redpost

I see no problem at all with this development, these homes are desperately needed and let's face it they are nicely located next to bus routes on LL and south circular with easy access to Dulwich Park and sydenham woods.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How about a six storey block on Court Lane > instead? Or several? > > redpost Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ab29 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > But of course - squeeze in more people in > > already > > > busy area, take away whatever little green > > space > > > people have and add more noise (more people, > > more > > > cars etc) - just because you can! > > > > > > How about a six storey block on Court Lane > > > instead? Or several? > > > > Yes, let's just keep people in temporary > > accomodation instead A developer would need 2+ neighbouring plots to put up a block of flats, unlikely to happen so court lane plots stay as houses Why the fixation on court lane? Where else is the council supposed to get the land from?

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?I?m a cynical old queen who has bitter takes on > everything but can?t at any point lift my cynical > glasses and look at hard cold reality? > > Jesus wept > > Prices in pubs are going up because of massive > inflationary reasons. 3 p off duty doesn?t even > begin to compare > > Serious question. Do you honestly expect pubs to > lower prices by 3p a pint. > > Let?s imagine YOU ran a pub over last 2 years. > How do you think you would balance your income and > outgoings? Yes, there are inflationary pressures but also an element of price gouging going on Go up north to a city centre pub .... similar rent and wages, yet 25-30% cheaper for a pint

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But of course - squeeze in more people in already > busy area, take away whatever little green space > people have and add more noise (more people, more > cars etc) - just because you can! > > How about a six storey block on Court Lane > instead? Or several? Yes, let's just keep people in temporary accomodation instead

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > goldilocks Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Nigello - you realise that what you've > essentially > > just said is 'how can you think this how > > ridiculous, have a word with yourself, then > also > > added - if you don't think that, don't dare > > comment'. Really dude, its not how discussion > > forums work! You don't get to comment and then > > say - no comebacks. > > > > Rockets was the one explaining how the idea of > > walking 15 mins on both ends was something that > is > > offputting for people in using public > transsport. > > I'm inclined to agree that it can be offputting > if > > you have an easier option. > > > > > > Nigello Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Goldilocks - if walking fifteen minutes both > > ends > > > is a deal ender, well, what a state of > affairs. > > (I > > > don't say that you think this is too much to > > walk > > > or not, so don't have a go if not. If you do, > > > then, see above!) > > And yes that was my point - in an area with such > low PTAL scores it naturally means that many > people are some way away from public transport and > that when they factor that in it becomes part of > the decision-making process whether they jump in > the car or not - which is why, of course, > Southwark initially suggested that LTNs should on > go in in areas with high PTAL scores.....which, of > course, Dulwich is not. > > Additionally, the reason school buses comes up is > that still many people drive their children to > state schools - we do, however, need to be mindful > that school catchment areas are growing - didn't > Southwark say as part of their school place > funding discussion claim some are now travelling > 4kms to schools? Just go and stand outside any of > the state schools in Dulwich and you can see > parents dropping children off every day. School > traffic still accounts for a large proportion of > the journeys in Dulwich, be that state or private > schools, and if the council would funnel more > energy into working with schools to fix that > problem then there probably would not be any need > for LTNs. There is nothing exceptional about the PTAL score for this area, look at the map of london and you can see other low-density suburbs full of terraced houses have similar PTAL. In fact, when compared to the rest of the UK this area has pretty good public transport.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope - the increases in car ownership isn't to be > applauded. > > I think it is due to the lack of investment in > public transport so many poorer families end-up > spending a bigger proportion on a car than a > wealthier family as it gives them access to wage > increases, cheaper food shopping and the ability > to make multiple journeys in a time poor day. > The car is seen as a way to improve income and > access. > I would much rather Boris and his chums were > investing in local transport links that provided > families/ elderly and the less mobile with easy > access to schools, work, health hubs, > supermarkets, caring responsibilities etc. > Sadly the defunding of PT by this and past > governments has made the car the king - this is > why LTNs are ridiculous - car ownership/road > building all promoted by government, while also > creating gated communities for the wealthy > multi-car owning house-holders. > > It allows the new puritans to howl at Mums taking > kids to school in some old rubbish car, or a > cleaner driving to multiple house-holds to be > accused of being a car-owning, petrol head, > carbon-lover while actually not tackling the real > issues of lack of investment and inequality. > > Boris has pulled a fast one and Southwark > Councillors fell for it. It's never the car owners fault is it?? It's always because theres not a circular bus, or empty trains running metro frequency every 3m or no tunnels under melbourne grove. The 42 is 99% empty down EDG, yet it's still not enough. Yet to see the 37 above 80% capacity. Take a look at the decimation of the bus networks across ex-london UK, people simply don't want to use public transport when they can jump in their car and mutter to themselves "if only public transport was properly funded, then I wouldn't have to do this".

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Older and disabled people?s groups have > overwhelmingly reported negative impacts on their > ability to travel by car, and corresponding > increases in fatigue, pain, stress, anxiety, and > mental health issues; this included essential > visitors and service providers trying to reach > them by car. > ? For many disabled and older people, a car does > not just assist with mobility issues. It is a > necessity with private space to carry out certain > personal functions and therefore essential for > them. Information on Blue Badge holder exemptions > was not clear for many disabled people and they > requested area-wide exemptions; those who use hire > cars rather than own private cars also need > exemptions with reports of some hire cars refusing > to come into the schemes or park further away for > pick up/drop off. > ? Older people reported signage is confusing with > multiple and unclear signs about road closures, > and timed closures on certain streets causing > stress. > ? Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups reported > significant negative impacts on ability to drive > to work (many were key workers). > ? Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups who were > local business owners reported negative impacts on > their trading / local businesses. > ? General Practitioners (GPs) reported difficulty > to drive to work and some locum GP?s were not > accepting shifts in the area due to difficulties > in driving to medical centres. > ? Many respondents fed back a perceived perception > of increased traffic on external boundary roads > with congestion and increased levels of > pollution. > ? As a result of the changes there was an > Increased dependence on buses and public > transport, but these were reported to be > unreliable and impacted by congestion on boundary > roads ?people reported longer wait at bus stops > with exposure to increased pollution levels. > ? Increase in cycling levels is mainly reported as > a disbenefit to older and disabled people?s groups > due to fear of cyclists? not following the highway > code. > ? Disabled people felt excluded from exercise and > active travel. Not all disabled people are able to > take up active travel and the street environment > is not conducive for walking ? reports of > obstructions (bins and overgrown planting), poor > surfaces, lack of seating; pedestrian crossing > times too short and many do not have audible > signals; motor traffic idling increases pollution > and makes walking more difficult for some. Let's just ignore the elephant in the room that lower income groups and older folks are by definition less likely to own a car

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > goldilocks Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Lets combine these. Rockets, its a majority of > > respondents. Have you ever read trip advisor? > > > > @Heartblock - don't think anyone is saying its > a > > statistical certainty - just that it shows it > > might have fallen AND its backed up by the > counts > > in the latest data - again not a certainty > because > > of the way the data is presented. However, if > the > > council counts traffic outside the health > centre > > AND at the previous points, then they could > > understand if it is correct > > You?re now trying to belittle the respondents to > the review?.how depressingly predictable??you > really are desperately trying to come up with some > rod to hit people with. The facts remain, despite > your protestations, Dulwich was asked for their > input on the LTNs and they responded, > overwhelmingly, against the measures - these > aren?t Trip Advisor trolls these are actual > Dulwich residents having to live with the chaos > caused by the LTNs. I appreciate you, and many > others who post here defending the measures, live > on the closed roads and you aren?t happy to have > your gated communities returned to how they were > but maybe remove the blinkers and see what?s > happening at the end of your road. I'd trust Russian election results more than the online LTN consulation result Let's stop spouting this 68% nonsense, the figure has zero significance as an accurate indication of opinion

My son goes to krav mag in brixton and gets a lot out of it: https://brixtonkravmaga.com/learn-self-defence-with-our-krav-maga-courses-in-brixton/ Krav Maga is a pragmatic self-defence system designed to get results fast

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Heartblock - me too. It seems being a good party > member is more important that being a good > constituent councillor. It still galls me that > Cllr McAsh (pre-pandemic) used the fact he thought > the DV closure was coming to lobby residents on > Melbourne to support their own closures on the > basis of the displacement heading their way yet he > cared not one jot for anyone else in his ward and > the impact on them. He should have been calling > out the foolishness of the DV closures and > fighting for his constituents - a little less > "solidarity comrade" and a bit more "you're doing > what comrade" would have been a more appropriate > response for a councillor who knew the > displacement was coming. He and every other > councillor is culpable for standing back and > letting this happen - bowing to the party machine > and being weak at the expense of the constituents > they are supposed to represent. Yes, shocking, if only there were candidates who didn't tow any party line, could ignore the big party whips and had their own manifesto totally independent of the big parties, i think "independents" would be a good name for them.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Calton/ Court/ DV is the real problem - Melbourne > Grove N and S doesn't help- but opening up the > Village would relieve many of the HTN issues. A > local bus doing the round via Calton, Village, LL > then back around to Sainsbury's and up EDG would > help. I do wonder why Goose Green and ED Labour > Councillors have allowed Labour Village > Councillors to sh*t all over their ward? 42 bus loading is minimal between Sainsburys and Camberwell Green, on what planet would tfl stump for a circular bus running empty all day?

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With respect Heartblock - I may have missed your > suggestions / alternatives to LTNs to reduce motor > traffic. I am genuinely interested to know what > they are? Would you mind posting again? Going through 256 pages of this thread, the only alternative put forward by pro carbon lobby is vague handwaving. The fact is, many studies around the world have proved that reducing road space, reduces the convenience of driving and nudges people out of cars. It takes time for attitudes and behaviour to change, but it does change.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So why did Southwark consult? Surely to understand > what residents wanted...also Southwark actively > encouraged cycling lobby groups and non-residents > to respond....why? > It's all very well dismissing the results because > it doesn't fit into your need to keep your LTN on > your road, but it isn't about having a quiet road > at the expense of increased pollution, due to > idling displaced traffic on many other roads. > Just assuming stuff, to make an very > 'individualistic' argument feel better is just > that, trying to make one's standpoint feel better. They consulted to seek opinions on modification to the scheme. It was not a referendum. The policy of restricting road space to cars was initiated by the government, it's the job of the government to make hard and unpopular decisions for the long term benefit of society and the planet ... although todays budget which continues the 12 year freeze on fuel duty and cuts APD wouldn't seem to indicate that. If you disagree, then vote for a party with an anti-LTN policy in the next general and local elections.

No, frivolous car usage must go

P3girl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have not contacted TFL yet because the suggested > routes are my first pitch to gauge support within > the community. > > If you and others support the idea then we can > take it to TFL. > > All interested, please get in touch and then we > can take it from here. > > > > malumbu Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Good luck, > > > > On your suggestions on buses hope you have > > contacted TfL, there may also be a community > group > > (Dulwich Society or equivalent in SE22?). I > was > > involved in a community group a few years ago > not > > so far away, and we did a lot to lobby on > > transport and amenities. The value of this is > > that you are also not a single issue group > which > > would therefore have more influence. I can give you the answer from TFL now, they can't afford it A new bus route would just cannibalise revenue from other bus services, those who drive will continue to drive and when challenged will just come up with some new excuse Look at the 42 bus, minimal loading between sainsburys and herne hill The only way to deal with congestion in aggregate, is road pricing and failing this LTN restrictions of available road space for cars

"the money was just resting in my account" ... Father Ted Crilly

cidolphus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, it is being reopened for buses and if you > look closely on Southwark's website you will see > that their budget for the costs involved in > reopening is ?400,000. > > Now, add that to their costs for closing it in the > first place plus the costs to local businesses and > you will get some measure as to how stupid the > Council's original proposal was. > > Getting it wrong once is arguably understandable > but to repeat this misguided policy with all the > LTN closures is absolutely and totally > unforgivable. > > Shame on all the Southwark councillors. It's actually been resurfaced after the thames water works dug up the whole lot, so perhaps this is reflected in the costs.

Wow, forgot all about scallops, were popular in the midlands I first encountered "bits" though when working in newcastle, you could ask for a free sprinkle ... they must have been so unhealthy as they may have been lurking in the frier for quite a while

My view: This is just another failure by this governement. The job of government is to think strategically and prepare for black swan events pandemics, shortages, wars etc This could have all been avoided if OFGEM wasn't asleep at the wheel and stress tested energy providers just like they do banks e.g. if wholesale gas prices double, who will still be in business? The energy providers going bust now have made a nice tidy profit over the last few years when the wholesale prices were nice and stable, yet with inadequate hedging they've come a cropper and the only outcone is socialising the costs of their foolhardiness. No moral hazard for the directors, free to start up again when the market is back to normal. With increased hedging, the rough gas storage facility and others could have possibly have paid for themselves instead of needing government subsidy (which of course they refused).

What's a wax ring? ... sounds painful

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I thought Rockets qualified his statement by > > saying not a single petrol or diesel car > > "launched". > > > > Is it the case petrol and diesel cars were > > launched? You've just referred to cars "at" the > > show...not the same thing. > > > > Anyhow, I guess the point is it may be more > > accurate to say the majority of cars were > > electric. I don't know, I wasn't there and do > not > > follow car events, but to incorrectly quote > > Rockets and then on that basis accuse him of > > talking cobblers is a bit much. > > > DKHB is so keen to throw in an aggressive "gotcha" > that they failed to actually read what was written > in either my post or the article they link to. > > I love the fact that the article they link to > talks about all the electric cars that VW, BMW and > Mercedes launched at the show - and all the > concept cars being electric. Not a single mention > of any launches of anything other than electric, > in fact I am struggling to find any references to > a single petrol or diesel car in the article - > thereby highlighting my point even more strongly. > The article does talk about hybrids (in relation > to there being a worrying lack of infrastructure > to accelerate the total transition to electric as > quickly as people would like and that > manufacturers are putting pressure on govts to > improve electric infrastrucutre) but that's about > it for anything beyond electric. > > In fact the article says: > > In many ways, it feels like the sheen of ?newness? > around the concept of electric cars as a whole has > well and truly worn off; now they?re the > unquestioned stars of events such as this and > there?s a whole raft of other novel concepts and > ideas to get used to. > > The car industry has gone electric - that is most > definitely not "cobblers". Fits the usual pattern: Rockets quotes article that doesn't mention ICE cars and only electric cars, therefore infers all cars launched at show are electric and states this as de facto in forum.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But this is the point isn't it - people need to > get around in vehicles. Electric cars reduce > pollution and measures like LTNs are, ostensibly, > designed to reduce pollution - for every electric > car that replaces a petrol or diesel car there is > a reduction in pollution. Surely that and the fact > that all manufacturers are switching exclusively > to electric is a good thing, is it not? Buses, > taxis and delivery vehicles are all turning > electric - electric seems to be the clear way > forward. > > The car industry is slow to change but it is > changing. They design cars 3-5 years ahead of > going on sale so the pace of change is slower than > people would like. But, it is changing, but it > seems for some it is not enough. > > You mention nuclear power stations - it wasn't > that long ago that people were protesting about > having nuclear power and you can guarantee that > some of those people are now protesting about the > impacts of climate change. Sometimes you just have > to put pragmatism ahead of idealism. > > Speaking of which... > > When I watched this piece of performance art from > the spokesperson for Insulate Britain I saw so > many parallels with the unwavering fanaticism > displayed by many around LTNs - we're right, > you're wrong, we don't care about what you think > or the negative consequences of our actions, this > is our righteous path and we will not deviate from > it (let me also be clear that the GMB presenters > don't cover themselves in glory here either) but > this spokesperson, who laughably hasn't insulated > his own home, does his cause not good but will no > doubt be idolised by his supporters: > Would you class the fuel protestors of 2000 fanatics? After all, they put lives and livelihoods at severe risk by blockading fuel depots and refineries

Electric cars are not a pancea, there will still be 300+ child road deaths a year electric or not We will still have the highest obesity stats in europe There will still be particulates from tyres, brake pads etc

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And a bit like the M25 protestors the councillors > have created more congestion and pollution in > their quest to highlight congestion and pollution > and supposedly try to solve the problem. > > Both groups display a blinkered, narcissistic > attitude without any empathy for anything other > than their own cause. Non-drivers protesting by blocking roads (climate protests) = BAD Drivers protesting by blocking roads (fuel duty protests of 2000) = GOOD

In this case I don't think its got much to do with brexit, more like tory incompetence and dogmatic free market approach. Mainly by allowing gas storage facilities (e.g. rough) to be shut down and allowing new energy providers to spring up with minimal requirements and market supervision. These providers have a small capital base and inadequate hedging. They've made a profit for a few years and are now socialising the consequences of inadequate hedging by going bust and pushing the costs onto other consumers.