march46

?Congestion created? - odd comment given data shows Grove Vale traffic volumes are significantly down, 14% from memory. kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Northern monkey is right about pollution not being > static of course. There's evidence to show that > pollution's effect on London's TFL red routes > extend to 150m each side of the road. If you live > at either end of Melbourne Grove / Derwent you > probably have worse pollution owing to the > congestion created on Grove Vale / EDG.

I notice that as well as the Dulwich schemes being made permanent, there are several other London boroughs announcing similar this week. A positive start to 2022. Lambeth - Railton and Oval Lewisham - Lewisham and Lee Green Enfield - Bowes

Pretty sure I read they have mobile ones too so best just sign up to auto-pay and try to avoid using the car as much as possible.

In case anyone didn?t receive the newsletter (mine was delayed in the post til recently) I see it?s available online now https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77726/Dulwich-Newsletter-6-PRINT.pdf

?We need data? ?No?not that data (it doesn?t suit my agenda)?

Replacing garages with homes is a good thing and to be applauded given the housing crisis.

Will be interesting to see the council?s latest data (when they finally publish it).

Whilst the offensive posters are still up I remain disappointed. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How many posts do you wait for before expressing > your disappointment again about what was I think - > we can all agree in light of BLMs brilliant > campaign and the awful slogans from the racist > backlash - DA's unfortunate, misguided and a very, > very poorly worded poster. Is there an algorithm? > Is it a bit of whataboutery to try and paint > people like me, Rockets, Kid, Metalic, Legal who > object to diverted traffic, more pollution and an > increase in idling traffic as a 'certain sort'? > What is your motive M46?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but you know, those > Range Rover owners of 5 bedroom 3 million pound > houses deserve a quiet road - it helps then put up > with the working week before dashing off to the > second home in Suffolk darling.. Sounds as though you're describing the people behind One Dulwich/Dulwich Alliance who desperately want their roads opened so they can 'drive freely'. Who's been conned??

Disappointing to see Dulwich Alliance posters with their awful, inappropriate ?All Streets Matter? slogan are still up in a few places. You?d think they?d have a quiet word with the shopkeeper / household to ask them to remove it or at the very least replace with another poster if their apology was genuine.

@heartblock have you seen posts on twitter about East Dulwich Grove traffic? Looks as though traffic volumes could have reduced significantly in the middle section between Townley and Melbourne Grove, rather than increased - good news if so with the Charter school / health centre etc

@heartblock have you seen posts on twitter about East Dulwich Grove traffic? Looks as though traffic volumes could have reduced significantly in the middle section between Townley and Melbourne Grove, rather than increased - good news if so with the Charter school / health centre etc

It's hardly shocking news that One Dulwich grossly overestimate figures. More like 250-300 people from what I saw. Will they be cleaning the graffiti off the signs or is the council going to have to do that?

See the offensive 'All Streets Matter' posters by Dulwich Alliance are still being used. Graffiti on the road signs too, classy.

Not sure where you are getting your facts from Metallic. If you look at the council?s consultation report it shows 67% of Calton Ave respondents and 53% of Court Lane respondents wish to RETAIN it as it is / RETAIN the measure but modify/enhance with other features. Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Except it seems very few people in Calton Ave and > Court Lane, in the bigger number of them, wanted > this closed off area. I know I didn't, and people > in Woodwarde, Court Lane, the Village certainly > didn't. Your comment fans the division. You > don't know who and how many you are actually > slagging off.

Also an account on this forum facilitated it - seems to be quite an unsavoury character.

One Dulwich clearly were involved in putting the signs up. Their email account facilitated it. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > March - let us be clear One Dulwich have not put > any signs up. People who believe the council needs > to "Stop the Road Closures" put the signs up.

Why didn't One Dulwich put up a sign to garner support for timed restrictions? Instead of a blanket 'Stop the Road Closures'.

So the 'Stop the Road Closures' signs just relate to Dulwich Square? And One Dulwich support timed restrictions on Townley Road, Dulwich Village, Turney and Burbage Road? It would be helpful to be clearer on which scheme/s "Reopen Our Roads" applies to. What is their position on roads which were filtered pre-pandemic? There are many around the Dulwich area eg Frank Dixon Way, Milo Rd, Oakhurst Grove etc...do they propose a 'Reopening of All Roads' or just some?

?Stop the Road Closures? signs were available before the consultation started, so any claim One Dulwich make that the council?s consultation process ?left them with no choice but to recommend a return to the existing state? is untrue. DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > You are deliberately conflating One Dulwich's > > timed restrictions lobbying versus the only > > reasonable option they were presented by the > > council in their flawed review process. > > There was an option to select 'modify existing > measures' and a box to fill in suggestions for > modifications. But One Dulwich told their > supporters to select 'remove all measures' because > they're prepared to jeopardise the whole scheme > just to get what they want.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you're confusing the issue a bit. The OD > website says that they are pushing for timed > restrictions, details to be determined by a fair > and transparent consultation process. So yes, I'd > say they have a mandate to push for timed > restrictions, and a fair and transparent > consultation process. No, they don't have a > mandate to enter into some backroom deal with the > council on the details of the closures on the > basis of some dubious claim that their supporters > support residents' permits. If there's evidence > that OD are doing this, I'd be interested to see > it. Given their biggest gripe seems to be the > council's refusal to engage and lack of > transparency, that would seem to be conspiracy > theory territory. > > (Also, surely the council have no truck with > groups seeking to lobby behind closed doors. Or > maybe they do.) SlartiB confirmed above that the Dulwich Village RA (part of the infamous 'Dulwich Alliance') submitted a proposal to the council during the consultation which One Dulwich supports. This includes keeping the current timed restrictions and changing Dulwich Square. See option 5 https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101520/Appendix%20F2%20-%20Options%20review%20Report.pdf. The assessment and low score given compared to other options can't be easy reading for those who support. This answers your question as to why timed restrictions aren't a realistic alternative for Dulwich Square @Rockets. I repeat my point - if One Dulwich support timed restrictions why are they calling for all roads to be 're-opened'?

Legalalien says they don?t have a mandate, Rockets says they do... it?s all very confusing. It sounds as though what they say they want (?reopen the roads?) is very different to what they actually want (timed restrictions). Perhaps they think they can get more public support for the former whilst behind closed doors lobbying the council for the latter? Clever if it works.

Instead of turning my question around please can you simply answer my question? Do One Dulwich support the current timed restrictions on Townley Road, Dulwich Village, Turney and Burbage Road? It seems likely that they do given their overall aims, even more so now the hours of operation will be reducing.

There was room in the consultation for alternatives to be proposed, it's not true to say there was no option other than 'remove it all'. See Option C - install a different kind of measure (with a comments box to explain) Instead they seem to have chosen divisive and disingenuous campaigning, and are continuing down this path rather than seeking common ground.

But Rockets several of the schemes are timed restrictions (Townley Rd, Dulwich Village, Burbage Road and Turney Rd). Do One Dulwich support these? I assume so but don't seem to be able to find an answer anywhere. Their blanket call to 'reopen the roads' seems disingenuous and confused if that is not what they really want, it's also unhelpful in terms of moving the debate forward / finding common ground. Their slogan is "timed restriction, not permanent closures"