Abe_froeman

Nigello, it sounds like removing the street furniture and resurfacing the road would be the best way to solve your problems.

The modelling and monitoring is also limited to choice areas chosen by the council. I live in GG ward east of lordship lane and the traffic on all roads in the triangle between Barry Road, East Dulwich Road and Lordship Lane has been made worse since the so-called "LTNs" were introduced. There are two factors to this though - the first is obviously that Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Road have been gridlocked and drivers are seeking alternative routes through the area. The second though is that the CPZs introduced north of East Dulwich Road and west of Lordship Lane have made a lot of people living there park their cars in this triangle. The council will have anticipated this and hoped that this will pressure people living in GG ward to join the clamour for a CPZ here too. However, the unintended consequence is that there are now barely any empty parking spaces and far fewer passing places on narrow roads, so a single delivery of supermarket shopping can cause a long tailback on several roads. There is no monitoring at all here and it seems that, despite the promises James has made, our voices will go completely unheard on the "LTNs".

I don't actually believe a lorry with eight axles has ever driven down Goodrich road. A bin lorry has three axles A tipper usually has two to four axles. A cement mixer has two to five axles, but the five axle mixers are for buildings like the Shard, not a polished concrete floor in East Dulwich. Even the biggest articulated lorries on our roads generally only have 6 axles. Sometimes an articulated lorry might have two trailers to get up to 8 axles but that's pretty unusual, and I doubt that even happens on the South Circular very often.

"It may well be the cause of the demise of the 50-year-old rule of the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets and its replacement with a democratic system where ordinary people represent their communities with honour and duty." I think that's something the champagne socialists in Southwark need to be very mindful of too...

I don't know if this was true or not either but there was a rumour that BH wanted to move to where the flying pig was

The protected view the other way (from promos hill, I think) came up in the massive new dulwich hamlet housing estate planning application

The commonplace site isn't a southwark site, it's owned by a private equity company. And if the comments are all bots then the consultation needs to start all over again, going door to door and the council need to get back the money they have spent on it.

I take it from that that you use a woodburner at home Malumbu

This is my favourite comment on that website: "Why not send out letters and warnings to the idiots who let their front hedges grow 2 to 3 feet over the pavements and make them cut them back."

Just another way for Southwark council to squeeze the pips. They should butt out tbh

That wouldn't make any sense though because that road is only closed to encourage social distancing during the Covid outbreak.

Nobody on here is using examples of FOI requests and council petitions to ask Southwark council to cancel schemes that aren't in Dulwich, let alone using this for LTNs outside the borough. That's an absurd proposition.

Good point. Make them evostik the branches back on the tree too.

"what I am worried about is the council being less than transparent and less than accountable and I fear they are trying to buy time with the publication of the review to try and manipulate the review to their advantage." This is a really unhealthy but wholly typical relationship between residents and this council, I fear. If the council could show with data that this scheme achieved their aims and that people's lived experience of traffic having become intolerable on their own streets was misconceived then I think more people would get on board. But if the council obfuscates, moves the goal posts, changes and hides the consultation terms of reference and data, and generally behaves in a way that looks shady, then that trust deficit will chasm

Ex-D, I don't think anybody on here apart from you and Malumbu gives a stuff about the LTNs outside East Dulwich tbh.

Thanks James I am very concerned by these suggestions, especially after the last CPZ consultation . Appreciate your frankness on this.

Hello James Is it true that Goose Green Residents who live east of Lordship Lane are going to be excluded from the council's next consultation on the road closures in our area? It has also been a few weeks since you said "We are due an announcement on the evaluation process in the next few weeks. The good news is that it looks like it will match up with the commitments I made to you back in October." Is there any update on this please? .

I think she just trolling us all now Rockets.

I agree that the guys doing this job have always worked very hard (especially so, but not just in the last twelve months). It's a shame though they that they have to catch up at the weekend and will no doubt be dealing with more waste than usual with a delayed collection, particularly if this is just because the roads weren't gritted.

The staff were all lovely too. Very sad about this.

What a shame. I loved this place, especially for their live music.

I'm hoping there will a "One London" party that stands, made up of the various One groups like One Dulwich etc.

"this is the first one where the council are going to be unable to rely on the local pro-closure lobby monotonising proceedings..." I wouldn't count on that !

I guess Ex Duliwch 's cycling helmet is made out of tinfoil

The irony of the white men in lycra that are behind the LTNs complaining about other people astroturfing, FFS!