Ladharrbeinn

OK so this is a good example of the nonsense logic of the Dulwich LTNs. East Dulwich Grove is an "A road" so fine, according to the LTN supporters, to route more traffic down it. But East Dulwich Grove is 7.6m wide at its eastern end, and the front doors of the houses are about 4.5m from the carriageway. On Court Lane, the "B road" where the multi-million pound houses have benefitted from the road closure, the road is about 9m wide and, due to there large front gardens, the front doors of the houses are at least 13m from the carriageway, many of them double that. East Dulwich Grove is also home to a health centre and large secondary school. But because the smaller road was designated with an A decades ago, that is where all the traffic should go?? It makes no sense. The unfortunate fact is that the wealthier, more vocal, more politically active residents are better organised and so pushing the scourge of traffic onto their less vociferous neighbours.

I'm confused - of Underhill and Ryedale, which is the A road and which is the B road?

Agree we need radical approaches to reducing traffic - but what we don't need are these piecemeal road closures which massively ameliorate one street and the direct expense of another. It is simply unfair. All these roads are residential, so the idea that some are "rat runs" others the correct route, is totally illogical. The cost to the residents of the roads suffering from the displaced traffic is noise, pollution - but also literally cost, in terms of the value of their houses. For example, the (already very wealthy) residents of Court Lane have been handed a massive bonus by the closure of "Dulwich Square", entirely at the expense of those on East Dulwich Grove, whose houses are much closer to the carriageway and including the children at East Dulwich Charter School.

It's because making the lives of one group of residents worse, in order to make the lives of another group better, is clearly wrong. Dunstans is a "residential road" as much as Ryedale. Both are the same width. So much for Labour being the party of social justice...

Unbelievable that our local councillors Maggie Browning and Jon Hartley have been happy to go along with this without ANY consultation for the surrounding roads. The Southwark website (https://engage.southwark.gov.uk/en-GB/projects/ryedale-traffic-scheme) suggests the reason for closing the road is that "Under the council's Streets for People strategy, we want to reduce motor vehicle traffic on residential roads like Ryedale, and prioritise other modes of travel." The idea that some streets are "residential roads" and others not is self-evidently nonsense. Closing Ryedale will of course simply add more traffic to Dunstans Road, where the residents already suffer greatly. All this scheme does is to prioritise the residents of Ryedale over the residents of Dunstans. As with other similar schemes in SE22 you suspect it's the roads with the ability to organise and lobby the council that are getting one over on the other adjacent roads. Clearly house prices in a traffic-free street will rise significantly. Labour like the sound of the dogma (prioritising other modes), and couldn't care less about the misery caused to the residents of the unlucky, non-vocal, non-self-interested streets. Contacts for the councillors if you'd like to voice your opinion (from the Southwark website): [email protected] [email protected]

Just a warning / moan - I've just been fined ?130 for driving west along Dermody Road. I'm a super careful driver, I was following sat nav and just didn't see this sign. There are no warning signs to tell you you are approaching a LTN. At the point you are not allowed to cross, there is no red-and-white no entry sign as you might expect, no bollards, no road narrowing. There were previously No Entry markings on the road, and a painted road narrowing - the council has rubbed these out presumably to maximise confusion and revenue. All there is is one "motor vehicles prohibited sign" on the pavement each side, on a pole 3 metres above the road. I went back this afternoon on my bike to see how I missed it. As a pedestrian it's quite easy to see but as a motorist it's clearly almost impossible - in the time I was there at least 30 cars went through it. (in the pic, the road on the left, Pascoe Road, has the very clear No Entry sign that is instantly recognisable. Dermody road is the one straight ahead with the yellow-backed signs)

Hi all, sorry, just checked back here after seeing it mentioned on the TweetsDulwich. I was the OP. So I do live in east dulwich, but I'm a cyclist and only rarely drive in London - so I haven't memorised the locations of bus lanes around the area. I'm a careful driver, never had so much as a speeding ticket, so I was surprised when the fine landed (already at ?130 because I didn't seem to receive the first letter). I went back to have a look at the road, and saw the Bus Lane markings on the road were almost totally rubbed out by new tarmac, so I challenged the fine - i had a very vague recollection of road works, but no detailed memory, and I was surprised I would have stopped in a bus lane without knowing it. Southwark rejected, I took it on to the independent adjudicator, at which point Southwark sent me the "sweep" footage, which showed road work hoardings completely covering the bus lane, including the white line and two Bus Lane markings on the road, most of the way back to the corner where Champion Lane turns uphill, certainly all the way past the Salvation Army. I didn't actually cross a white line, only stopped at the lights, then moved across the pedestrian crossing and left to the curb, where I stopped, and where the bus lane timing sign was obscured, both by the road workers vans and temporary lights. Anyhow, no question the bus lane was not clearly or legally marked at that point. BUT wider point - there was no bus, or other traffic there at the time. I stopped for a few seconds to pick up an elderly woman. A ?130 fine - again, more than two days wages for many - is disproportionate, and imho is the council farming its citizens rather than creating an incentive to good driving. A ?20 fine would do that.

Hi all, just in case of interest to anyone in similar position... In March I got fined ?130 for momentarily stopping in a bus lane to pick someone up from Denmark Hill station (on the same side of the road as the Salvation Army). The fine - ?130 - is more than 2 days pay for many people, after tax, which seems wildly disproportionate. Anyway I appealed it because roadworks meant most of the Bus Lane signs were obscured. Southwark rejected my appeal so i took it to the independent adjudicator. At a hearing this morning the adjudicator agreed with me and cancelled the fine - despite the fact that Southwark sent two members of staff to try to argue their side. My point is really just that if you've been caught out there when roadworks were on, it's worth fighting. (also - what a waste of council resources to fight it so hard!)

Thanks. btw, yes I complained to Wickes. They said they never accept pallets back (despite their various sustainability claims on reducing packaging etc...)

Hi there, I had a delivery from Wickes at the weekend which came on a pallet. The driver refused to wait 30 seconds while I unloaded so he could take the pallet for re-use. Now I'm stuck with it - too big to fit in car to take to dump. I could cut down and take, but does anyone know of a re-use/recycle scheme or similar? thanks!

Sure the park should be open to other uses, but many people on here have been saying "it's only for one weekend" etc. In fact that large section of the park has been cordoned off for a full week now. The grass has been significantly churned up. That bit of park is very close to a residential area - so loud in my house that my kids couldn't get to sleep until it ended at 10pm. Yes, none of this is the end of the world, but why should we be even a little bit inconvenienced to support a commercial venture?

My water has started becoming intermittently cloudy (before the recent cuts, but continuing now). We have a lead pipe coming into the house from the main in the road. Always worries me (because we have little kids) but I've never been able to sensibly work out how to get rid of it. Our water was within the "safe" limit for lead decided by Thames Water, but of course there is no real safe limit, any exposure is bad for your health/mental development etc.

thanks Renata!

Does anyone know when Southwark council are going to press on with opening the entrance to Camberwell Old Cemetery on Underhill Road? For at least a year it's just sat there with temporary hoardings which are gradually breaking down, with people chucking rubbish behind the fence. The Council website only says they hope to complete the project "by 2020" - are they really going to leave it in the current state and do nothing for another 3 years? Any info gratefully received!

?290k (or ?272) seems an amazing deal for what they had done - that bespoke cabinetry throughout must have cost a fortune, plus ?28k on the doors, oak parquet, plus rebuild of the whole house, asbestos removal, replumb, rewire, all those plants, kitchen, brass handles... Maybe they don't include decoration etc in the figures? We spent ?180 on a loft and side return!!

This piece by Jay Rayner highlights the issue - hard to read without inspiring rage... http://www.jayrayner.co.uk/news/state-primary-school-may-lose-playing-fields-fund-three-dulwich-private-schools/

Yes I heard it too. Back in March a Chinook landed in Ruskin Park, in the bit where the Kings hospital helicopters land (was reported in the Standard). Some RAF training mission that doesn't worry about who gets woken up!