FairTgirl

n dulwich northerner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I went past Fashion-Conscience and they did have a > few East Dulwich mugs in the window. They do indeed have mugs and lots of prints, small and large

These are so brilliantly written, also watched them growing up and parents loved them. Can find on Brit Box apparently.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A letter from a frustrated resident: > > https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/these-ltns-are-crea > ting-an-unwanted-two-tier-borough > > The question at the end: "So who is gaining from > this in Croydon council?" has also crossed my mind > - who is gaining from this in Southwark council. I would hope that any Cllrs who genuinely actually beleive in social justice and call themselves socialists would be appalled at the idea of a Labour council creating a Two Tier Southwark but this resident make a real point. Road closures funding (if Southwark will be given anymore) should be focused in the more northern parts of Southwark where poverty is highest, BAME population highest, they have the best public transport links and lowest car ownership but the worst pollution. These are the exact categories outlined for successful LTNs. It is obvious that the reason they have not been instigated there is because the people in those areas do not have a voice, or are not as proficient in the process of lobbying as the groups in areas of ED and DV.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FairTgirl Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > dulwichfolk Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I heard they also get a council tax amnesty > and > > > chocolates and flowers delivered once a > > week...by > > > bike obviously. > > > > > > Isn?t the main entrance to the school due to > > move > > > to east dulwich grove? Or is that just for > some > > > years. > > > > Next September it will be the main entrance. By > > which time it may as well be on MG as all > > businesses will be gone at this rate. > > > I think the plan is to turn EDG into a school > street by then ... Practically speaking were these current road closures to stay, what would happen to any traffic going down EDG when it was during a school streets timed closure? Assuming it was some kind of barrier rather than cameras. Would it just sit and wait, as only other options would be to do u-turns back? Even if it is camera/fining people may do that if they realise they will be fined. Genuinely wondering...

dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I heard they also get a council tax amnesty and > chocolates and flowers delivered once a week...by > bike obviously. > > Isn?t the main entrance to the school due to move > to east dulwich grove? Or is that just for some > years. Next September it will be the main entrance. By which time it may as well be on MG as all businesses will be gone at this rate.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So they're closing a road at school times that has > already been closed - a double whammy!? Why do > they need this - according to the pro-closure > propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has now been > fixed - reference the photos of children milling > around the school. Or is it that the closure of > the road has created a school drop-off cul-de-sac > - as is happening at the end of Court Lane at the > moment which looks like a car park? > > Have the traders been consulted as the council > states that there is a "minor inconvenience" that > no-one will be able to get access to the parking > bays? This could be the final nail in the coffin > for some businesses around Melbourne Grove. > > Are the residents in support as that prevents all > access to their properties during those hours? We brought this up months ago with Cllrs when first becaome aware of the proposal, and actually referenced it again to Cllrs today. It is pretty unnecessary given the road is already closed, Head of Charter admitted as much. There is no issue with these timed restrictions for School Streets on it's own but the fact there is already a closure, removed parking bays, CPZ AND this will disrupt what little parking there is... yes probably final nail in coffin. Depending on the barriers residents cars can usually get through - but not sure how that applies to business/delivieries etc - will they just be doing U-turns on EDG? Wondering how that will help the EDG congestion situation and safety of pupils.

For anyone interested this was the video submitted to Southwark Council's Cabinet Meeting supporting the E-petition signed by more than 2700 now.

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For anyone who had technical issues - here is a > link to the video presented by Dougie. > > Sorry - didn't spot you'd already done it!

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It will be up to everyone to keep expressing views > and make sure something happens. But it didn?t > sound like a blanket ?no change, let?s wait the > full period and see? as advocated by the clean air > etc lady ... the door seems to be open to some > immediate tweaks to address the major problems (at > least that?s what I heard, although that could be > confirmation bias at work) That was my take home - 'we are going to do some reviews'. Urgent ones I hope.

For anyone who had technical issues - here is a link to the video presented by Dougie.

I took advice, you can do this - it will cost you to send a letter as first course of action, it will get them to pay attention - but may not do much more - anything beyond that could get very expensive - but you have time to do it. I will PM you with a local solicitor's details who has experience in these matters. He gave me some good advice but we sadly didn't have time on our side.

Huggers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so everyone will take the right hand rye fork and > then wiggle through our peckham residential > streets coming onto east dulwich road via Fenwick > street? oh great. In all likelihood yes, or go up to and along Barry Road and track back down residential roads to EDG or Lordship Lane. Similar to get to Nunhead. I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that air pollution in Southwark is a public health crisis but the council needs to be held to account for the haphazard and inexplicable manner in which they appear to be going about closing roads. While at one end of East Dulwich Grove they are closing roads to prevent 'rat-runs' meanwhile creating new 'rat-runs' at the other. Bucky - Once it is live I will post on here for people to sign and share. Good luck!

Has someone created an E-petiton against this on Southwarks own website? That is the petition that the council pay attention to. They will be discussing a petition against road closures in Dulwich and East Dulwich tomorrow. Get one of those going as well as the Chnge petition to get them to listen. Link to do it is here - http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListDisplay.aspx?bcr=1

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > slarti b Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Our councillors are claiming that the traffic > > chaos we have been encountering locally since > the > > road closures and other restictions were > > implemented are nothing to do with the closures. > > > They claim that congestion is instead the > result > > of an increase in traffic compared to > > pre-lockdown. However, The data I have seen > from > > DfT (covering UK) and TfL ( for London) > suggests > > that traffic volumes are actually still below > > pre-lock down levels. If so, this undermines > the > > councillors claims. > > > > Can anyone give me a link to any hard data (not > > opinion articles) on traffic volumes pre and > post > > lockdown? In particular the source of the > > COuncillor's claims? > > > Cllr McAsh used a survey in the Guardian - for > London as a whole. Not specific to here. They did > all quote first week September which was obviously > going to show an uptick as schools went back and > people who had not been able to work with kids at > home may have been able to return. It is possible > that would drop back as people got back into > routines. On another thread on EDF posted by Slarti B which could explain this. It is good to know that at least one of the local councillors is listening to their constituents and thinking a bit more deeply about the implications of these road closures. However there is a major flaw in the his analysis. He quotes from a Guardian article viz. "congestion in London has risen dramatically. On one day in September, it was 53% higher than the previous year." to claim that traffic has increased so more LTN's are needed. This interpretation is not correct, indeed it is significanlty flawed. The measure of congestion used by Waze for this statistic is journey time NOT traffic volumes. So what this is saying is that journeys are taking a lot longer. Other studies, eg DoT and TfL, show that traffic is still below pre-lockdown levels. If so, what this means is that the congestion is caused, not by extra traffic, but by the road closures themselves. And, as the Guardian article shows, this actually increase pollution on the roads affected by the displaced traffic. So, ironically, it seems that LTN's and road closure are actually increasing pollution, which groups like OneDulwich and many posters on here have been saying for months.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Our councillors are claiming that the traffic > chaos we have been encountering locally since the > road closures and other restictions were > implemented are nothing to do with the closures. > They claim that congestion is instead the result > of an increase in traffic compared to > pre-lockdown. However, The data I have seen from > DfT (covering UK) and TfL ( for London) suggests > that traffic volumes are actually still below > pre-lock down levels. If so, this undermines the > councillors claims. > > Can anyone give me a link to any hard data (not > opinion articles) on traffic volumes pre and post > lockdown? In particular the source of the > COuncillor's claims? Cllr McAsh used a survey in the Guardian - for London as a whole. Not specific to here. They did all quote first week September which was obviously going to show an uptick as schools went back and people who had not been able to work with kids at home may have been able to return. It is possible that would drop back as people got back into routines.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pages 20 and 36 Just about to say, I had found it all! Thank you - this is extremely helpful.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Describes the LL portion of EDG, ?It can no longer > be acceptable for any transport schemes to be > developed which cause increases in traffic volumes > on other roads, particularly where there are > vulnerable populations like schools and hospitals, > and when we know those living in poverty, BAME > populations and residents in areas of existing > poor air quality are least able to cope with the > effects of diseases like COVID-19? So time to > rethink the gated community barriers and consider > some positive changes for all - protected cycle > lanes, easy to use cycle stores, public hire > bikes, better wider paving, better more accessible > local public transport, cleaner larger bus > shelters. Hey Heartblock and legalalien - I have looked at the agenda and downloaded the Environment Scrutiny Committee and Cllr Rose Response to Reports and can't find the sections you quote. I may be being blind, but would quite like to find them asap - can you let me know which report they are in or download it and attach?

This is now open - as if yesterday.

Lewisham has responded - some removal, some adaptation. It may not be all that One Lewisham were after but the council were listening. https://lewisham.gov.uk/articles/news/changes-to-lewisham-and-lee-green-low-traffic-neighbourhood-announced It is important now for as many people - residents and business to make formal objections to these the traffic orders. The council has a legal obligation to read them and take them into consideration. Below is for the Phase 2 East Dulwich Closures. Lodge your objections to the road closures [forms.southwark.gov.uk] quoting reference ?TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich?. Please note that if you wish to object to the scheme you must state the grounds on which your objection is made.

For anyone who has not seen it - Cllr McAsh posted this on his blog today. https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/faqs-on-goose-green-ltn-measures

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All, whilst many of us welcomed Cllr McAsh's > comments yesterday upon closer inspection there is > little substance in his post and some alarm bells > are ringing for me. > > I posted on the Councillor thread but am pasting > below some of the questions as I think a lot of > the points raised by his post deserve some > discussion and my concern is that there is not a > definitive timeline for review being shared by the > council (yet) and the displacement is now > impacting all roads across the area (Underhill, > Overhill, Crystal Palace Road, Upland Road, Wood > Vale etc) as people try to work their way around > the displacement. > > What we need right now is the same swift decisions > the council made to implement these closures to > review them and make the urgent changes to try and > turn back the dial on the damage they are doing. > > > > > - When will the council be reviewing the data - > data collection went in some time after the > closures so what is the timeline for the review? > - We kept being told by the council that pollution > monitoring was too expense so how are you able to > do that now and what baseline will you be using? > - Are we expected to live with the negative impact > for the next 6 months whilst the council collects > the data? > - Will the next phases of the closures be put on > hold or does the council still plan on > implementing them? > - Your comment regarding Matham Grove etc worries > me as you seem to be focussed on putting measures > in place to deal with the displacement rather than > focussing on the source of the displacement. This > would suggest to me that you think action to > remedy the problem may not be forthcoming or a > long way off. Is the council commitment to > resolving the source of the problem? We do not > need a sticking plaster approach to this. > - Given your admission of not consulting with > shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove (and your > subsequent apology) will you be forced to remove > those immediately as this is in direct > contravention of the powers given to you by the > government to put these in place? Agree with your concerns post Cllr McAsh Blog post. There needs to be more teeth to this. It does all sound a bit never never and obviously businesses are very concerned, especially given we are entering Tier 2 and are terrified about future. And 100% agree with your final point - they do all now admit they did not follow anything close to adequate consultation - I would have thought the correct thing to do would be to immediately remove an intervention for which they clearly did not follow correct procedure or do a complete Community or Equality Impact Assessment. Businesses have stated they are very willing to enter into immediate conversations about what may be needed to replace them to safeguard pupils in particular but the right action, right now, would be to remove them as quickly as they went in and remedy the complete lack of trust local business now have in Southwark.

Ginster Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thx! If you notice it cleared I'd really > appreciate knowing. Twice gone that way and then > around so many streets to get back on track. Definitely will.

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://twitter.com/edgnursery/status/131242138417 > 4424071?s=21 > I think the view of the nursery in east dulwich > grove is both telling and sad. This has been highlighted to councillors today, the impact for them and other schools and nurseries on these roads is untenable.

Ginster Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When approaching the Copleston Rd end you can't > exit Avondale at the end. No diversion signs and > it's a very long way around! Hi, if you mean onto Ivanhoe - it is closed due to a burst waterpipe. It has been closed since Yesterday (Monday), hopefully not very long.

macutd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > East Dulwich Grove and Grove Vale are now > dangerous for cyclists (Me) > There is too much traffic on these roads > please re open the side roads to take the pressure > off Totally agree, poor thinking at worst time of year, when traffic levels go up every year in response to weather, to then try and squeeze all onto same roads, and to hope you will get some evaporation. If you do get some people to change behaviour, and some people have which is terrific, but if what James Barber says is true, if 50% of the traffic is coming through the area, they won't be replacing those journeys with bicycles or walking as they are longer journeys maybe with multiple stops so in reality you just have worst congestion. All the plans of this ilk that do work involve proper planning, investment, consultation with everyone and a decent run up. I think you can also change peoples behaviour by upping fuel duties and using the extra income to build the alternative cleaner transport links. Make the alternatives far more attractive than the car. Then you don't need to close roads and cross fingers. There was a massive queue of traffic from GG round-about to the GG playground on Saturday around 12 noon, does anyone know why? Any accidents?