DulvilleRes

Here we go again with the bogus class war narrative from the anti LTN lobby on the LTNs issue.

The average house price last time I looked for all properties sold on East Dulwich Grove - one of the supposedly blighted boundary roads - is ?808,950. That is up from ?717,000 last June. A good swathe of the houses on East Dulwich Grove sporting anti LTN posters are in the ?2m + price category. This suggests to me that a good part of the social inequality argument that so much of the anti-LTN lobby arguments play on isn't moored in reality.

The characterization of people who support LTN's, who according to Rockets apparently want high house prices and to live in some kind of bubble, feels equally untethered to actual people, motives and facts. I certainly don't recognize any of it from anyone I know. I do know a lot of people, however, who are looking to do something about the kind of world they will leave their kids.

I recognise that any local issue will have a range of views, and I've respected the views of many of the people who have posted here, who ultimately I wouldn't agree with. But what is the purpose in generating such divisive and frankly in my view unpleasant content, especially when it doesn't stack up? Why not stick to the real issues of the best ways to reduce traffic and car use?

Given that much of the anti LTN campaigning has focused on the perceived lack of transparency and accountability on the part of Southwark Council, this website strikes me as somewhat lacking in that regard. This is important because the website/ campaign is a direct collective intervention into the electoral arena.

In the spirit of transparency, the people behind this campaign/ site should name who they are and where the cash for the campaign comes from. The blanket statement of their funding being 'A whip round' doesn't cut it for me in terms of the detail needed.

It could be entirely coincidental, but there is a strong correlation between much of the focus on the LTN issue I've seen from the Conservative party local campaigning to date, and the stated singular focus on LTN's of this 'vote them out' campaign. I think Dulwich voters like myself need more information on this campaign than is currently being provided to form their own view on this. Maybe the local Conservative Party, or indeed anyone else standing, could help by providing an assurance that there is no link, formal or informal, whatsoever to this campaign.

Interesting chat on here with some suggesting road charging as a potential alternative to LTN's - drivers should be means-tested charged for driving their cars as a way of reducing traffic as an alternative to LTN's.

The issue here I think is that over half the people in the Borough don't actually own a car, so if everything 'goes back to how it was' which seems to be the endpoint of the anti-LTN lobby, that is over half the people in the Borough unable to enjoy a coffee outside the fronts of the cafes, or teach their kids to ride a bike on a quiet road. It doesn't feel very 'clean air for all' to me.

Legalalien - I should have been clearer. One Dulwich have released a statement saying they are apolitical, and are going to ask all the prospective councillors for their views on LTN's, and then report back to their supporters/ the community. My questions are ones I would hope they ask all councillors. The final question would be most relevant to the Conservatives.

Whilst I don't know enough about, and can't speak for the respective parties, I would imagine Labour would have clear views on reducing traffic/ promoting active travel, and it would be interesting to hear the Lib Dems on this. I think both parties would have a clear and transparent view on accountability. This I think is important, as fundamentally I think politicians as an entity should, as far as possible, be demonstrably trustworthy, and accountability has formed a part of the campaigning so far of at least one of the prospective parties.

What the Conservatives, given their current track record at a national level, would say is less clear to me on any of the questions. If One Dulwich is apolitical, as they say they are, I would hope they ask searching questions of all of the candidates without fear or favour.

Rockets wrote: 'But it is clear there are people who come on here to laud the benefits of the LTNs who live on the roads benefitting most from the closures. And that's before we even address the long-banned souls like LTNBooHoo and Manatee who came on here to troll anyone with a view that opposed theirs - and many suspected such posters were existing members setting up new accounts'

You seem to have overlooked the poster from the anti LTN lobby, who the administrator in banning them hilariously told him/ her to stop having weird multiple conversations with themselves in different identities! But don't let the full facts get in the way of a good story.

I await with interest One Dulwich's interrogation of the prospective local council elections candidates as to their stance on the LTNs. I do hope it is rigorous enough to include

- Given that One Dulwich shares Southwark Council's objectives to reduce traffic, improve air quality and enable safe cycling and walking, how do you think you are realistically going to achieve this across the entire area? Can you set out some detailed and feasible plans?

if you are campaigning on a platform of accountability, do those principles of accountability extend across the actions of your entire political party?

- is your focus on the LTN's as a campaigning issue - if it is at the expense of other issues such as the profound impact rule breaking at the highest levels of government had at a local level - opportunistic?

'DulvilleRes - it doesn't take a genius to work out why some people take the stance they do on the LTNs. Maybe we should have a truth and reconciliation session where we all declare our hands.....let me go first...I used to live on a road that was experiencing the negative fallout from the LTNs and I was against them. I now live on a road that is experiencing the positive fallout from the LTNs and I am still against them.

Your turn?'

You don't have the evidence to back up your claim 'Let's be honest many of those most vocal on here in their unwavering support of the closures live on the closed roads and have benefitted the most'. Your view is just supposition. My experience is the truth of support or otherwise of the traffic reduction measures is much more complex - for instance, I've spoken to a young family on East Dulwich Grove boundary road who are genuinely concerned that the LTN's might be scrapped, and to people within the LTN's that don't support them.

Why I think it is important is so much of this debate has been needlessly heated and divisive in tone, and to counter that, i think it is important to deal in facts. Again the question can be asked - does it suit some agendas that the issues seem to be permanently cranked up?

Given the ugliness last summer of people getting personally targeted in the streets, and even in one instance I know of the actual home they live in by a person or persons from the anti LTN lobby, I'm in no hurry to discuss with you where I live, and I've seen that view expressed elsewhere in this thread.

'Let's be honest many of those most vocal on here in their unwavering support of the closures live on the closed roads and have benefitted the most.'

Where is the evidence for this assertion? How do you know where people live? The difficulty with blanket and slightly pointed statements like this is whatever the merits of any argument you are putting forward in this debate, it does throw a question over them. I would agree with Dogkennelhillbilly, there seems to be very little that the hardcore is prepared to countenance apart from just opening the roads again, with no realistic other plan I've seen to try and reduce traffic.

And now out of the ranks of the anti-LTN lobby materializes a Conservative candidate for the local elections, campaigning heavily on LTN issues. The question can be asked - who does it suit to keep the temperature of this local issue permanently cranked up?

'The reduction in the timed access is a clear demonstration that the measures have not worked as originally hyped'

Isn't it more like a clear demonstration that the Council has listened to concerns from residents voiced during the consultation, and made some sensible adjustments?

I'm glad we agree that harassment/ targeting is abhorrent. it has been an extraordinarily unpleasant facet of this local issue.

On the facts, I have a reasonable working knowledge of Gilkes Crescent - the bulk of the houses have small short driveways, generally with room for a single vehicle, and some have no driveways at all. There is generally a reasonable amount of space in the street to park, and that includes people who don't live on the street parking to use the shops/ bars/ dropping off at JAGs, and also ad hoc businesses who long-term store csrs/ vans in the street they buy and sell.

There isn't a single household I have heard of who has 3 cars, let alone 4. It could be possible, but all the evidence I've seen is against it. So part of keeping the temperature down in this debate is to carefully consider whether what you hear might be true of not before repeating it.

"Not sure why it's ok for someone on Gilkes to have 3 cars, no street parking restrictions and has been a lead vocal campaigner on LTNs and active travel, with the presumption to tell us that we need to give up cars, yet someone in ED Grove who happens to have a nice house and one car on the drive cannot comment on LTNs or be upset their road is now dirtier, noisier and more polluted?"

Where is the evidence that anyone on Gilkes Crescent has 3 cars, least of all anyone campaigning for some kind of measures to reduce traffic overall in London? I'm not seeing any. Even if there was, how could you possibly know for sure who owns what? Hearsay? Access to DVLA records?

This post appears to call out an individual and a street they live in. A reminder that pro-LTN advocates have been singled out and individually targetted both online and physically near their homes by a person or persons of an anti LTN viewpoint, to the extent that the Police have had to be involved. Whatever the strength of feeling, there seems in general terms to be a catastrophic loss of perspective around this issue. Why not try and keep it to the issues and not the individuals, and keep it civil?

For those of you thinking that a Conservative vote at the local election somehow doesn't count as a Conservative vote at a national level, you are most likely wrong.

Conservative MP and Johnson supporter Andrew Murrison in today's Guardian

'Law makers simply can?t be law breakers. The parliamentary Conservative party may hand Boris his P45 if the Met or Gray?s definitive report collar the PM. But I?m guessing the point of danger for Boris will be in May. Then we will probably have a perfect storm ? the widely predicted midterm council election hit'.

How the Conservatives perform in May could directly impact in the minds of many Conservative backbenchers the national agenda. I would argue a vote for the Conservatives is actually a vote against accountability. As a local person I am directly impacted and outraged by the rule breaking, and voting Tory locally could well be seen to condone it.

The Conservatives are campaigning in the May local elections heavily around issues of accountability from Southwark in relation to the LTN's. I'm finding this a bit of a stretch, given the track record of their party at a national level.

Given that some local people have been profoundly affected by the rule-breaking in Downing Street, and some have gone on a very public record to record their disgust and distress both in Parliament and in the media, I would have thought the most accountable thing the prospective Conservative councilors could do for their community would be to resign membership of their party.

The LTN's don't seem to be having any negative impact on house prices on East Dulwich Grove. Average price of a property sold in June last year was ?717,000. The average price is now ?808,950.( Source: Zoopla) Whatever the rights and wrongs of official Southwark data on traffic levels post LTN v those who dispute it in the anti LTN lobby, some people are betting heavy on it not being an overwhelming problem.

I'm pretty sure that wooden horse will have a V8 motor purring away hidden behind the casing.

Is there any evidence, as some posters have claimed, that LTN's are having a beneficial effect on house prices within LTN's? I've seen nothing. If there is no evidence, it does feel a saddeningly divisive claim to make.

When a Conservative minister is saying owning a car is outdated 20th-century thinking, you know the writing is ultimately on the wall for the mindset of being able to drive anywhere in our own vehicle that many of us grew up with.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10298487/Owning-car-outdated-20th-century-thinking-transport-minister-Trudy-Harrison-says.html

Fewer private car journeys is the way to reduce traffic on all streets, coupled with options such as car pools, public transport and walking/cycling, and I would have thought this is what the anti-LTN lobby should be campaigning for.

In the absence of a huge amount of data - it would be good to find it - my view is that cycling is exponentially up across the Borough, especially since lockdown. This is based on having cycled the route into Central London ( either via Walworth Road, or up the back via Brixton Road/ Kennington) most days. I've done this route in various iterations most of my life, and the sea change in the numbers cycling is extraordinary, as well as the range of people doing it.

What is striking is the explosion in the types of bike people use - a lot of families using electric assisted bikes to get their kids to school, and also older people who for whatever reason could do with a bit of assistance. It is true to say there is a mini mountain range between Dulwich and routes to the West End/ City, but it can be avoided entirely by going via Herne Hill/ Brixton Road.

For me a vision of the future is a reduction of traffic on all streets, which then becomes a self fulfilling prophesy - the more car free they become, the more appealing it is to cycle, and the faster the buses and essential traffic will go. For that to happen, people have to get out of their cars for private journeys.

It feels to me that the only thing that is going to reduce traffic on everyone's road is when there is a powerful disincentive to drive for private journeys that could be completed by active travel or public transport, and that seems to be happening. The LTN's are part of a package of other measures, such as ULEZ charges and reduced road space because of cycle lanes that might make people think twice about jumping into the most convenient form of transport ever devised.

In the north of the borough I've noticed a complete sea change in the last 2/3 years of people's transport choices - there are huge numbers of cyclists on the road, and I've actually been caught up in a traffic jam of parents taking their kids to nursery/ school by push bike. That never happened before.

Dulwich seems slower to catch on, but I don't see how the One Dulwich recommendation for things to 'return as they were' is really going to change anything. I completely get that people are opposed to the LTN's for a wide variety of motives, and some posters here don't own a car. However I would have thought that that oppositional energy would be better directed at finding ways of reducing private car journeys rather than getting on the Council's back, who are at least trying to so something.

'Live Kindly, Live Loudly' Christmas Sale on Saturday 20th November in front of St Barnabas Church Hall, 23 Dulwich Way, SE21 7BT, from 11 am - 1 pm.

To raise funds in Ruby Fuller's memory with all proceeds going to Ruby's fund with Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group.

We'll be selling Christmas cards, playing cards, stocking fillers, badges, plus cakes, teas and coffees and many preloved clothes (teens, children & adult), books, DVDs, toys (lots of lego) and much more. 100% of proceeds go to the charity. Thanks to the generous people and businesses of Dulwich, there is lots of fabulous stuff!

Ruby's Story

To Ruby, being kind was more important than anything else. Before she died, she asked to be remembered by the motto 'Live Kindly, Live Loudly', encouraging kindness and calling out injustice. Ruby's mum Emma shares her story ...

In June 2019, Ruby's face started to swell and she felt tired and achy. The GP thought it was allergies, but after six more visits and symptoms worsening, she was referred to hospital for an x-ray. We then got the devastating news she had lymphoma, with a large tumour in her chest.

We had a long stay at the Royal Marsden during her intensive chemotherapy while they monitored her for infections. Ruby turned 18 in there, so we threw a party. With the help of friends and the fabulous staff, she had a pretty good day. She came home after seven weeks, before they started the next round of chemo - with a view to then having a donor stem cell transplant. After this round she was allowed home again but infection soon hit. She was back in hospital, this time over Christmas.

We had Ruby home for 10 days before the stem cell transplant conditioning process began. The process involved more intensive chemo, plus radiotherapy before the stem cells were transferred. The conditioning was brutal, but she soon improved and made an amazing recovery.

She came home in February and we spent a few lovely weeks together. But on a weekly check-up, we were told her cancer was back, having morphed into leukaemia. It was incredibly aggressive and she died peacefully at home in May 2020. Her Dad and I were beside her, with one of her beloved cats on her bed. Ruby was smart, funny, and really found her voice as a teenager. She was so kind and brave - she wasn't scared of dying, just of how it would affect others. Ruby's consultant told us that they just haven't yet figured out how to successfully treat this kind of cancer, but she hoped they would very soon. The only way they will do that is with funding. We want to improve the chances of others diagnosed with this in future.

The class war aspect of this debate is particularly puzzling and unpleasant, as clearly it has no factual basis. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that people living within LTN's support them because it makes their lifestyle nicer or increases their house prices. The class war assertions also start to look distinctly wobbly when viewed through the lens of anti LTN placards in the gardens of ?2m plus houses on East Dulwich Grove, and ?1m plus houses on the South Circular. Endlessly repeating a false assertion doesn't magically make it true.

The LTN's are for everyone in the Borough to use and even enjoy, the vast bulk of which has lower income households than those around Dulwich, in or out of the LTNs. It has been very heartening to see people who have clearly travelled into Dulwich having a coffee outside one of the cafes or enjoying walking and cycling.

The council has responded to the consultation - they have proposed to make sensible adjustments, such as concessions for Blue Badge holders and an ambulance gate in Dulwich Square. In the light of this, and the fact that tactically the anti-LTN lobby was recommending the 'return things to how they were' for any objection to the LTN's, the current level of opposition to the LTN's from those who responded to the survey has not been tested.

My understanding is that the central government stipulation is that the LTN's remain in place for a year to see how they work. So rather than blaming the Council for everything, I think a more nuanced approach would be to see how well they work. I think currently, as we emerge post covid, there are so many variables on traffic flow. A lot of people still balk at public transport on grounds of personal safety, and certainly many workplaces, mine included, risk assess that the preferred means of covid safe transport is driving solo in a car. So a year gives it all a chance to settle down to something more approaching 'normal'.

Ultimately I see the LTN's as part of a raft of measures that, if as a community we are serious about climate change, are coming down the track to change our relationship with the motorcar. When people drive less, it will follow there will be less traffic on any road. I can imagine for many people growing up in a generation where the private car was a powerful means of freedom and independence, and indeed a symbol of success, learning to adapt to measures that prevent them driving at will is going to be hard. But the world is changing fast.

I thought 250 - 300. I did a partial headcount, as I was genuinely interested, and then 'zoned' it up when I got to 100 according to space occupied. Anyone who was there will know that that was the accurate figure range. Trying to suggest it was 1000 is just a bit silly.

Artemis - the council, as a result of listening to the consultation, is going to allow emergency vehicles through Dulwich Square.

I thought it was great that people were out protesting, as other posters have pointed out, that right is currently under threat. The time I was there, it felt pretty well run, though I do find the incessant graffiti on signs a bit depressing.

A few people have mentioned why weren't the councilors not there, and whilst I can't speak for them, I wouldn't blame them for not coming. Even in the last couple of days I heard of one of them being targeted at their home address by person/ persons of anti LTN sentiment. Over the summer, the Police have had to be involved with anti LTN people getting targeted. Clearly, this might be down to as little as one individual who has no formal affiliation with the anti LTN groups, but it is fair to say aspects of this local issue have been surprisingly nasty.

Listening to what I did of the speakers and looking around the attendees, I was surprised how relatively upmarket it all felt, and how the demographic skewed over 50 - very few young people there, and very few people from a BAME background. It didn't really reflect the make up of the borough as a whole. Given the demographic of Dulwich, this is probably to be expected, but it didn't feel like some kind of broad-based egalitarian inspired uprising to me, as some of the anti-LTN rhetoric suggests. A cynic driving by who didn't know some of the complexities of the issues might be forgiven for thinking 'The rich folk of Dulwich want to keep driving their cars'.

I'm hoping that the sensible adjustments the council has proposed are implemented - emergency vehicle access, Blue Badge holder access - and have had time to bed in, the LTN's might be seen as part of the radical shift we're all going to have to make to address the climate crisis. Given that the UK contributes only 1% of the global carbon emissions, it does feel like a long hard road ahead, but fair play to the Council for trying to do something. It would be great if they were given a chance.

What is consistently ignored in quoting the statistics for local people opposing LTN's is that One Dulwich was recommending at the time of the consultation that if respondents had some objection to some aspect of the LTN's, such as ambulance response time, or Blue Badge Holder concerns, they should tick the box for 'return to original state'. That does not necessarily translate to a blanket rejection of the LTN's. To completely ignore this feels a tad disingenuous to me.

Now the council has made some sensible adjustments, such as making accommodations for both ambulances and Blue Badge Holders, how many of those people who ticked the 'return to original state' box would be happy with the LTNs? Only time will tell after the new measures have had a chance to bed in, and conditions have returned to something near normal after the pandemic.

Something that the road protests have thrown up as a by product is the revelation that there is appears to be a comparative surge in traffic because of covid.

Some commentators have noted that there are more people in their cars than usual because of the reluctance with many to use buses or trains to avoid exposure to the virus. I certainly know from my work the official Health and Safety advice we get in some specific instances is to avoid public transport where possible, and to ideally drive alone in cars, and I know that this kind of risk assessment is commonplace elsewhere.

The question is what bearing does this have on the volume of traffic on the roads around the LTN's? It feels to me that in order to get an accurate picture on traffic increases/ reduction, the Council are going to have to wait until the pandemic has abated somewhat.