DulvilleRes

I seem to recall that the One Dulwich advice/ recommendation at the time of the consultation to people with any kind of objection to the LTN's was to tick the box on the consultation 'return to original state'. This being the case, the question remains - how many of the people who ticked that box - 65% - would now consider themselves satisfied by the council's proposed sensible adjustments? A lot of the anti-LTN lobbying focused on emergency service response times, and the position of Blue Badge Holders, and these issues have been addressed. It would be misleading, in the light of this, to say that 65% of people have rejected the LTN's in their entirety. In my view that 65% would by definition have a spectrum of views on what they want changing. I also don't think a pile on the current councillors, as some are suggesting, is going to change much. I can't see any of the major parties embracing a state where little is done about reducing car use and encouraging active travel. Returning things to fully as they were is not a great look when so many people are concerned about climate change.

The test for a Council to remove the schemes looks tough to me. The Secretary of State for Transport says in an open letter to local authorities: "Over the last year, cycling has risen by 46%. In 2020, we saw the highest level of cycling on the public highway since the 1960s, and the greatest year- on-year increase in post-war history. Many people have started cycling for shorter journeys, saving appreciable amounts of pollution, noise, CO2 and traffic danger. In some cities the delivery bike has become as normal a sight as the delivery van. Even after these remarkable rises, according to one leading retailer, a further 37 per cent of the population now wants to buy a bike. These things have been made possible, in part, by hundreds of school streets, pop-up cycle lanes, and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods implemented under the Government's Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF) and under statutory Network Management Duty guidance. For all the controversy these schemes can sometimes cause, there is strong and growing evidence that they command public support I do know that a few councils have removed, or are proposing to remove, cycle schemes installed under the fund, or to water them down. Of course I understand not every scheme is perfect and a minority will not stand the test of time, but if these schemes are not given that time to make a difference, then taxpayers? monies have been wasted. Schemes need time to be allowed to bed in; must be tested against more normal traffic conditions; and must be in place long enough for their benefits and disbenefits to be properly evaluated and understood. We have no interest in requiring councils to keep schemes which are proven not to work, but that proof must be presented. Schemes must not be removed prematurely, or without proper evidence and too soon to collect proper evidence about their effects" I take a couple of things out of this 1. Southwark couldn't do anything now to remove the LTN's - simply not enough time has elapsed to assess them 2. If the evidence shows that cycling is up, and car use is down in the long term, I can't see how Southwark could challenge the LTN's. In its latest set of proposals it looks to me like Southwark has listened to local feedback, and wants to make some sensible adjustments. The level of anger directed at them and the councillors seems misplaced.

I think you may be misreading my post. The Council can't get rid of LTN's, even if they wanted to, so a lot of the anti LTN anger is misdirected at them. The point I was making is within this overarching framework that lies outside their control, the Council have made a number of changes that directly reflect the feedback they have been getting, presumably via the consultation and wider anti LTN campaigning. That feels like democracy in action to me. Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting dulvilleres > On June the 7th (your last post) said > "As to where anti LTN support comes from, and how > deep it is, I hope the consultation will shed some > further light. What has dogged constructive debate > around this divisive issue has been hard data. > Even allowing for the fact that some people feel > the consultation has limitations in it's terms of > reference, it will still probably offer up some > comprehensive insights for everyone." > > Now the hard data about where the anti LTN support > and how deep it is (basically the whole area) you > now try and say that the consultation is in fact a > fair representative of the views of local > residents. > > It's not.

I've just read the Council's review, and it feels pretty fair-minded and responsive to me. A lot of the anti LTN campaigning was at one point was focused around emergency vehicle response times, and that has been addressed, as has Blue Badge holders/ disabled access. There seem to be measures in play to try and reduce congestion on Croxsted and East Dulwich Grove. I also read the government guidance referred to in the review - the council, even if they wanted to, couldn't get rid of the LTN's at this point. Despite all the 'vote them out' sentiment, I can't see any major existing party at either a national or local level who would want to roll back on increases in active travel/ reduction in car useage. In terms of the Climate Crisis, it isn't a great look, and ultimately the move to a carbon-neutral country I think will be supported by a national majority, especially with younger people. I've found the tone of this debate around the LTN's dispiriting - unnecessary personalization of the issues, even Police involvement for some of its excesses. Given the overarching context that the LTN's or some form of alternative serious traffic reduction isn't going to go away, I would have thought the best way forward is to accept the new reality, and try and collectively make it work as best as possible.

As to where anti LTN support comes from, and how deep it is, I hope the consultation will shed some further light. What has dogged constructive debate around this divisive issue has been hard data. Even allowing for the fact that some people feel the consultation has limitations in it's terms of reference, it will still probably offer up some comprehensive insights for everyone. Without disrespecting the views and experience of those living on the roads affected by displaced traffic, there is another way of looking at the LTNs. Currently, they appear to be characterized by some in the anti LTN lobby as 'gated communities'. This isn't true - they are simply shut to cut through motorized traffic. They are open to anyone for any other kind of purpose. I was really struck yesterday by the large numbers of people who were out yesterday, enjoying the park and the shops. The benches in the plaza were full pretty well all day with people having a picnic/ coffee, I saw a family teaching a kid to ride a bike on a quiet neighbouring road. Many of those people most likely come from outside the area. This last few months of lockdown has made me realise just how little open public space there is - Dulwich Park was so crowded at times it resembled a prison exercise yard. A LTN is a traffic-free oasis for all to enjoy, not just 'the few' as they have been charactersied in the some of the anti LTN descriptions. My feeling is over the coming years there will be a real shift in how urban space in relation to the private motor vehicle is viewed. Last week I also worked in Manchester, where large parts of the centre where I was were pedestrianised, and it was great. The LTNs as a common amenity for everyone I think is a contributory factor in the debate.

@legalalien - the anti-LTN lobby seems to me to have shifted into trying to present the LTN issue as some kind of class war - the rich people in their enclaves shifting traffic and pollution onto their lower-income neighbours. Short of having access to who actually supports Dulwich Alliance or access to councilor's correspondence, it is hard to get a measure of the depth and range of support for the anti-LTN stance in the streets I mentioned affected by displaced traffic. Can Dulwich Alliance demonstrate a wide level of support, especially amongst those who 'have the least', as their rhetoric goes? I think the Council's consultation could be particularly valuable in this regard and should be supported by anyone serious about getting the fullest possible picture. In the absence of any other kind of metric, I think poster displays are a starting point, and on Lordship Lane, and in the rented and owned property of the Lordship lane estate, it is virtually non-existent. What can be demonstrated is that support is strong for the anti-LTN stance with people who live in high-value property on the streets affected by displaced traffic.

I took a brief and informal snapshot to see where anti-LTN support was coming from and how deep it was on some of the roads affected by displaced traffic, as expressed by people putting up posters and placards opposing the LTNs. I walked East Dulwich Grove in its entirety, Lordship Lane from the East Dulwich Tavern to the junction of the South Circular/ Dulwich Common, and Dulwich Village down to the junction with East Dulwich Grove. Where I could find the information, I also checked out house values on Zoopla ( some have no values entered) and took the midpoint of those Zoopla estimates. All in all, it was pretty interesting. Clearly, many caveats. A poster or placard is only one indication of support or otherwise, posters and placards could be put up for a variety of motives and reflect a range of views, Zoopla is very broad and often inaccurate, some people might not be allowed to put up posters in terms of their leases/ tenancy agreements etc, some people might not own the property they are in, my maths at times can be crap, I might have missed some. So this exercise is intended to be informal, broad and indicative, a personal view and nothing more. East Dulwich Grove between the junction with Dulwich Village and Townley Road (Alleyns) had relatively strong anti LTN support, and the average house price, where an estimated range was given, of those displaying a poster or placard was over ?2 million. East Dulwich Grove to Lordship Lane, support was weaker, average house/ property price was of those displaying a poster, where an estimated range was given, was ?1.1 million. The average property price given on Zoopla for East Dulwich Grove as a whole is ?717k. Lordship Lane from the East Dulwich Tavern to Dulwich Library is 0.8 miles, and I found the lack of support for the anti-LTN lobby as expressed by posters and placards, particularly striking. When I counted, only 8 businesses on the entire stretch were displaying a poster or placard, and only 5 residential properties. Clearly, all the caveats mentioned above and probably some others apply, but what I also found striking was other kinds of posters such as Black Lives Matter and in support of the NHS were on display. On the Lordship Lane Estate, facing Lordship Lane, there wasn't a single anti-LTN poster to be seen in the flats. Dulwich Common/ South Circular to Dulwich Village - there was a cluster of posters/placards in the houses near the junction with Lordship Lane, and where I could get an indication of value, the average house price of those displaying them was ?1.44 million. Again strikingly in the large concentration of flats opposite in McCleod Court and Maxwell Court, there wasn't a single poster or placard. Dulwich Village from the South Circular down to East Dulwich Grove, posters and placards were relatively sparse, and the average house price of those displaying them where I could find it, with all the caveats, was ?3.72m. With all the above-stated caveats, this exercise (apart from giving my ton of Covid flab a workout) posed for me a couple of questions: - are a lot of people who oppose the LTNs on roads I walked affected by displaced traffic likely to live in a high-value property? - is support for the anti-LTN lobby from potentially lower-income groups living on roads I walked affected by displaced traffic currently weak? In the light of some of the 'for the many, not the few' style rhetoric coming out of some of the anti-LTN lobby in recent days, this gave me pause for thought. Clearly, it would be good to hear a range of views as to what people think, particularly the people affected.

@heartblock - You've made a mistake, I never used the phrase you picked out. it was another poster. Have a look back through the thread.

@heartblock - you are to right to highlight any instances, if true, where you think this debate has strayed over respectful and acceptable lines. You are also right to highlight that things are boiling over, and I think there comes a point, that whatever one's point of view, a bit of perspective is needed by some people as to whether the ends justify the means. I also think we all have a responsibility as neighbours to try and reduce the temperature around the LTN debate. As I know from experience, engaging with councils can be a frustrating and at times opaque business, but that is the way forward. It could be a very long game, but that is how things are done democratically.

Clearly, someone more expert than me should decide, but putting up distressing personal notices on individual's homes or the street in which they live looks like potentially intimidation or harassment to me, both of which are criminal offences. Even if they aren't, it really is deeply personalized and unpleasant. I heard of a third incident - someone spotted trying to remove the barriers on one of the local streets. Again, I'm not the expert, but I would imagine that is an offence as well. It also strikes me as dangerous - had the barriers remained down, someone who was used to them being up might not have been so on the lookout for traffic when crossing the road, especially when that road is close to a local school. Whether that person's actions were connected or not to the LTN debate, short of them ending up in court, there is no way of knowing. Any debate around the LTNs should be directed through the proper channels - starting a constructive and civil local discussion, engaging with the council, lobbying and demonstrating. However, for some people this doesn't appear to be enough. There is an unsettling level of antagonism, personalization of the issues and potentially breaking the law that seems to be OK - it is not OK.

There needs to be a bit of context and balance on reporting on anti-social behaviour by people arguing for and against LTN's. I've seen no mention on this thread of a couple of troubling incidents at the end of the week before last. In the first one, a deeply unpleasant and personal notice was posted on the front and side doors of an elderly lady with a pro LTN point of view. In the second similar one, a woman living nearby, with a pro LTN viewpoint, had an equally unpleasant and personal notice put up in the street in which she lives. This is beyond the level of any kind of reasoned debate amongst neighbours about local issues, and tips I would think into criminal law. @legalalien made a very good point about keeping it civil - I think the sometimes antagonistic tone on this thread doesn't help.

Clearly there are a lot of arguments flying around about consultation/ representation, but I think there is a simple bottom line - if we're going to tackle the climate emergency, where do we start? An obvious place for me is unnecessary short car journeys, and the creation of LTNs certainly helps reduce that by creating a disincentive for default car use. I'm inconvenienced by a number of the effects of the LTN, but I buy into the fact that if there is to be a major shift in thinking as to how we live in the future, we have to start somewhere. Plenty of smokers were railing against banning smoking in pubs - a couple of decades or so on, how many of us miss those days?

@legalalien - the approach you take to this debate is commendable - measured and constructive, and looking for an equitable solution for a diverse set of views. It is definitely the way forward. I've been somewhat perturbed at some of the heat and noise around this issue, including hearing of someone supportive of the closures having to send a cease and desist letter in response to some of the online vitriol they received. In that context, I'm not sure the degree of personalisation of the issue in some of the posts above with the individual councillors is very helpful.

Clearly there are a lot of strong feelings generated by the road closures. Something not to lose sight of is that those in favour of them aren't necessarily a vocal minority - I've seen no data that backs that assertion up. I personally am strongly in favour of them exactly as they are - they have in my view vastly improved quality of life in Dulwich Village. I love the plaza, and my kids love the fact that it looks like at last the community is starting to do something serious about the dominance of car culture. This is a view reflected by a lot of people I know. But I wouldn't extrapolate that perception into some kind of assertion one way or another as to what the majority view is.

Whilst clearly Croxted Motors have had some unhappy customers, that isn't my experience. I started using them 2 years ago when Park Garage in Dulwich Village shut down, as I was following the talent - one of the exceptional mechanics who was working at Park moved over to Croxted. They have been great. I've just got my car out after a service/ MOT, and it is like driving a renewed vehicle.

Penguin - didn't you ask the administrator to move the discussion of a new Sainsburys in Dulwich Village to the Lounge, on the grounds that it isn't in East Dulwich? So, why aren't you asking for this one to be moved? Or is your choice of topics to get moved selective?

SG Smith/ Dulwich Estate assured everyone as part of their planning application that they were staying as a car showroom. However, there are significant sections of the application that have turned out as untrue. Dulwich Estate do their planning in secret, so who knows. There was one rumour that the application for the huge underground car park they got through as part of the site development - the size of two Olympic Swimming Pools across the whole site - was part of a bigger plan to get a major supermarket there. How true or not, I have no idea. No point in asking them - in my experience they never reply.

I'm a little puzzled by this post being moved to The Lounge, whilst plenty of other posts relating the the broader Dulwich remain on the East Dulwich Forum. Anyone else find it odd?

.....on the basis that Shephards in Dulwich Village isn't East Dulwich, half the posts on tonight's page should be moved as well. Turney Rd, Court Lane, Charter School East, Nunhead, Peckham and Red Post Hill aren't East Dulwich either. Most people define themselves as living in Dulwich - I live in Dulwich VIllage, but go to Lordship Lane/ East Dulwich all the time, and from the sounds of the posts, the situation is vice versa. Many of the concerns of all the separate Dulwich areas feed into each other. It is narrowing the richness of this forum to start discriminating. Administrator, what do you think?

NormalForNorfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well that's a custom more honoured in the breach > than the observance. Have you seen the hideous new > developments at the village end of court lane or > the plans for the Audi garage? The Scheme of > Management aside, the objectives of the Dulwich > Estate are to maximise income for its > beneficiaries i.e. the foundation schools, chapel > and almshouses. It cannot (and does not) > compromise that for the benefit or convenience of > residents. In other words, it doesn't have to give > a stuff about the locals. The frontage of the > proposed Sainsbury's is no more or less offensive > than the ridiculously generic (and largely empty) > Caf? Rouge or ten-a-penny Pizza Express. I spoke > to the staff again this evening and they seem more > than happy about it. Shepherd's is literally a > waste of space and, given that it should remain a > grocery store and no smaller company could afford > it, the Estate has, for once, approved something > which is of some use to the people who actually > live here. The line that the Dulwich Estate peddle is that they have 'no choice' in their decisions when it comes to maximising their income. They patronisingly referred to it in their latest PR accompanying their Scheme of Management invoice demands. Whatever the 'hue and cry'( their quote) of local residents ( err.... a 600 strong petition opposed to their activities around the SG Smith development and a demonstration), their hands were tied in their actions to put profit above everything.However, talking to charity professionals, this simply isn't true. The Charity Commission allow a certain amount of leeway to take in other, wider factors into consideration as to how a charity conducts it's business. Irrespective of this, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of their brief - on the one hand taking cash off us to preserve the area, and telling us we can't put a dish up or touch a tree without their consent (for which there will be a fee), and on the other having licence to wreck the area with dubious development schemes. They are both gamekeeper and poacher at the same time - nice work, if you can get it. I think they are fundamentally discredited as an organisation that should have any kind of pretext of authority to conserve Dulwich, as is the Dulwich Society, with whom they have close links. The Estate should have no input into local affairs, and should be seen for what they are - a money making machine subsidising predominately the local private schools, for whom local residents don't have any more status than serfs. On a more fundamental level, the Estate's charity model doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. The original will which Edward Alleyn left to educate '12 poor scholars' and educate poor local children got subverted by an Act of Parliament in less enlightened times to translate into subsidising the big local private schools - their input into state schools in minimal. I think it is time that Act of Parliament was revisited.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I heard about the CGS cancellation from the chair > of the Dulwich Society, who met with two > councillors... it could be confusion about the > double bid, but the basic reason given for the > cancellation was that it was thought that the > police wouldn't use the annexe and that it was a > poor use of funds considering budget cuts. So even > if the funding is still intact, it doesn't sound > like the premises will be available for a > community safety contact point, which means that > we'll have to find somewhere else anyway. > > In any case, the communication from the council > has been so bad that it's questionable whether > this will work out or not, even if the funding was > still available. Everyone is so fed up that we're > beginning to feel that we simply need to do > everything ourselves now... > > Can you try to find out what's going on and let us > know? How come the Dulwich Society are in the know, and the rest of the community has to find out what is happening from them? Who do they represent? Certainly not me - their ties to local vested interests makes them far from impartial arbiters of what is best for the area.

In terms to background to development in Southwark, certainly one of the key factors with the SG Smith garage site I've been involved in was the developer - the Dulwich Estate - offered the Council free cash to go and build some social housing elsewhere, in return for getting pretty well unfettered permission to do whatever they wanted. Having been on the inside of this for over it a year to felt to me that the all the serious negotiation with officers went on away from the public gaze, and that the planning consultation was largely a farce. I think to stop developments like Railway Rise, it needs pressure on the local politicians, who with the exception of our local Labour MP and the Tory Councillor, were useless. There were plenty of grounds to reject the application, as the tireless work of the Gilkes Crescent /Callton Avenue Resident Associations demonstrated.

Stop being rude to Fazer! He has made a completely legitimate point about aircraft noise. Lots of people have backed him up in finding it disrupts their life. If people are rude enough to call him nuts for reacting like he does to the noise, he is entitled to defend himself. The issue is Aircraft noise - not Fazer.

James' political party will be the same one whose members on the planning committee abstained earlier in the summer on the SG Smith garage site vote - one of the most opposed local developments in recent history. Over 100 formal objections against, one in favour, a petition signed by over 600 people. Everything you need to know about where the Liberal Democrat commitment to local views lies.

If it is a benefit to any of you for us to share some experience, please PM me. The last year has been truly eye opening as to how things work in Dulwich.