FairTgirl

Fashion-conscience Store East Dulwich are running a series of local designer pop-ups this April and May 2024. Featuring jewellery, ceramics, prints, plants and fashion, we will be supporting new designer makers from our store. We already have some in the pipeline but are looking for more brilliant creatives. It's a great opportunity to test out your products, market them, chat to customers and get feedback. We are primarily focused on eco, handmade, fair, organic products from local makers. Additionally if you have baked pastries/cakes & a mobile coffee offer, do also please get in touch. If you would like to be involved please DM us or email us on [email protected] to find out more.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Plus I think I saw (not sure where - possibly > twitter), that the hard copy leaflets went to > residents on Melbourne Grove but not the > businesses (who were missed out last time) - > similar for closures on Rye Lane. > > The One Dulwich FoI info is also on their website. > Not sure what the base data looked like / how > they extracted the positive info, but looks > interesting... > > https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich- > village-junction This is correct, not a single business in the review area was sent the newsletter about the review, but flats above businesses and direct neighbours were.

Speaking on behalf of Grove Vale and MG North businesses - the figures I mentioned were for BAME owned businesses or managed business in a survey taken late last year - employees may well take it higher as many of us have BAME employees and in many instances the business and employees are entirely BAME. You can check the individual postcodes related to the relevant roads to get a picture of the census data for residents and social housing. It is great to see the crowdfunder has almost reached its target in 5 days.

If you look at census data it has 70% social housing residents on Grove Vale, 63% BAME residents. If you ask the businesses they are 60% BAME businesses on Grove Vale, 60% BAME businesses on Melbourne Grove. Lordship Lane estimate 50% BAME businesses. But isn't the crowdfunder about finding out what is happening with air quality in the area and if problems are being created that are currently not being monitored so they can be addressed? Which surely benefits everyone? Especially schools and nurseries.

Hi there, I am looking for a local seamstress skilled at making made to measure good quality sofa and chair cushions covers to cover existing cushions seat panels etc for a several pieces of furntiure. Please DM me with any links to work or pics. I will provide the fabric so just the skills needed! Would prefer to give work to locals who need than a larger company Thank you x

This is interesting too from a lifelong Labour member and A road dweller. https://www.onlondon.co.uk/paul-wheeler-why-londons-road-wars-are-tearing-labour-apart/ If you have any objections to the ED LTN you can still officially object today, just go to the first post in this thread for all you need and who to send it to.

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-residents-are-furious-after-council-experiments-with-road-closures/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dulwich-residents-are-furious-after-council-experiments-with-road-closures

Is 2 months after the closures went in, still immediately after? Some of the incidents LAS list relating to Dulwich Village were in September, the closures were 30 June. In a youtube Zoom with Southwark Env Scrutiny Committee on Nov 4 Southwark Fire Service say they were still 'trying to report' to an SC lead around problems. They were not sure if they had been on site at all road closures to advise on problems as SC were introducing them before telling LFB about them. LFB made it clear they had had minimal interaction with SC and LTNs and their usual process of being told about plans before hand so they could visit and identify problems before they arose was not happening. LFB says Nov 4 'depending on what the restrictions are, if it is static, a flower pot, or raised planter we *would* have issues getting through those'. This is after stating quite clearly to SC they did not support hard closures in a meeting 16 July 2020. So nothing had really changed between July 2020 and Nov 2020, some 4 months later.

For anyone interested, a piece in Telegraph about a dossier of emails sent to Southwark Council from London Ambulance Service outlining delays to reach critically ill and patients in life-threatening sitautions caused by the East Dulwich and Dulwich Village hard barriers and LAS continued appeals to remove or change barriers for alternatives. https://twitter.com/GroveReopen/status/1358358160734576642/photo/1

snowy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But one that?s not often recommended by traffic > planners eg > > https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/services/streets-and-hi > ghway-maintenance/road-safety/traffic-schemes/one- > way-streets > > ?Many streets suffer from rat-running or high > traffic volumes and may benefit from the > introduction of this type of control, but it is > likely that: > > Some traffic will simply be diverted onto other > less suitable streets > > The new one-way street may attract more traffic > albeit in the remaining direction > > Residents may have to access their street by an > alternative and less convenient route which may > involve the use of other neighbouring streets > > Traffic speeds may increase due to drivers' > perception that there is no opposing traffic > Without physical traffic calming there may be an > increase in accidents and their severity > Some, particularly short sections of one-way > street are likely to be contravened by drivers > thereby requiring police enforcement.? Much of this describes what is already occurring as a result of LTNs. One ways and cycle routes that could potentially link up public transport hubs and local schools would undoubtably be an improvement on what came before and will lessen the unfair displacement occurring as result of the LTNs.

Think East Dulwich Square may be the same or related to this CIL funding request from... Southwark Cyclists. https://goosegreenmapcil.commonplace.is/comments/5ed42e12df3b12cea3a5c766 - and attached. The space, even if you fill in the loading bay for M & S feels quite limited to create a square, although some tidying up would be good. Not sure if it got CIL funding and this is additional, or it didn't (although I thought I read it had got funding alongside the EDG/LL junction) but as they are both in the Devolved Highways funding requests I am not sure if they had funding or enough perhaps...

Hi there - it is 19 Feb - this Friday "Low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) are being introduced in wealthier streets at the expense of poorer neighbouring roads". [www.thetimes.co.uk]

Wasn't there also a discussion during the meeting of widening the review area to include Dulwich Hill? Perhas it will in relation to the ED LTN. Cllr Rose seemed to be in agreement with Cllr Hartley and Cllr Browning around this. Given they seem to have felt alot of displacement in their ward it should. But whether it does is another matter of course....

If you have an objection to the closures, please read the first post in this thread and email all your local and national representatives. A review process is underway and all objections legally need to be taken into account. It is worth noting that no elderly or disability groups were consulted in any of these schemes, and none sit on Southwark Council Walking or Cycling Steering Groups, who have both been instrumental in steering the path to LTNs. A borough wide exceptionally basic and insufficient EqIA was used, which has already come under heavy critisim from the High Court. Nothing was looked at on a scheme by scheme basis. The only consultees other than Emergency Services (who were roundly ignored as you may have already read from the minutes of meeting between Southwark and Emergency Services and repeated emails to Southwark), were Southwark Cyclists. One of the impacts of this scheme has been an increase in traffic on Underhill Road, where RNIB Bradbury Oak House is located. One of the staff spoke in the Dulwich Hill Zoom meeting on Low Traffic Southwark on Tuesday, outlining how the increased traffic on their road is causing problems for their group as the roads are now far more dangerous for themselves and their guide dogs to cross. This is why proper EqIA and inclusivity and diversity in steering groups on really impactful infrastructure changes are vital, 'experimental' or not.

The A road in question on this was A2216 which is Grove Vale/Lordship Lane, I think the lady lives on it and mentioned her child walks down it and down EDG to school, so relevant as both are boundary roads. It is possible that some people were afraid to say exactly where they lived for recriminations, some local pro-LTNers have been pretty nasty online, creating multiple fake accounts with fake names pretending to be real people who live on closed roads to troll residents and businesses, so can't say I blame her and others for being cautious.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe - the big issue for the council is that they > cannot rely on those benefitting from living on a > closed road to join and herald how "wonderful" the > closures are. Also on the Melbourne Grove meeting > they insisted everyone identified which road they > lived on in the ward so they ensured the meeting > was focussed on the comments of the most local > residents (which is perfectly ok it just meant > that it was dominated by those not living with the > displacement and allowed the council to control > the narrative). > > I know of a lot of people who live in the Dulwich > Hill ward who are being impacted by the > displacement and are taking this as their > opportunity to be heard as they feel they have > been overlooked as the council tries to manipulate > things. Afraid this was not the case, quite a few people who spoke in favour of the LTN, and took it an an opportunity to wang on about their lives, did so without identifiying where they lived to the Cllrs, people we all know who live quite some distance from the ED LTN in question. Sure they will also turn up at the Dulwich Hill meeting too although they do not live in that ward either.

The time has come if you have not already, and wish to object - to legally object to the East Dulwich Road Closures. TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich (road closures on Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Melbourne Grove and Tintagel Crescent); and TMO2021-EXP02_LSP Dulwich?and?TMO2021-EXP16_LSP Dulwich 2?(Melbourne Grove South, and closures in Dulwich Village) Deadline to do so is 19 Feb 2021. You need to write to: [email protected]@southwark.gov.uk, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Additional emails to cc in are listed below. State in Subject line: Official Objection to TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich This is the official objection that Cabinet Member for Roads, Cllr Catherine Rose must legally take into account as part of the review process of these closures. *Please add your name and address of your home or business to your email. Grounds for objections can include: - Blocking 4 well-used and vital access to routes to Kings? College hospital - very worrying emails from London Ambulance Service to Southwark Council emerged yesterday, showing they were appealing to Southwark Council to re-open or amend these closures since September as they, and resultant congestion were risking lives. These emails were ignored. They had been appealing to Southwark Council around other local closures since July 2020. - Increased congestion and pollution on surrounding boundary roads users, residents, businesses and schools, heavy pedestrian routes which many use for passage to school, bus stops, stations - Impacts of increased pollution and loss of access and parking to local businesses - Social injustice and discrimination of funnelling all local traffic onto roads with most social housing and BAME residents and lowest car ownership - Increased environmental damage resulting from idling congested traffic, travelling more vehicle miles - the lack of traffic and air pollution monitoring prior to and during the implementation, the absence of any conscientious assessment of the risk and extent of adverse impacts on those in protected groups, and the flawed implementation of existing Southwark policy.?? An expanded list of objections are here: https://www.onedulwich.uk/dv-objections Feel free to copy these objections into your email. [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]@southwark.gov.uk, [email protected] [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] But do send an email if you have any objections. You can also use this link https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp quoting reference ?TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich?. Or write a letter here: Traffic Order consultations, Highways, Southwark Council, Environment and Leisure, P.O. Box 64529, London SE1P 5LX

The time has come and wish to object, to legally object to the East Dulwich Road Closures, Traffic Road Order TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich (Road closures on Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Melbourne Grove and Tintagel Crescent); and TMO2021-EXP02_LSP Dulwich?and?TMO2021-EXP16_LSP Dulwich 2?(Melbourne Grove South, and closures in Dulwich Village) Deadline to do so is 19 Feb 2021. You need to write to: [email protected]@southwark.gov.uk, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Additional recommended emails to cc in are listed below. State in Subject line: Official Objection to TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich *Please add your name and address of your home or business to your email. This is the official objection that Cabinet Member for Roads, Cllr Catherine Rose must legally take into account as part of the review process of these closures. Grounds for objections may include: - Blocking 4 well-used and vital access to routes to Kings? College hospital - very worrying emails from London Ambulance Service to Southwark Council emerged yesterday, showing they were appealing to Southwark Council to re-open or amend these closures since September as they, and resultant congestion were risking lives. These emails were ignored. They had been appealing to Southwark Council around other local closures since July 2020. - Increased congestion and pollution on surrounding boundary roads users, residents, businesses and schools, heavy pedestrian routes which many use for passage to school, bus stops, stations - Impacts of increased pollution and loss of access and parking to local businesses - Social injustice and discrimination of funnelling all local traffic onto roads with most social housing and BAME residents and lowest car ownership - Increased environmental damage resulting from idling congested traffic, travelling more vehicle miles - Public health risk associated with increased pollution, linked to Covid deaths, during a pandemic - the lack of traffic and air pollution monitoring prior to and during the implementation, the absence of any conscientious assessment of the risk and extent of adverse impacts on those in protected groups, and the flawed implementation of existing Southwark policy.?? An expanded list of objections are here: https://www.onedulwich.uk/dv-objections Feel free to copy these objections into your email. Below are more officers, councillors and MPs you may which to send you objections to who have an interest. [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] But do send an email if you have any objections. You can also use this link https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp quoting reference ?TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich?. Or write a letter here: Traffic Order consultations, Highways, Southwark Council, Environment and Leisure, P.O. Box 64529, London SE1P 5L

The section in which this resides was originally all retail and business, this is the section closest to the station, as mentioned it has been for 120 years, and there can still be scope for residential as well as retail, nor does it have to be cafe. The point being made is that if this property becomes 100% residential even at street level (in amongst businesses) it will unlikely ever return to business or retail and so ends 120 years of this vital part of community when there is an opportunity for something very appealing on the road that also serves the community.

Planning Application to change business premises to flats on Melbourne Grove North Some business and private residents have just received a letter for Planning application 21/AP/0020 to turn 1B -1C Melbourne Grove, SE22 - a former warehouse in a lovely character Victorian building into 4 private flats. Comments must be submitted by 11 Feb here: https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QMF3B2KBKGO00 Over the past few years there has been a trend towards closed business properties being sold and turned into private flats - we hasten to add not social housing or subsidised Government schemes. Melbourne Grove North section between East Dulwich Station and Jarvis Road has been a run of local independent owner run businesses for 120 years, but over time, and now accelerated by changes in planning, a closed business premises can all too easily be turned into flats. Once they have changed use to residential there is usually no return to retail and we lose local businesses services and the laudable goal of the 15 Minute City, which fails if there are no businesses left in a neighbourhood. As a neighbour to this property we think this would be a huge shame. The building has a unique frontage which would make for a great independent shop or cafe/restaurant. We have been approached by businesses such as Gail?s and artisan wine and cheese businesses in the past to lease part of our building and were some of this property at 1B-1C to be retained as a retail business, ie the street level, a really vibrant buzzy business which only enhances this section of Melbourne Grove North, and could lead to something of a revival for this area, currently depressed by restrictions and closures and deserving a much needed boost. A restaurant venture with some outdoor seating and cycle storage seating could really do well here so close to the station. If the whole building was converted to residential that opportunity will be gone for good. I think given the year local business have endured, we all want to see local independents have every opportunity to bounce back and flourish. Allowing business premises to be turned into flats, especially at street level, unchecked, only contributes to the death of our high-streets.

That's the million dollar question isn't it... whose idea is all of this tinkering with closing roads into DV spending the Tfl funds (tax payer money) that could be better spent with some decent public transport and cycling infrastructure work for the whole area. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who is actually in leading this process within the > council - is it the local councillors, Cllr Rose > or someone else? Do we know?

You should. All that you point out is very valid especially related to the green spaces and sports grounds. I don't know whose idea all of this is, but it so shockingly myopic. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that?s what it is saying - and also access > to Belair Park, the drop off for the DPL nursery > in Gallery Road, and the DPL sports ground in > Gallery Road - and also means the only vehicular > access to the major sports facilities in Burbage > and Turney Road (including the part of the sports > ground accessed from Gallery Road) would be via > The Half Moon Lane end of Burbage Road, as far as > I can tell. Given that people come to use those > facilities from well outside the area (for school > sports, for after school training, and for > fixtures attended by opposition teams) - this is > going to make things very difficult if not > impossible for them. All in all the effect would > be to close off the green resources of Dulwich to > those outside the area. > > I completely get the aim of encouraging people to > do things locally and the 15 minute city type > thinking - but we have to be careful that we?re > not denying people access to key community > facilities and green space just because they live > more than 15 minutes away, where there are no > similar facilities in the area where they live... > > I?ll email Cllr Rose and the ward councillors to > see > If I can find out anything...

I like the second to last sentence - an acknowldgement by Southwark perhaps that the monitoring of all the others is quite poor, or non-existent. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Decision notice on the first batch of Guys and St > Thomas schemes at > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s92258 > /Record%20of%20Decision.pdf. Interesting read as > it records all the various concerns raised by the > local ward councillors, Cllrs Burgess and > Wingfield, including effects of displacement, > social justice concerns, lack of air quality > monitoring, lack of consultation. Going ahead on > an experimental basis, decision notes that > > "The proposals have been assessed and the > locations chosen based on an assessment of the > indices of multiple deprivation to ensure it is > being delivered in an area that is most in need. > While it is accepted that there will be some > displacement of traffic on to the periphery roads > it should be noted that this is a trial scheme and > a robust system of monitoring will be put in place > to measure this and the results of this will be > considered as part of any further decision making > over the future of this scheme. This traffic flow > data will also allow the council to make an > assessment of any air quality changes that may > occur as a direct result of the scheme without the > figures being affected by the many other sources > of pollution or prevailing weather conditions. > Additional investigation work will also be carried > out with air quality monitoring specialists to > determine if there is an economically feasible > methodology to more accurately assess air quality > changes. > The principle of an experimental order is to allow > people living in the area to experience the > changes to help them form an opinion. Full > consultation will be carried out following the > implementation of the measures and the council > will respond to any representations received > during the initial monitoring period. As part of > the public engagement for the scheme officers will > ensure proper discussions with Orchard House are > carried out. > It should further be noted that the proposed > monitoring regime for the schemes is far more > comprehensive than anything else associated with > LTNs across the borough. This, in conjunction with > the reference sites, should allow a comprehensive > assessment of the effects of the proposed > measures."

This is a brilliant idea! PeckhamNicola Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Saw this in Southwark Life - rent a tree and then > it is collected and aken away to carry on growing > after Christmas. > > https://www.londonchristmastreerental.com/ > > They are, however, already out of stock. But you > can join waiting list, or mailing list for 2021 > advance notice.

I think what you have uncovered here is quite alarming for Croxted and Lordship Lane and EDG. For 2 hours a day in the am and 3 hours in the pm, all traffic trying to get into DV from Croxted or South Circular will need to do a big circuit around DV and come in via these routes. The pressure on LL and EDG will be immense - and EDG has so many schools on it that traffic will be funnelled past. All deliveries, trucks, through traffic all going past the same high streets, houses and schools. The draw bridges are going up and nowt shall pass. DV shops trade to anyone other residents will die. Surely this flies against everything these Labour councillors say they stand for and climate change by sending cars on longer routes and creating yet more congestion. Commend you for uncovering this Legalalien. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes but do note the expanded scope of the closures > they are now speaking to TfL about. I failed to > notice this non the first read through, but it > does look as though they are planning to expand > Fortress Dulwich a little further (or at least > shore up the defences...)