slarti b

While they are planning the social housing maybe they could make the skate boarding offical and intall a proper skate park there. A bit noisy I know, but I am sure the local residents overlooking Mary Newens plaza who campaigned to divert traffic onto EDG and Lordship Lane won't mind.

@Spartacus. From what I have seen, in the OHS consultatations, presentations, email exchanges, on social media etc etc, the Councillors, both our local ones and the whole Cabinet, are the driving force behind the scehemes and the use of Covid funding to impose them without consultation. The officers do what they are instructed to do by the Cabinet ( hopefully subject to appropriate legal advice). The creation of Margy Newens Plaza, never mentioned in OHS, seems to be a particular fixation of our 2 local councillors, hence their use of ratepayer money to fund a party there. Personally I would prefer this to be about the needs and concerns of local residents and for it not to be a party political argument. But when our (Labour) Village Ward councillors, the Southern wards grouping of (100% Labour) Councillors and the (Labour) Council Cabinet seem happy to ignore their constituents and toe the party line without dissent, it is difficult to see it any other way. And of course our (Labour) MP, whose election agent is the leader of the Southern Ward councillors seems happy to acquiese in that. Oh well, only 15 months till the next council elections ;-)

The Lib Dem Councillors in the North of Southwark are proposing amendments to the temproary LTNs to reflect the concerns of local residents. See https://victorchamberlain.mycouncillor.org.uk/2021/03/11/proposed-amendments-to-the-great-suffolk-street-low-traffic-neighbourhood-and-the-blackfriars-road-low-traffic-neighbourhood/#page-content It is unfortunate that our own (Labour) councillors prefer to ignore their local residents who suggest amendents or improvements and reject any attempt at compromise. They are much happier giving ?3,000 of Council\ratepayers money to a highly nebulous, anonymous organisation for a party in Margy Newens plaza!

After several decades with Forest Hill I finally moved a few years ago. Once you got to see a doctor they were generally fine. However, apart from urgent issues it was really difficult to get an appointment and the rudness and unhelpfulness of the reception staff was quite frankly appalling. The final straw was trying to arrange a telephone appointment to discuss some blood test results. I tried several successive times on a Monday morning where I was told all appointments had gone and to call back the following Monday when next appointment block would be open. After the fourth failure I decided to move. It was extremely easy to move and I am very happy with my new practise. They answer the phone promptly, you can get appointments (even non-urgent ones) quickly and easily and they have remained open and accessible throught Covid.

@Dulwiuch Central - thanks for spotting typo, have corrected.

@legalalien A good set of notes and I completely agree with your view that councillors are showing much more concern about the impact of road closures on surrounding streets. A couple of points on the comments by Darren from London Ambulance Service. - I think he said average response times (across London?) had increased from 14 to 16 minutes since traffic measures put in, though this may be down to more cars on road as fewer people are using public transport. - He also said they have recorded 170 incidents across all London boroughs where traffic measures had caused delays that had adversely impacted the patient. Of those 51 were in Southwark, if so that is very worrying. He said Islington, where they have camera controlled closures, had only 1(one) such incident. Edit for typo ("more cars on road" not "fewer") - thanks DC

@LegalAlien Thanks for the link re the application process. I can understand the council redacting bank account details and personal information, but see no reason why the rest of the application cannot be published. This is public money that is being allocated purely at the discretion of the local councillors so I would hope for full transparency. Is Cllr Leeming suggesting GDPR prevents aany information being published or just the names? ( sorry, I don't do Twitter) It would be interesting to see what they propose to spend the money on and whether, as per my previous post, it includes the cost of the event license.

@Malumbu. I thought I was just highlighting previous posts but, if I was flinging mud as you suggest, it seems that is has stuck. ExDulwicher has admitted he has been caught out fibbing about his previous posts. But he then tries to justify it by suggesting that all "One" groups, including OneDulwich, as well as being UKIP supporting petrol heads, are Vote Leave supporting manipulators. I have invited him to clarify his view about OneDulwich. Lets see what he says. But anyway, lets get back to discussing the specific issues of the the closure of DV junction.

@ExDulwicher, Thank you for admitting that my quotation of your views was correct. But don't try and wriggle out by saying my quote was selective. I quoted your main accusation that the "One" groups are a mix of UKIP and various petrolhead groups. You did then add the your patronising get out about them being misled local residents before reverting to accusing then of being bots. But lets gets specific and relevant. Are you accusing OneDulwich of being a very opaque mix of LTDA (no idea who they are), UKIP and Twitter camapigns? Do you think we are all bots? Did you look at the map of where OneDulwich supporters live as I have suggested before? And as for astro-turfing, how about the local pressure groups that have such influence with the Council and claim to speak for local residents eg: - Southwark Cyclists, 12 people at their AGM was it ? And they are of course the local branch of London Cycling Campaign, chief activist Simon Still, just suspended for racist posts and Twitter harassment. Is it really true that his position was funded by TfL? - Clean Air Dulwich: an anonymous facebook group, - Mums for lungs: looking at photos, "Anna" from Dulwich etc , looks to be a big overlap with one above. btw Anna is clearly someone who has very strong views on closing DV junction. Fair enough, but not the sort of person to rely on for objective analysis of traffic schemes. - Safe Routes to (Private) Schools, seems to be a couple of high profile activists who use a wider talking shop to pursue their own agenda. Very surprised that the local schools allow this to happen, given their impact on the local residents. But lets go back to looking at the actual measures and I will repeat a question I have asked you before. The closure of Calton Avenue and the lengthy timed closures of DV etc will result in displaced traffic (as stated by Southwark) Which streets will the displaced traffic use and do you think it fair that they suffer the increased congestion and pollution while Calton Avenue and teh lower end of Court Lane rub their hands at the prospect of higher house prices?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No one has come forward, shy little petals. Bet that two or three of them, base Court Lane ... I understand that a couple of the most vocal advocates of the junction closure, keen supporters of Friends of Dulwich Junction (sorry square), have taken the opportunity to sell their house in Court Lane. No doubt they benfited from all that traffic being displaced onto EDG and Lordship Lane to get a better price...

@Malumbu. Pure whataboutery from you to avoid acknowledging that: a) ExDulwicher has a history of smearing people and groups who raise any issues as UKIP supporting petrol heads and b) that he has been caught red handed denying it.

@Abe F I assume that, legally, the junction is still a road since I can still cycle through there ( though the pedestrians keep getting in the way) and our Councillors insist that the road is not closed, it is just filtered. However, if so it can be closed for a special event subject to applying for a temporary traffic order from Southwark, see https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/traffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/road-closures-for-events. The applicant has to pay Southwark's costs which come to ?2,451, though the costs can be waived for a "community event" So either: a) the majority of that ?3,000 grant will be paid to Southwark to cover the council's costs or b) The Councillors are going to persuade Council officers to waive the fee since it is for a "Community Event", which would effectively increase their grant to ?5,451. My guess is the applicants are expecting b). If so,given only ?3,000 has been approved I wonder if that is allowed?

@exdulwicher So, you deny suggesting that anyone who points out flaws in the Council's botched schemes are "UKIP supporting SUV drivers who won't walk 500 metres." ? Can I remind you of your post of 1 Feb describing people behind the "One" campaigns as "A very opaque mix of LDTA, UKIP, various twitter bots and pro-driving campaigns like FairFuel UK and The ABD." And your post of 15 Feb "Meanwhile, the outraged people within the LTN who can no longer drive their SUV the 500yds to the primary school can't really complain too publicly about that because they come across as very entitled" Do you deny those posts? I can attach a screen print if you have forgotten ...

Rahrah, Yet again demonising anyone who points out flaws in the council's botched schemes, asks how they will deal with the effects of displaced traffic or searches for some sort of compromise. Still, unlike ExDulwicher at least you are not suggesting we are all UKIP supporting SUV drivers who won't walk 500 metres. btw I have a vague memory you are associated with Southwark Cyclists and\or London Cycling Campaign. If so, what do you think of Lambeth Cyclist Simon Still's racist rants, demonising drivers? Really shows up the prejudices of the the minority militant cycling lobby who are driving this absolutist agenda.

It is a strange place to put an advance warning of a no through route at junction of Townley and EDG. Nothing to do with going straight ahead but applies if you turn right, then right again after 700 meters then left after 350 metres! Very misleading.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmmmm when it comes to evidence - who would I trust more? A Professor of Transport at the University of > Westminster, who teaches on Westminster?s MSc Transport Planning and Management. Just because an author is an academic doesn't mean they are unbiased. And these studies on traffic seem highly susceptible to bias because of the judgement used in selecting what data to include, what comparisons to use, how wide to draw the cordon etc etc. Remember Andrew Wakefield, Senior lecturer at UCL? Added to this is it seems to be a very small circle of people producing these traffic reports and the authors often seem linked to campaigns; for example Dr Anna Goodman is involved with many reports and author of the risible study on cycling on Calton Avenue. Is she any relation to the "Anna" who appears as a supporter of the DV closure on teh Clean Air for Dulwich Fb page on 20 June 2020? Given the incestuous nature of these report authors it would be good to see a proper objective analysis. >OR an anonymous member of One Dulwich who analyses a commonplace feedback site with no access to actual data. The One Dulwich report was based on publicly available data from the the site that Southwark council, Councillors and our local MP had directed residents to use for feedback. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean they should be ignored. You can carry out your own analysis if you wish. And you are underestimating what intelligent, "non academic" analysts can achieve by investigating and reviewing open source data; ever heard of Bellingcat?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I suppose that I should thank you and others to directing me to Clean Air Dulwich and in turn > this nice article about the longer term experience in Waltham Forest...refers to some academic studies No idea whether they are tree hugging but the authors are pretty biased activists and propogandists for LTN's, far from objective academics. For example Dr Alldred's study of Waltham Forest was based on a self selecting sample drawn to a large extent from a TfL cycling database. Much more representative of London cyclists (white, male middle aged, better off ) than the general local population. And any results claimed from a longitudinal study of where 50% of the initial repsondents drop out is highly questionable. Waltham Forest is an intreresting example of what you can do by spending several years and ?25m (I believe)on a flagship scheme. But even so, I have seen studies suggesting that the traffic has just been displaced onto surrounding roads. I have no problems with LTN's in principal, provide they are well designed and consider the effect of traffic displacement and other knock on effects. Closing roads whiel sticking fingers in ears about the consequences, as our local councillors have done, is the wrong way to go about it.

Agree it could do with tidying up and there are some reasonable ideas there but since Grove Vale is an A road and major bus route I suspect any changes will require approval by TfL. But strange why they want to call this "East Dulwich Square", a bit like justifying the closure of DV and Calton Avenue to provide space for social distancing and then asking for funding to run concertS there in May !!

I think the Peck is, like the Effra, one of the rivers\streams that starts on the Crystal Palace\Norwood Ridge. The ridge is capped by a harder layer of sand and gravel which is permeable, but when the water reaches the underlying impermeable London clay it creates springs. You can see this in Dulwich woods. If correct, the aquifer is above you rather than below you :-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As an aside, does anyone know who is behind all the ?one? campaigns? They seem to be connected and > I would be very surprised if there wasn?t some astroturfing going on frankly. You can check out the number and location of One Dulwich supporters on their web site her https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters Can you provide the same for SOutwark Cyclists, or Clean Air Dulwich ?

Dulwich Square? Never heard of it :-) But yes, I have noticed the skate boarders at teh closed off DV junction. Personally I think it is much healthier and nicer for the kids there than on the old Harvester site next to the South Circular. Definitely to be encouraged.

@DulwichCentral You make a fair point that the worst of the congestion has eased over the last few weeks becuase of lockdown but that doesn't alter the underlying issues which will return once lockdone eases. After 7 months of the Calton\DV closure the feedback is clear and it is a good opportunity for Southwark to have a re-think and consider adjusting or altering the scheme before lockdown ends and teh traffic starst building up again. I haven't been outside much but,even in this lockdown period, I have heard from several people about massive congestion on Croxted road.

exdulwicher Wrote: >" It's imperative that people with opinions (good and bad) use that official Southwark website." What is a "bad" opinion, one that disagrees with Southwark's measures? :-) >" Southwark can quite legitimately ignore it (it's not formal feedback) " It may not be formal feed back but it is the forum that Southwark councillors, cabinet members, officers and our local Labour MP have all said is where residents should place their feedback. Indeed, to quote the Soutwark website "We want to hear from you about the effects of these closures . Please use the map below to identify locations where there have been impacts as a result of these changes." If they ignore the comments they have been, at the very least highly deceitful if not deliberatley dishonest. >"Well the consultation period is "up to 18 months" so there's no official requirement to produce a 'results so far' tally. My understanding of the Emergency TMO's is that they are temporary and, at the end of the 18 months period the council has to carry out a consultation to see if they are to be made permanent. Please correct me if I am wrong. However, we were also told that the Council will monitor the effects and, if necessary adjust them or try alternatives. Indeed you have often championed the concept of trial interventions which can be fine tuned and adjusted. Or have you changed your mind? 7 months after the closure of Calton\DV junction has provided plenty of time to assess the impact and, given teh effect on the "displacment roads" surely now is a good time to try an alternative approach, eg timed closures as used elsewhere in the area. That is of course if the Council sticks to it word, which you seem to suggest they should not be expected to .

@Malumbu What a strange comment. Are you suggesting we should ignore local democracy and an issue that is displacing traffic and causing congestion outside schools and on residential roads, harming local businesses and causing problems and disruption for the older and less mobile members of the local community? The Council encouraged and directed people to register their feedback using this site. Unfortunately, 6 months after the road closures we have heard nothing back from them about the results. Since we cannot rely on Southwark to carry out an objective, timely analysis a group of local residents decided to do so themselves. What is your problem with that?

Very interesting report just released from the Dulwich Alliance. They have analysed the public commments on the Soutwark's Commonplace site that was set up to collect feedback on the road closures and other measures ss the part of the Council's Covid Streetspace scheme. Very conclusive result and I hope the Coucillors and Council officers will listen to this feedback and work with the community to address their concerns. "Dulwich has spoken. It?s a ?no? to the road closures. Analysis of Southwark Council?s Streetspace feedback sites... suggests that 71% of respondents who expressed a view are opposed to the current road closures in Dulwich Village and East Dulwich ? a far cry from the ?vocal minority? cited by proponents of the scheme. More than 3 out of 4 (76%) indicated they are against the closures in Dulwich Village, including the 24/7 junction closure, while 62% are against the 24/7 closures in East Dulwich. Full report available at the Dulwich Alliance website: https://dulwichalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Dulwich-has-Spoken.pdf