Glemham

Oh come on Malumbu don’t be so disingenuous! There are many causes of obesity and LTNs are a minute part of the solution. If active travel is so important to you why not start using your undoubted energy to campaign for it in the form of improved public transport and access to it; to and from, and in and around Dulwich. It’s not too late, although it might have been more sensible to make improvements to public transport before closing roads. Certainly most of our elected representatives don’t appear to have had much interest in doing so. Some facts: Going to Beckenham and Bromley from East Dulwich by public transport - which many people would like to do necessitates two bus journeys, whereas there’s a direct bus to Lewisham. Easier to take the car. Getting across Dulwich from East to West is almost impossible by public transport. There is a single decker but that goes via a congested South Circular. You might say take the train, and indeed in the area covered by Dulwich and West Norwood constituency there are 10 rail stations. BUT only three of these have step free access, Herne Hill - the only one with a lift, West Norwood and East Dulwich. There is one step free northbound platform at Tulse Hill and Gipsy Hill. But the remaining five are problematic. If you are a parent with a buggy, disabled, elderly with heart or breathing problems, have a heavy suitcase and cycling is not an option, then your active rail travel options are somewhat limited. So Malumbu are you willing to try and make difference?

Many of the tradespeople care because their footfall at the junction has fallen since January when even more traffic restrictions in the form of a CPZ were installed. This combined with the high rents levied by the Dulwich Estate and Southwark business rates, are forcing more businesses to close. Romeo Jones, one of the last independent businesses in the Village will close on Saturday and Harold George the hairdresser is moving to smaller premises a few shops away. A Tapas bar is rumoured to be taking that corner site. I realise this posting is not strictly on the topic of the West Dulwich Action Group, but no doubt they will recognise their own concerns in the Dulwich Village problems.

A very balanced article about LTNs from a Guardian journalist who lives in Lambeth. His point about public transport in South London is well made. Local councillors and MPs have failed to lobby for improvements. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/14/low-traffic-neighbourhood-ltn-lambeth-culture-war?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Perhaps someone who works there owns a Tesla and is keen to promote more sales. After all poor Musk needs all the support he can get right now 😢

Isabel Ramirez a journalist with Southwark News wrote an article - sadly behind their paywall - in October last year. “Why has this pub in Dulwich been vacant for twelve years?” There was no response from the Dulwich Estate. Perhaps you could contact her: [email protected] M.07939857532 As the lease is due this year, and nothing has happened since last October she might be interested in asking some more questions. Many years ago Private Eye published an article criticising the Estate’s response to parents in West Dulwich who wanted to adapt their home for a disabled child. I seem to remember that the Eye referred then to the DE as the ‘Village Idiots’.

Now that’s an idea worth considering #ab29! The Grove saga should be coming to an end soon as the lease from the owners - The Dulwich Estate - held by Stonegate Pubs should run out this year. The group recently found financial backers to help with its £2.2 billion debt. The Estate refuses to reveal anything about their plans for the site citing commercial confidentiality. But they have had many years to plan for the lease ending. However they spent three years refurbishing The Crown and Greyhound aka The Dog in Dulwich Village so don’t hold your breath for anything to happen to The Grove in the near future!

Indeed! You are entitled to your opinion and to speak freely as long as you don’t criticise the Council agenda ………….now where have I been reading recently about similar attitudes to “Free” speech?

Please could you explain the difference between being a “political activist” and “people engaging in local politics”? You seem to be suggesting the former is not to be trusted, but the latter is acceptable.

If all cyclists were required to have liability insurance, and their bikes registered and therefore recognisable surely this would be a deterrent for the antisocial behaviour of those who break speed limits, ignore traffic lights and cycle on pavements.

As the car is parked outside the NHS clinic at the end of Townley Road, could the car belong to a member of staff or a patient? Perhaps the clinic has negotiated with Southwark for permits for staff who need a car to do their work.

Have no recollection of any mention of RPZs by the Dulwich Village Councillors, Margy Newens and Richard Leeming. This is very definitely their patch. Again if you are a stranger to the area how are you supposed to know that you can’t park there at certain times. How would you know where to go for a permit? Are RPZs the future? I do like the irony that it’s to minimalise the need for too many signs and street furniture, when not a million yards away at the junction there’s a plethora of signs and cycle racks …………

Until next Monday the tickets are warnings, fining in earnest starts on Monday. If you don’t know the area, have been driving sensibly and not looking up at signs that require you to get out of your vehicle to read them and park in Calton during the proscribed hours, would you have a valid reason to appeal? Please could someone/anyone from the Council explain the rationale behind this system?

Yes, see my post with photos from January 8th. The two signs have now been amended to remove the ‘one hour only’ notice. I understand that in nearby Gilkes Crescent which is now a CPZ as requested by the residents, the signage is the same. Rumour has it that Southwark has outsourced the ‘design’ of these CPZ areas to a private company.

The CPZ in the main part of Calton Avenue is now live but penalty free until 20th. There are no markings in the road nor any kerbside signs. Just a sign fixed to the Belisha beacon at the zebra crossing close to the Woodwarde Road junction and one on a lamppost at the junction with Townley Road. See attached photos. Both could be easily missed by drivers. It appears that parking is only allowed for one hour. No visible information about obtaining a permit. Perhaps it’s only a temporary arrangement……….

Residents and people who travel to work in Dulwich, have had an early and unexpected Christmas gift from Southwark Council. In 2023 Southwark consulted about a CPZ for a wide area in Dulwich Village. All but one road declined the offer and the scheme was withdrawn. This year the council proposed a smaller zone to cover Townley Road, Calton Avenue, Gilkes Crescent, Gilkes Place and part of East Dulwich Grove. Once again only one road, Gilkes Crescent, was in favour of the scheme. Adjacent residential roads made clear their opposition citing displacement of parked vehicles to roads that were already congested during the week. Last week the roads that were consulted were informed that a decision had been made and the CPZ would be operational from January 6th. The hours: 8 to 9.30 am and 3 to 5 pm on weekdays. The decision has taken everyone by surprise because nothing had been heard since the consultation. Residents had understood that only those roads that specifically wanted a CPZ would get one. None of the adjacent roads were informed. The timeline is, to say the least, very tight given it’s only two weeks to Christmas and most people’s minds are not fixated on CPZs. There are some who think that this is a deliberate ploy by Southwark to cause parking and traffic chaos so that residents in roads who chose not - for whatever reason - to have a CPZ last year will quickly change their minds. Time will tell; but what is not in dispute is the failure of Southwark Council and our elected representatives to inform residents of the result of the consultation(sic) process and to allow a reasonable timeframe before implementation.