march46

Local businesses and Highways officers have agreed a solution to provide space for loading via double yellow lines. Maybe a CPZ isn’t needed but it sounded as though you were complaining at the loss of a few parking spaces - this suggests parking pressure is already high, if so a CPZ could be a solution for that.

Sounds as though a CPZ is already needed if the current parking pressure can’t cope with just a few spaces at one end of a road being removed.

The new zebra crossing makes it easier, and much safer for pedestrians to cross the road. It’s really great to see the council prioritising pedestrians as they should in the hierarchy of road users.

Here is the decision document. I’m sure we will all agree that it’s great Southwark is listening to businesses. “This request came from the businesses on Lordship Lane, informing Highways that they have large vehicles coming to collect and deliver goods from the business which causing an obstruction as vehicles are parked both sides of the entrance and opposite resulting into the vehicle having to block the whole road and cause obstruction.” “Officers attended site and met with the local business to discuss what would be the best solution to allowing the large vehicles to drop off and collect without obstructing and blocking the road off. As a result, it was agreed that double yellow lines will allow space for loading/unloading without obstructing the road.” a Officers attended site and met with the local business to discuss That isn’t true, so long as the driver is actually loading (ie not shopping nearby).

How do you know the businesses haven’t asked for this, so they have somewhere for their loading?

It’s so important in fact that the World Health Organisation is running a series of great Facebook ads on the importance of active travel and safer streets. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AZse8McEU/?mibextid=wwXIfr https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Aj4BadBcc/?mibextid=wwXIfr

@Administrator seems they are still claiming to be linked to this forum. https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1AkCyCGAxg/?mibextid=wwXIfr

I hope witnesses are phoning 999 to report a crime in progress.

Suggest you try contacting the council's filming office Filming in Southwark | Southwark Council

This simply isn’t true for Southwark where over 60% of households do not own a car and 70% of respondents to the council’s Streets for People consultation say they want to see less traffic in Southwark.

An interesting read, which suggests much of WDAG’s 53 page report is based on inaccurate claims and not borne out of evidence and data. Great to see there is a group of supportive, local residents highlighting the benefits of the LTN. https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2025/05/better-streets-west-dulwich-campaign-group-urges-people-to-focus-on-facts-not-fear/

For everyone who has looked at the plans, you’ll already know that the extended pavement outside M&S incorporates a bookable loading bay which has the benefit of not being bookable during peak hours - providing significantly more space and improved accessibility for the heavy footfall there is close to the station. Enforcement will obviously be key, as evidence to date suggests many drivers ignore the loading bay rules there and use it instead as short-term free parking. If you look at the plans you’ll see there is a new pedestrian crossing being installed.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/15/ignore-myths-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-ltn It’s encouraging to see this thoughtful opinion piece in the Guardian, which highlights evidence and data around Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. The inclusion of a photo of Dulwich Square is a nice touch as well. Whatever your view on the topic, it’s always helpful to have well-researched information to inform this discussion.

It’s hardly pro-pedestrian to be questioning the need for additional pedestrian crossings, especially given the high footfall of all 3 locations.

It’s very telling that the posters who are against LTNs and cycling infrastructure are also anti pedestrian improvements.

Whilst a 100 yard walk to a safe crossing point might be ok for some, it won’t be for everyone. For some, it makes a real difference. A strategically located crossing ensures that all members of the community - including elderly people, parents with prams, wheelchair users, and others with limited mobility - have a safe and convenient way to cross. As well as improving accessibility it will also be safer - every time a person has to walk out of their way to reach a crossing, there’s a higher chance they’ll be tempted to cross at unsafe points. This is especially true in areas with heavy footfall, families with children, older residents, or people with mobility issues. A well-placed crossing reduces these risks dramatically.

Traffic is backed up due to the temporary traffic lights, understand it’s frustrating now but when the work is finished it will be back to normal Re the pavement widening by the Cherry Tree, have you seen the plans? They’re putting in a new pedestrian crossing which is surely something we can all agree is a positive?

It’s funny because you’re claiming space is being taken away from nature without acknowledging the space was previously tarmac. The council is putting in rain gardens with SUDs which will mitigate against flooding, and there will be new trees to provide shade on hot days like today. Have you seen the plans?

Good to see Lambeth continuing with their borough-wide roll-out of Healthy Neighbourhoods (aka LTNs), prioritising people over vehicles. https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/lambeth-launches-public-engagement-on-two-new-healthy-neighbourhoodslambeth-launches-public-engagement-on-two-new-healthy-neighbourhoods/

Rashmipat also said: “Look at the Rosendale Road cycle lane: it’s an eyesore, dangerous, and the cause of accidents.” and “And frankly, hardly anyone even uses the cycle lanes.” Hard to believe concerns about air pollution are genuine when they attack cycling infrastructure that’s literally keeping people safe, and giving them the option to not drive, thus reducing air pollution.

Do you have evidence that there is an increase in drop kerb applications in Southwark?

As cars have got significantly bigger in recent times it’s likely any car parked on the drive could overhang the pavement, if it doesn’t meet the minimum requirements. Not good for pedestrians.

Interesting to see Dulwich Village’s Richard Aldwinkle (aka Mr One Dulwich) in the article’s photo of “members of the West Dulwich community who campaigned to scrap the LTN in their neighbourhood.”

Why would I be disappointed?

It doesn’t seem to be the watershed moment you’re hoping for Rockets. 2 of the 3 grounds of challenge were dismissed. The one that was upheld is limited specifically to a 53 page report that the council couldn’t evidence they had taken into account in their decision making. Consultation was deemed lawful. A quote from the judgement: “Although I found that the Council fell into error in how it dealt substantively with the output of the consultation (specifically the 53-page presentation produced by the Claimant), overall I did not harbour any significant concerns about the conduct of the consultation and engagement as a whole. As I noted above, the threshold for finding a consultation process to be so deficient that it is legally flawed is a high one. “