hopskip

well Gilkes preferable as there are two exit routes at all times. Woodwarde and Calton are in any event challenged to approach in restricted hours and this will encourage heavy vehicle access. Home goal Southwark planning - can you legitimately grant planning permission on a determined access route and then ignore consequences when your actions make this impossible?

Understand our local communities and their composition, stop anodyne statements and get real about the complexity and staging for change? You are in a privileged position it seems. Do you refuse/can afford any non-recyclable packaging in your buying habits for example? Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Walk more. Drive less. Minimise deliveries. > 🤷‍♂️

The three Council consultation meetings regarding the Dulwich ETOs and the way forward are underway - final one in June, two took place in May. Are there public recordings for those of us who want to hear what was discussed at the earlier meetings? Please direct me to them if so. Our pre-Covid council meetings were recorded so there is no reason not to have this principle for the public record? If this consultation is genuine, go to the promoted website: https://dulwichreview.eventbrite.co.uk/ Scroll down and try to register for the June 19th event - our last chance. The link is no longer operating? Where are the recordings from the earlier two PUBLIC meetings? Who do WE ASK at Southwark?!! How can we register for the June 19th meetings @ Dulwich Ward councillors?

In the chaos of LTN closures, this is an unexpected event that has disrupted Southwark's plans. At EDG, traffic southbound through DV is permitted but the opening of this route through Gilkes from EDG was not planned for by Southwark. It should have been. Southbound traffic is acceptable under the DV ETOs and a route to the South Circular is an advantage. So it should be welcome that Gilkes no longer has the privilege that was only granted due to the working development site. Let me explore further. The route granted by Southwark in the planning permission acceptance for this site was via Dulwich Village into Carlton Avenue. This route has been closed off by Southwark. When Southwark impose major road network access changes, what is the legal implication for planning developments that they have granted and dictated? is this traffic forced to approach via Calton or Woodwarde now if Gilkes is closed? Why should Gilkes have a benefit over Calton or Woodwarde in terms of heavy vehicular access? Is there a legal right to contest access plans that have been granted by Southwark when they remove the provisions they have dictated?

Yes people asked could be the session be recorded but Andy Simmons and Dale Foden said not - no clear reason for this departure from recording Council public meetings. Some attending will of course have made their own records. It is easy to do so. The meeting Chat was stated by Dale Foden as available for everyone to make a copy. Very unsatisfactory meeting - not one attendee spoke in favour of the closures. Prepared answers and as expected Southwark predetermined agenda. I recommend attending one of the next sessions to hear why critical air and road monitoring data has not been presented with the survey, although stated to be being measured, and why is it still being withheld. Worth asking how the consultation has been adapted to ensure it complies with legal requirements to seek views from under 18s and how these are to be weighted in the overall results. Really poor meeting with the now familiar patronising comments and agenda from Southwark officials - Andy, Catherine, Dale

I find this thread concerning - seems to be bullying a shop for some reason which I suspect is not to do with environmental issues, crucial though they are. Hopefully Oddonos can answer for themselves.

Appalling behaviour on Twitter towards a Health Centre and those less able. Unacceptable post and pressure. Perhaps this link with Southwark? http://www.greerpritchard.com/projects/southwarkDesignReviewPanel.asp role design manager for Southwark Council GreerPritchard director established and managed Southwark's Design Review Panel in 2006. Southwark is a Thameside borough in central London. The Panel provides advice and enabling services in relation to major urban development projects and is highly respected in its own right. Appointed to the panel in 2010 and is currently serving for a second term. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So - Twitter. Reporting Elm Lodge surgery no > longer supporting Dulwich Alliance as it?s > possible to get there outside the closure hours. > Fine. But then this comment about how everyone in > Dulwich can afford a taxi anyway (see attached).

Great open letter - thanks for the genuine effort to get a dialogue going. Don't stop. Petition still open I see, for anyone who may want to sign. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=500000057&RPID=774779172&HPID=774779172 Ping me if struggling to get past the sign in - there is a problem for some.

Southwark have just published proposals on their next Covid ETMO measures in case you haven't seen it. Decision page:http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDelegatedDecisions.aspx?&RP=0&K=0&V=0&DM=0&HD=0&DS=0&Next=true&META=mgdelegateddecisions&DR=09/08/2020-23/08/2020. Scroll down and look for the two links - Batch 2 and Batch 3 (top and bottom of list currently) Here is the link?for the Area B/C Dulwich scheme additions:http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023654&Opt=0 Jaw dropping mess and implications. Our Cllrs have obviously been supporting these for some time.....

I suggest that Southwark Events should be active communicating with ward Councillors to withhold support given the lack of licences? Rather indulgent/perverse of Cllrs to support this given the weddings, funerals, events generally that are barred at present......... alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes that is the advice I was given by Southwark > council today.

See Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which councillor - James McAsh?

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The goings on at that junction are annoying now - there was some sort of musical duet there a couple of > weeks ago, people standing around. It's still a road - there were still cyclists and pedestrians and a > couple of people on mobility scooters looking to get through it all and finding it quite difficult, > especially to maintain social distancing. Not going to be long before some idiot dancing in the "square" > collides with a scooter or cyclist and blames the legitimate road user. As I pointed out, interesting to see our Councillor turn up to support. Southwark Events have confirmed that the organisers have no licence to use this space as none are being issued under Covid measures. See above posting Yesterday, 08:02PM.

It is interesting to see our Councillor turn up to support, no effort to social distance at this Covid-19 designated closed junction and Southwark Events confirming that the organisers have no licence to use this space as none have been issued under Covid measures. Southwark website: Please be aware that we are not currently accepting, or processing event applications. We are working to produce guidance for the recommencement of public outdoor events in Southwark, in line with recent Government recommendations and this information should be available shortly. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/events-culture-and-heritage/events/planning-an-event/hiring-a-park-or-public-open-space

I wonder what your evidence is for saying this. Or just your biased attempt to discredit? I have been following One Dulwich and can see that they have been pushing our Councillors to explain what the monitoring plans are - ie advocating car (and cycle) counting tubes, air pollution monitoring etc. More to the point, my Residents' Association is pressing for answers on monitoring plans. I receive updates from my RA attending biweekly meetings with our Councillors. Councillors have confirmed that tube monitoring is expensive and that they are moving the tubes around and in fact removing them - more to go down in Sept when the schools are back. But they were not able to relay a full monitoring plan including tube measurements and 'what' they are actually measuring nor is air quality planned to be measured. My evidence you ask? The most complete (but not, I have to say, meaningful) statement is not easily discoverable but is within the frequently asked questions at the Southwark commonplace site: https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/ See item 7 - for all it is worth, not a comprehensive plan in my view: 7. How will we monitor the impact of the changes and assess whether they meet their objectives? The monitoring criteria we are using to assess the scheme are:  Modal shift towards walking and cycling, with particular focus on the journey to school and short trips  Qualitative feedback from residents, local community and businesses  Use of public space by the community for active travel, leisure or play  Net changes in traffic in residential areas  Net changes in traffic on the distributor roads in comparison to London-wide traffic changes Video surveys will be periodically installed around the area at key junctions and high footfall areas to assess how the streets are being used by the community. We will be collecting traffic data at key sites in the area, including both residential streets and bordering distributor roads. We will also be monitoring feedback from the community - see point 10 below. Air quality data will not be part of the monitoring process, as it is not possible to solely filter out the traffic contribution to poor air quality. We will be using change to traffic levels as a proxy for the air pollution contribution by motor traffic. More details on the monitoring programme, locations and results will be provided in due course and made available at thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course it is. The last desperate lurch of an > entitled group of polluters, resorting to petty > vandalism. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Someone's cut the tubes on the pneumatic car > > counter on Calton avenue. It looks more like a > > deliberate disablement of it rather than kids > > vandalism. > > > > One dulwich supporter?

Before legal action we need the facts? The obvious way to obtain any information that is not forthcoming is an FOI request. This is costly on the Council's time and resources and so it's reckless of them to create a situation where people are forced to resort to this. There is an art to making an FOI request so that data (including associated emails, meeting notes (if Council is meeting informal groups they should make a record of such meetings) and even phone records)come to light.