should care if local shops say > duwlich ltns are threatening thier business? > shouldnt they? > if not why not?