geh

Good job I only left an hour and a half to get to Euston this morning. Bus stop closed, that?s ok walk to the next one. 37 came to be greeted by the driver, this bus ain?t going nowhere, and shut the doors! Uber ordered, bus departs (!) Uber to Brixton and then 15 mins to get into the station because of escalator works. Joined up coordinated public transport network it is not.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > geh Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > so it appears the implementation of a strategy > > that deliberately targets residents rather than > > longer journey commuters, and says 'to hell' > with > > a joined up transport network is ok then? > > TfL run the public transport. Not Southwark > Council. If you want more/better buses or a tube > line in SE London, or more frequent trains from > North/East Dulwich stations or introduction of > Santander Cycles to the area, that's TfL. > > The theory is that any schemes that impact > residents (such as closing roads) are done by > looking at the existing (and potential new) public > transport options, then working out what is > possible, feasible, realistic & economically > viable when combined with those. > > The council is basically the go-between for TfL > London-wide transport and local trips transport, > the main aim being to get far more local trips > done by public transport, bicycle and walking than > car. Which is not James Barbers view on how it will work!

so it appears the implementation of a strategy that deliberately targets residents rather than longer journey commuters, and says 'to hell' with a joined up transport network is ok then?

just adding up forum posts this year there appear to have been 17 of these incidents. would love to catch them at it

apparently two more near Sainsburys by the Plough

It?s a Saturday, suspect proposed restrictions would not apply. Not sure what a school does about visiting teams. Maybe a coach park on MOL? I?d like to think the number of children involved in sport goes some way to offset the car use! Not sure that 1 bus service to Brixton, the nearest station on the underground network can be described as ?excellent bus connections?. In fact as a regular user I would suggest the opposite.

Why has Southwark installed a row of electric car charging points in Townley Rd if they are now seeking to restrict traffic access to the road.

Rather slanted survey, no opportunity to comment generally, presumably specifically designed to disallow. Question 4 regarding potential hours for Townley Road closure is similar to the questions Southwark adopted in the East Dulwich CPZ survey and slanted towards the response they want. No mention of public transport whatsoever.

sad that the proposals overlook the opportunity to improve east west public transport (ie the single bus to/from Brixton being the unreliable 37), and also it appears that the ???'s and disruption attributed to the Court Rd/Carlton Avenue/Dulwich Village junction "improvements" were in fact for nothing. No consideration to knock on/displacement ie Lordship Lane/Sth Circular at Grove Tavern, East Dulwich Grove/Melbourne Grove.

Another one in Melbourne Grove this morning

lived here for near on 20 years. can't move, too good

I rarely go to Sainsburys anymore so I find it quite useful!

Maybe I?m old now but to the two families in Franca Manca tonight, is it really acceptable in a packed restaurant to stand your toddlers on the tables (which presumably others will soon eat off) in their wellies, in order to put nappies on them? I would have thought it would be more suitable to use the WC?s? I do hope you left a suitably large tip for the staff who spend a considerable amount of time both clearing up after you, and also apologising to other diners for your generally boorish behaviour? Perhaps you have some similarly minded friends who would also like to live here? I?m fast coming to the view that I would be best placed to rent them my house at over the odds, thus funding me to sit on my arse and enjoy somewhere with fewer obnoxious, self-centred, myopic individuals (if such a place exists?). Enjoy the half term!

used to commued ED to Twickenham, hellish, but not compared to the alternatives. Get the right gear and use it, even in the summer. Parking can be terrible in the west end, can be ok! Oh yes, ride in the mindset that no one has seen you, and if they have, they are aiming straight at you, sadly both cases are usually right. I cycle and drive too, just remember the roads are a shared resource (despite what many think) and look out for others as you would yourself.

What time?s the first time plane due? That?s what I?d call antisocial.

Loved it!

It?s beautiful, every bank holiday those who can't cut it leave London for the sanctity of the shires leaving the true to live it up in peace. Interlopers who all eventually find they can't stick it!!! (partially tongue in cheek!)

check todays Times, 4 bed no loft conversion ?1.35M. utter insanity.

quite a few new openings, imho they should all be celebrated, much better than empty units.

in response: Borderlands Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think the threat to MOL has been lifted at > all in the new plans. Dunno why you think that. My post indicates "the chatter seems to suggest that it avoids development of MOL" > > And I would question your claim that the DHFC > being an "important cultural driver" whatever that > is. It's just a football stadium for goodness sake > - let's not suggest this is the primary reason for > residents wanting to stay here or that this is > what attracts others to want to live and work in > the area.... Actually what I said was DHFC is an "important cultural and economic driver" The outreach initiatives are well documented, rasing awareness, money and support for sometimes under represented causes - in my view worthwhile. Added to this is the direct economic benefit to local business, assisting in supporting the vibrant and independent nature of the same, which in fact I do consider to be one of the reasons residents want to stay/move here! > > What we're talking about here is planning > permission for a large (compared to the mixed > housing of the surrounding locality), > every-expense spared design. It's not just that > the proposed new estate is completely out of > keeping with the district, but it pays scant > regard for any consideration to do with parking, > traffic, access to schools and healthcare. Parking and traffic will I suspect be considered via the planning process in the normal way, although taking the football club in isolation, my feeling is most supporters walk/use public transport. Access to schools/heathcare is not within the scope of an individual developer, however contributions towards the same can be raised via S. 106 payments. Last time I looked, East Dulwich had 3 new(ish) schools and a new health centre/hospital under construction. I agree, perhaps 6 stories is too much, however there are a number of similar scale developments of 4-5 stories throughout East Dulwich - East Dulwich Road, and Lordship Lane to the south > > It proposes a number of 6 storey blocks - although > the actual height in the existing landscape isn't > clear from the pics in the submitted plans - but > looks as if these will loom large above the > existing estate. And, if we agree that we need > more new homes in the area, these proposals aren't > about providing social housing for families - > which is what's needed around here ie., low rise > family houses with gardens. Ain't going to happen > - this is all about money, money, money. Sadly, it is about money, and if schemes don't stack up, they won't get built. Agreed we probably do need more family homes for rent, but is this the site for them? Southwark are pursuing direct developments of existing garage sites for these uses. The only way that will happen here is if the scheme were to be subject to a CPO, and despite the previous threat, that seems highly unlikely. > > Take a look at 35%'s old blog about the Hadley > Scheme: > http://35percent.org/dulwich-hamlet-stadium/ Sadly the provision of social housing is now primarily left to the private sector (exceptions as I've noted above)whose primary motive is profit, I don't think its right, the publication of viability assesments does at least open them to challenge which is a good think. Ultimately stalling the redevelopment of this site which will accommodate the long term security of DHFC and provide new homes will help no one. Ensuring the suitability of the design and scale of the proposals is what the planning system is there to do.

Whilst I'm yet to review the application (and am not a planner!) the chatter seems to suggest that it avoids development of MOL. As in many planning applications compromise will out, however its always difficult to satisfy sometimes very polarised opinions. If the redevelopment can mollify the MOL objections, allow DHFC - who are achieving gates of c. 3,000 for Saturday home games to remain in SE22 as an important cultural and economic driver and provide much needed housing, including the appropriate affordable quotient then the redevelopment deserves support.

my view is that as a community focused club the vast majority of DHFC fans are acutely aware and concerned about the proposed plans and the extent to whcih any redevelopment will impact on the local area

"DHFC malcontents"?

69% against so let?s bring in a partial CPZ Really Southwark?