Penguin68

The buses / transport reduction has nothing to do with the council, however it's potential impact on this area should be part of the councils strategy to keep things moving. There is, or at least there should be, some requirement on local councillors to make the argument for joined up planning. Changing local issues on the streets has to be done in the light of changes (or realities) of public transport (TfL etc.) and of other influences, such as the Mayor expanding ULEZ. Yet each group acts as if it exists in a bubble. And as if, because it can't and doesn't influence the other groups, it can happily act as if these (and their conflicting decisions and plans) didn't exist. Our closest representatives are those we elect locally - and they should be fighting our corner against the other groups, if their plans reduce our life quality. Not acting as if they didn't exist.

TfL services may be cut due to funding gap, mayor warns Apparently the ULEZ expansion has not led to the money bonanza hoped for - as too many Londoners have chosen to get ULEZ compliant vehicles or not come in - which means that the expansion, for which the Mayor prayed-in-aid reduction of pollution and improvement of air quality was actually (anything sound familiar here?) about revenue raising. The Mayor was hoping for a continued influx of polluting vehicles, which he could charge, not for what has happened. How unlike the home life of our own dear Council - or not?

I can remember times when almost every road in Dulwich has been plagued with queues of standing traffic (over the last 34 years I have lived here) - normally the consequence of road and utility works or emergencies, accidents, sometimes selfish or terrible parking, with traffic diverting (or being diverted) to the nearest passable route - often inappropriate in terms of width etc. With the problems dissipating over time as the obstructions are eventually removed or dealt with. And there have always been rush-hour pressures, as you would expect in an inner city borough (as Southwark is). This is different. The embuggaration is permanent (the council hopes) and intended, and is worse in rush hours but not specific to these. The roads which have been permanently relieved of traffic were, mainly and for most of the day, relatively traffic free (save when they were an escape route for other road problems). Of course they carried more traffic recently (in non lockdown circumstances) than they did when I first moved here, but that is true of every road (save perhaps the South Circular - already full) around here. And the traffic has not dissipated. It has moved and, in effect, concentrated in fewer roads, which have, by happenstance and poor planning rather than malice I suggest, been those with higher population density and more sensitive (i.e. state schools, medical facilities and so on etc.) occupants. But rather than admit, as so many other London Councils have done, that there were unintended consequences our council has decided to tough it out, because they care nothing for their electors in the south of the borough. Even if you agree (and I'm prepared to) that the intended consequences were worthy of serious consideration and were 'well intended' it's not turned out that way. And the disdain with which our opinions are treated is absolutely not well intended.

I?ve been looking all over ED for somewhere that sells coffee. Glad they?ve spotted the gap in the market. I recognise the satire, of course, but it is interesting that Covid-19 and changed working habits may have altered the commercial landscape - more people, including now those working from home, are looking to get out for a cup of coffee and a bite - and into places that are not too crowded or airless - so a commercially sustainable increase in coffee shops is maybe not that surprising. How long the opportunity continues will be interesting.

Let's hope this doesn't lead to other councils discriminating against Southwark blue badge holders.

Dear Admin It is to be hoped that the Covid-19 specific board will eventually (early 2022?) become otiose, although I anticipate that Covid-19 booster vaccinations (and possibly new treatments and new attempts to extend the pool of the vaccinated) will continue. Rather than then abandoning the board, I wonder whether you might consider re-purposing it to cover wider ED Health issues ? such as flu vaccination season, defibrillators, complaints or comments on local medical provision and so on, as well as Covid-19 specific news. With the same banning of commercial activity on the board. Having all health issues together in the same place would be both useful (in my view anyway) and might concentrate comments etc. and allow a wider local health provision debate to develop (without perhaps allowing ?Healthy Streets? another outlet). It would be necessary to require, and police, the ?localness? of posts ? so a more general discussion of health and remedies is kept to the Lounge. Just an idea?

So not the so-called *majority* anti-LTN One Dulwich falsely claim that demand that all measures are ripped out? As I recall, of the 'options' offered in the council's own survey, that was the one which did receive most support, and quite widely. It is true that had other options (other than keeping the LTNs unchanged) been more clearly spelled out (which they weren't) then it is very possible that some modified form of LTN might have achieved more general approval. As the council appears happy to ignore any results of any consultation which doesn't fit their own pre-conceived viewpoints, what people said and want is anyway irrelevant (as it turns out) and the 'consultation' a joke. And it should be noted that the council was more than happy to include in their analysis, it appears, almost a third of responses from people neither living nor working in the area - but presumably with an 'interest' in the debate - and it is clear that pro-cycling (and pro LTN) groups were energised by the council to respond, although I have, of course, no evidence that it was these outsiders who responded positively to the existing LTNs in the survey.

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. I think the point being made is that Southwark indicated that it was those areas - within its borough - with comparatively high PTAL scores which would be most eligible for LTNs - Dulwich has one of the lowest PTAL scores in Southwark and yet it is there where immutable LTNs have been imposed. Perhaps you could demonstrate in those areas of low-density terraced houses with low PTAL outside Southwark how many comparable LTNs have been imposed by their councils. And I would agree that the provision of public transport in Dulwich is far better than in some parts (rural?) of the country, but again, in how many of these have LTNs been imposed?

(Banning private vehicles was never in my argument, so not guilty of that.) But the removal ('driving out') of privately owned vehicles from Southwark is in Southwark Labour Party's long term objectives - as stated by them. No reason why they shouldn't have such an objective, it's just not one I sign up to. If we are able we ought to move more and sit less, and if that means a half hour less in front of the telly or in the Q for an over-priced coffee in a plasticised cup, so be it. That is your view, but it is just a view - happy for you to have it, less happy for you to try to impose it on others. I have never suggested that people who want to shouldn't take as much exercise as they wish, for as long as they wish. That is, and should be, their choice. But it should not be their, or your, choice to impose that on others. Perhaps those who CAN, should think about getting into the position of even ENJOYING a one mile walk That is as sensible, and I will avoid reductio and absurdum to say that 'those who CAN, should think about getting into the position of even ENYOING a 2 hour session of boxing sparring' - or indeed any form of exercise or sport which you enjoy. I do happen to enjoy a one mile walk, taken for exercise sake, in good weather - but in fact I don't enjoy wasting my time by walking to get somewhere when, at my age, I have little time left to waste. I also like to chose when I walk, and where, not be forced into walking in urban streets because I have to, at a time not really of my choice. I do feel strongly that people are getting lazier and unrealistic about what is a reasonable amount of self-propelled transport. Your view, but not necessarily everyone's (indeed many would consider, I'm sure, that they are not lazy or getting lazier - do you think you are?) - but I resist your desire to impose your view on others. Hold it, by all means, of course, but do not think you have a right for your view to transcend.

Goldilocks - if walking fifteen minutes both ends is a deal ender, well, what a state of affairs. A 15 minute walk is - roughly - a mile (assuming a 'normal' walking pace of 4 miles an hour). For many elderly or disabled a mile walk is actually up to an hours journey - so four hours added to a day there (2 '15 minute' walks at both ends of the day). Plus the time actually taken to commute. Or if you are carrying a load, you may make it quicker, but still be pretty tired at the end of it. If you are fit and young, of course that's not a problem (or shouldn't be) - but many are not fit and young, and to set up systems which only benefit the fit and young is discriminatory. And to say - 'if you can't do that, you should move' is, frankly, an obscenity, even were that a practical option. If you are to ban the use of private vehicles - or set off in the way to do that - without practical and useful alternatives for all citizens available before, not well after, the event, then that is the act of a totalitarian regime who cares nothing for the actual people in their remit. Which does seem par for our particular course...

Libretto's (Butchers) in Wood Vale has poppies.

I do think the uniqueness of the Dulwich area The Dulwich area is also very hilly (which militates against the elderly and frail using push bikes, and indeed against families with young children having to push them in prams) and very poorly served for east: west public transport - the fact that there is a thriving high street is in this instance a saving grace - without that the Southwark attacks on private car ownership would be a direct and irresistible attack on any but the fit, young and unencumbered to live here at all.

Rockets wrote (sorry for the delay in response - it was only yesterday yet 2 more pages have emerged since then...) Penguin68 - you live on Underhill does a 3% increase in traffic seem accurate to you? I wouldn't, to be honest, notice an increase of only 3% (would you?) - but I have seen the road much busier at times, and even standing traffic at the evening rush outside my house (which in 33 years of living here I have only ever seen when the road has been blocked by skip deliveries being made - not the case here, in the main). It is certainly noticeably worse at rush hours still - particularly the evening - although the middle of the day can be quite as quiet as it used to be. However, since the Thames Water road blocks have eased, so has the traffic, so I cannot put the worst of it to LTN diversions (nor can I say it wasn't those that stimulated the traffic, until people found alternative routes to spread the load). Overall my impression is that there is now more traffic than there used to be - and that would have to be an increase greater than 3% as I really wouldn't be able to judge something as small as that.

Underhill Road figures Just to comment that one of the counting 'posts' was just outside my house in Underhill - it was in place for less than a week, and for 36 hours or so one of the two strips was lying loose - the fixing on the side of the road opposite the counting mechanism had failed, although this was subsequently re-fixed. I would not place a huge amount of faith in whatever this returned. I cannot comment on other strips on Underhill - how long they stayed or whether they stayed intact.

Shame there isn't an old red phone box - that would be perfect But for how long? I believe phone boxes are powered from the local exchanges (as is the 'first' phone in the house if hard-wired) - hence 999 calls can be made from fixed lines when there is otherwise a power outtage. However, in the move to VOIP telephony (packet switching) - which BT is implementing - the old style exchange powered lines (PSTN) will stop. When this happens the power feed to old telephone boxes will also stop. So keeping defibrillators charged up will also cease, if they are housed in Telephone boxes. Very happy to stand corrected on this, of course.

LTNs do more harm than good and are actually harming the majority of residents of Dulwich. As a general statement ('LTNs do more harm than good') this is not supportable. In the specific Dulwich example it is however arguable that the balance of benefit has been skewed, and that the dis-benefits to areas to which traffic has been displaced outweigh the benefits to those in the protected areas. Certainly numbers of London councils (a significant number I think that started down the LTN route) other than Southwark have stopped or severely pruned back their initial proposals in the light of actual experience. And as regards pollution, no chance has been given to see what the ULEZ expansion has/ will do for e.g. particulate levels. Indeed their track record would suggest that Southwark will claim any improvements as being LTN rather than ULEZ driven - whatever the actual truth (which is not being measured for, I'm guessing) shows. What is certainly true is that publicly provided travel alternatives to private vehicles are very poorly provided for here - particularly for East West traffic - and the topology and demographics (hills and old people or people with very young children etc.) make the actual alternatives (bike or walking) unattractive or very difficult for a significant portion of the local population. And if you have to walk or bike along roads with standing traffic to get to where you need to be going, actually dangerous, health wise. What is forgotten is that the sealed roads may be nice to walk and bike along, if you can, but they may not actually take you where you need to go. Indeed, and in the main, the benefit of the sealed roads is directed at those who actually live there, and very few others.

LTNs do more harm than good and are actually harming the majority of residents of Dulwich. As a general statement ('LTNs do more harm than good') this is not supportable. In the specific Dulwich example it is however arguable that the balance of benefit has been skewed, and that the dis-benefits to areas to which traffic has been displaced outweigh the benefits to those in the protected areas. Certainly numbers of London councils (a significant number I think that started down the LTN route) other than Southwark have stopped or severely pruned back their initial proposals in the light of actual experience. And as regards pollution, no chance has been given to see what the ULEZ expansion has/ will do for e.g. particulate levels. Indeed their track record would suggest that Southwark will claim any improvements as being LTN rather than ULEZ driven - whatever the actual truth (which is not being measured for, I'm guessing) shows. What is certainly true is that publicly provided travel alternatives to private vehicles are very poorly provided for here - particularly for East West traffic - and the topology and demographics (hills and old people or people with very young children etc.) make the actual alternatives (bike or walking) unattractive or very difficult for a significant portion of the local population. And if you have to walk or bike along roads with standing traffic to get to where you need to be going, actually dangerous, health wise. What is forgotten is that the sealed roads may be nice to walk and bike along, if you can, but they may not actually take you where you need to go. Indeed, and in the main, the benefit of the sealed roads is directed at those who actually live there, and very few others.

a) The consultation newsletter was sent to 19,729 addresses. Clearly many of these will have multiple occupiers so the number of residents it reached will be much higher. Whilst you cannot 'know', it does seem possible at least that some responses may have been made on a 'household consensus' rather than just an individual basis, at least at times (ours was) - so a single response may represent more than one resident. b) The consultation was for local residents and 5,538 identified as living or working on streets within the consultation zone. It would have been only these responses which were included in the consultation results. Is this stated anywhere? They say that 209 were voided as being duplicates - but do they say that the ones from those not living or working in the area were voided? You assumption that the %age response was less than 37% is based on responses only being on a wholly individual basis and that the ones from outside the area were actually excluded. Both of these are I think assumptions but not necessarily facts.

My booster on Friday - slightly tender arm (if pressed) for about 24 hours, no other side effects. My other half the same. Locally the booster appears to be Pfizer.

I was alerted on the 6th month anniversary, to the day. But I think you can book your own boosters, without GP intervention, but only after 6 months have passed. So in just a couple of days. I think there are links on this board.

There has always been a regular fluctuation in school place demand (since the post-war baby boomers gave a population blip) - but currently (and outwith some immigration issues) birth-rates are well below stable replacement rates in much of Europe, and especially the UK. And that's without population movement around the country. So this is probably a nettle that can't avoid being grasped. Of course, one 'solution' would be to use the spare capacity to radically reduce class sizes - on the assumption (still to be proven) that this will increase achievement which would possibly lead to an economic upturn (over time) which would pay back the additional costs per pupil head (again, over quite a considerable time).

one can continue to test positive for 90 (My emphasis). Your GP is right, but I would certainly get yourselves tested closer to the day of departure (and lateral flows would be a good first step) - although you can it doesn't mean you will. And you could be clear (negative) much earlier.

What costs are likely to be paid if a school is made to close? Do they compensate staff for wages, etc? I am assuming that initially Southwark would look to place staff in schools which would be taking any displaced pupils from the closure, but otherwise staff would be able to call on statutory redundancy payments (or better if the unions can negotiate that) - like any failed business; but I'm guessing with some more certainty of payment. As an employer with multiple (educational) 'business' sites, Southwark would probably move through voluntary to compulsory redundancy, assuming that they would be able to place a number of teachers and support staff in other roles within the borough. Normal employment legislation would offer staff some certainties as to 'the worst' that could happen. I would also assume that the borough, if it did actually close schools, would aim to sell the sites to recoup some losses.

We're hoping to travel at Christmas but won't be able to take a PCR test before travel as we'll still test positive for Covid then (it will be within the 90 days from our positive Covid test) You need to check with your GP - but I would expect you to test 'clear' (negative) within 14 days of no symptoms - some suggest 10 days. You would still expect antibodies in 90 days - but that's good - shows you are still actively able to attack a new infection. You could still test positive more than 14 days after symptoms go (or after a positive test if it's asymptomatic) - but you could try it out with lateral flow tests before committing to a PCR. 90 days is a very wide estimate. Our own quarantine rules (England) have set a 14 day limit for quarantine.

I wouldn't worry, a lot of things that go in the blue bins can't actually be recycled - crushed tins and plastic bottles, even where made of recyclable materials, often are rejected if their shape doesn't conform to expectations. As is anything but bone dry cardboard (which would, actually, work well as a composted material, but can't be put in the kitchen and garden waste!).