legalalien

See attached. 1979.

Perhaps preparing it to be marked up for paid car parking? Heard some parents discussing what a useful car park the Calton Road end of it had become, on the weekend - plus various further anecdotes about people keeping one car at home and one car on the street on the other side of the border! Have I told the story about someone who has bought a second small car so that they can do just that?

Sinners I think there are some additional notification requirements if you are in a conservation area. But I don?t think Elsie Road is in one, looking at the Southwark website. But not sure (website not always accurate/ up to date).

Although you?re not on the Dulwich Estate, might be worth contacting one of their recommended tree people for a quote / advice - my impression / experience is that they list people who have a good understanding of and respect for applicable rules, both estate rules and council rules so can probably tell you what the rules are. https://www.thedulwichestate.org.uk/property-on-the-estate/applications-for-tree-works/tree-surgeons-useful-contacts I got http://cutabovetreemanagement.co.uk/ to trim a tree earlier in the year, I think they do some work for Southwark and they explained it all to me (and did a great job, although that?s probably for a different section of the forum).

That misses the point I was making - which is that Southwark's prioritisation of this scheme over other potential road changes is inconsistent with its criteria for selecting LTN locations (PTAL levels, deprivation, etc etc). Leaving aside whether the Dulwich LTN is workable, it seems to me likely that this scheme went in because there were local lobby groups actively engaging with the Council and pushing for it (Southwark Cyclists because of their masterplan re joined-up cycle routes across London, Safe Routes to School who had been lobbying for more active travel to the private schools in particular for a while, Mums for Lungs). And then the Calton Ave and Court Lane residents who didn't like having lots of traffic outside their houses. That's fine, and there's no problem at all with people lobbying for causes that they believe in and/or for changes which are in their own self-interest. But the Council is supposed to do a bit more than just try and please those who are most engaged with them or - as I think may often happen, uncritically accept what the lobby groups tell them. They need to step back and properly consider the big picture and the interests of those who are often not well-represented/ regularly engaged with the Council; moreover they should be keeping an open mind about these experimental schemes and be prepared to acknowledge problems. Maybe resourcing is the issue? Instead we see one of the local councillors regularly on twitter acting as a cheerleader for the square and closures, in what I think is a fairly appalling manner. I did smile at yesterday's effort when he explained to someone, in a particularly patronising way, that Southwark had no "agency" over Norwood Road because it is in Lambeth (he even posted a dictionary definition of agency) - and then realised that actually part of Norwood Road is within his ward boundary. Just shows how keen he is on representing the interests of those on main roads.

With apologies for pre-empting heartblock's reply: (i) this was planned prior to/ separately from the COVID closures (and I think I saw on twitter that Cllr Leeming helped design it) (ii) if Southwark had followed its own criteria for determining where to put LTNs, it wouldn't have put one here (iii) there may be some LTNs in other places that are well thought through and work - that doesn't mean that this one does or that this one is motivated by the same considerations as the other ones. Perhaps the OHS proposal wasn't getting enough support and some people took the opportunity afforded by the other 400 plus filters being installed, to push the closure through? (iv) some of the other 400 plus barriers may also be vanity projects or in wealthy areas trying to export traffic to poorer areas (I've certainly seen that criticism levelled at the closures near the Oval). I can probably think of some other explanations.

It?s OK mfcjoe as long as Dulwich Square exists as a nice destination for those poor folk to visit and aspire to. I?m told that?s how nice places work. mfcjoe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Three generous sized parks within 5-10 min walk > from "Dulwich square", why should there be more > open space for DV where most of the the wealthy > residents will more than likely have a large > garden, whilst the poorer parts of Southwark are > having their small pieces of grass and playgrounds > turned into housing. > WALOB

Loved that show. Friday after school, hated piano lesson, fish and chips, a glass of full fat milk and LR.

You?re right of course - I?m not planning to turn my house into Fort Knox. Pondering shops. I do think there are some effects eg someone from Wandsworth dropping children at DPL or DC might once have then gone to buy shoes / books/ drop dry cleaning/ go to the chemist and get a coffee but is now more inclined to go to west Dulwich or give it a miss and go back to Wandsworth... Possibly not useful for me to speculate, the shop owners and driver-customers are better placed to comment. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mainly I don't think that if anyone was previously > driving 15 mins to a nail bar, that there would be > another in a completely opposite (unaffected by > any traffic) 20 mins in another direction. > > Whilst I can see that there are some things you > might buy from Callows - its not an extensive > range - and not the kind of thing people buy more > than once. I have on occasions bought padlocks > from them or door code buttons, again something > you go specifically for in general. > > They haven't said where they are moving to - I > heard something about Grove Vale > > > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You don?t think there?s an in between eg happy > to > > drive to x nail bar if it takes me 15 mins, but > if > > that changes to 45 mins I?ll go to the next > > nearest one that?s 20 mins away? > > > > (I am not a nail bar person aside from the > > occasional pre summer holiday pedicure, so > happy > > to be shot down when it comes to this example. > > Probably should have chosen something else.) > > > > I did browse in the locksmith the other day when > I > > was having some keys cut and came away with a > new > > combination padlock and a small key safe. It?s > > possible I am an atypical consumer. Do we know > > exactly where on LL they are moving to (I think > I > > read it was LL?)

You don?t think there?s an in between eg happy to drive to x nail bar if it takes me 15 mins, but if that changes to 45 mins I?ll go to the next nearest one that?s 20 mins away? (I am not a nail bar person aside from the occasional pre summer holiday pedicure, so happy to be shot down when it comes to this example. Probably should have chosen something else.) I did browse in the locksmith the other day when I was having some keys cut and came away with a new combination padlock and a small key safe. It?s possible I am an atypical consumer. Do we know exactly where on LL they are moving to (I think I read it was LL?)

Northern monkey - isn?t that the point? I?m no Mary Portas but I?d imagine it?s places like dry cleaners, hairdressers, nail bars etc that get hardest hit if lack of parking / traffic congestion make them harder to get to. People who can?t / don?t want to walk or cycle will switch to an alternative service provider that they can drive to more easily?* (Hairdressers maybe not so much as there?s a personal connection - but dry cleaning (and the locksmith for example). And there?s a knock on effect - if people aren?t going to the dry cleaner / shoe shop because of the traffic issue, they won?t be buying a coffee next door either. It?s another reason why relying on generalised data like the TfL stuff doesn?t really tell you what will happen to a particular set of shops in a particular location. I?ve said it before, I think the focus on general data rather than the specific case in hand is a problem. The whole point of local government is that it can consider he specifics of the local area - otherwise why not centralise everything? *yes perhaps they shouldn?t be driving there but that?s scant comfort to the small business owner- unless we?re happy to add some businesses to the ?collateral damage? pile along with the residents of main roads.

LTN BooHoo - you mean to the question about the permit system (I answered the other one)? Not quite sure why you're asking me / how I would know - I haven't seen a flyer, I think I may have seen something to that effect a while ago from One Dulwich (rather than the Dulwich Alliance) - not sure if it's still the case, I've just checked their website and their stated mission is "One Dulwich supports area-wide timed restrictions (after consultation with the local community on hours of restriction, access, and location of entry/exit points) as a more proportionate, and more socially just, solution." ETA: I've just looked at the Dulwich Alliance website and their petition to Council in February said this: "Secondly, we ask you to put in place a holistic, area-wide, camera-controlled exemption scheme that allows fair and reasonable access during restricted hours. We now know that the ANPR cameras you have installed in Dulwich do not require a CPZ to be in operation so that, as in Hammersmith and Fulham, vehicles with exemptions can pass through these camera gates without being charged. Which streets should be restricted, how long for, and who should have access, are all key issues that the Council should be putting forward as options for consultation." HTH

Perhaps they thought that pretty much everyone was aware of the pandemic? I've certainly noticed it over the last 12 months or so. DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > I am sure that they are > > more than aware of the pandemic. > > So why didn't DA mention it in their flyer?

The thing is, the TfL data is an average. With the Village already having a much higher than average level of pedestrian activity, and the fact that a number of shops are ?destination? shops, it?s entirely possible that these specific shops are having a different experience from the average. Telling them they don?t know what is happening and have been misled by Dulwich Alliance comes across as incredibly patronising. I am sure that they are more than aware of the pandemic.

There was a reason for the smiley face emoji after that comment, I was being tongue in cheek. But having re-read the offending leaflets, I wouldn?t describe them as misleading (I gather the two sides differ about the level of business opposition? But that figure is linked to a specific survey). Of course they take a particular perspective and are designed to persuade.

I don?t trust the Council, and I don?t need to trust the Dulwich Alliance as they don?t have any decision making power. Heartblock you may be right. If the Council wasn?t prepared to heed TfL?s request to delay the Phase 2 closures by a week to enable TfL?s concerns about their potential effect on its road network and buses to be properly considered, it seems unlikely they?ll listen to mere residents. (Perhaps if they had engaged properly, rather than informing TfL of the details of the closures on the Thursday evening before the Monday they went in, Croxted Road might not be in the mess it is in.)

Even if the DA flyer is as you say, it at least helps to offset the misinformation /propaganda that the Council has been propagating :) I?ve also had a couple of flyers from the other side (alliance4dulwich)? I suspect people are only bothered by the ones that don?t support their views. At this stage I think DA?s proposal is to bring the Council back to the table and force them to acknowledge the flaws in the current arrangement and listen to a wider range of residents than they have to date. They have (I think rightly) reluctantly concluded that the only way to do that is to encourage people to select ?reverse the changes? in the review, as that response is difficult for the Council to ?reinterpret? (they have form). Let?s not forget, a response to the review is not a binding vote - the Council doesn?t have to implement exactly what the majority want. It is a channel for sending a message to the Council about the popularity of the experimental schemes- and on that basis I think DA have probably got it right. Hence, I guess, your posts. LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve heard that Dulwich residents are getting fed > up with the numerous flyers from DA all spouting > various levels of misinformation or propaganda. > They offer no viable solution and only want to go > back to what we had before. At one point I > thought I could support them but no more. > > ?Share pollution equally? is their offer and I?m > not sure how that meets the climate emergency we > face.

I think it?s likely that people with posters either (i) know DA members personally and got a poster from them; or (ii) are part of a small minority who are aware that the posters exist/ where to get them from, and have time in their daily lives to collect a poster, or near neighbours of those people (the posters tend to appear in ?clumps?). It?s not as if everyone has had one delivered to them and then chosen whether or not to put it up, so I really don?t think it?s any indication at all tbh.

You?re having a laugh? That?s the least scientific thing I?ve ever heard. But if we?re going to go with this kind of pseudo-data: I have a poster and three near neighbours have commented that they agree with me but that I?m ?very brave? to put a poster up. So based on that, let?s multiply the number of posters by four to estimate support (I haven?t seen another poster in my street so we wouldn?t be double counting). Or possibly let?s assume everyone in my street agrees with me as they haven?t put a pro LTN poster up. To be fair I haven?t done a half hearted google of their property values, so I may be misinterpreting. I have however walked along the roads mentioned regularly over the past decade. DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I took a brief and informal snapshot to see where > anti-LTN support was coming from and how deep it > was on some of the roads affected by displaced > traffic, as expressed by people putting up posters > and placards opposing the LTNs. > > I walked East Dulwich Grove in its entirety, > Lordship Lane from the East Dulwich Tavern to the > junction of the South Circular/ Dulwich Common, > and Dulwich Village down to the junction with East > Dulwich Grove. Where I could find the information, > I also checked out house values on Zoopla ( some > have no values entered) and took the midpoint of > those Zoopla estimates. All in all, it was pretty > interesting. > > Clearly, many caveats. A poster or placard is only > one indication of support or otherwise, posters > and placards could be put up for a variety of > motives and reflect a range of views, Zoopla is > very broad and often inaccurate, some people might > not be allowed to put up posters in terms of their > leases/ tenancy agreements etc, some people might > not own the property they are in, my maths at > times can be crap, I might have missed some. So > this exercise is intended to be informal, broad > and indicative, a personal view and nothing more. > > East Dulwich Grove between the junction with > Dulwich Village and Townley Road (Alleyns) had > relatively strong anti LTN support, and the > average house price, where an estimated range was > given, of those displaying a poster or placard was > over ?2 million. > > East Dulwich Grove to Lordship Lane, support was > weaker, average house/ property price was of those > displaying a poster, where an estimated range was > given, was ?1.1 million. The average property > price given on Zoopla for East Dulwich Grove as a > whole is ?717k. > > Lordship Lane from the East Dulwich Tavern to > Dulwich Library is 0.8 miles, and I found the lack > of support for the anti-LTN lobby as expressed by > posters and placards, particularly striking. When > I counted, only 8 businesses on the entire stretch > were displaying a poster or placard, and only 5 > residential properties. Clearly, all the caveats > mentioned above and probably some others apply, > but what I also found striking was other kinds of > posters such as Black Lives Matter and in support > of the NHS were on display. On the Lordship Lane > Estate, facing Lordship Lane, there wasn't a > single anti-LTN poster to be seen in the flats. > > Dulwich Common/ South Circular to Dulwich Village > - there was a cluster of posters/placards in the > houses near the junction with Lordship Lane, and > where I could get an indication of value, the > average house price of those displaying them was > ?1.44 million. Again strikingly in the large > concentration of flats opposite in McCleod Court > and Maxwell Court, there wasn't a single poster or > placard. > > Dulwich Village from the South Circular down to > East Dulwich Grove, posters and placards were > relatively sparse, and the average house price of > those displaying them where I could find it, with > all the caveats, was ?3.72m. > > With all the above-stated caveats, this exercise > (apart from giving my ton of Covid flab a workout) > posed for me a couple of questions: > > - are a lot of people who oppose the LTNs on roads > I walked affected by displaced traffic likely to > live in a high-value property? > - is support for the anti-LTN lobby from > potentially lower-income groups living on roads I > walked affected by displaced traffic currently > weak? > > In the light of some of the 'for the many, not the > few' style rhetoric coming out of some of the > anti-LTN lobby in recent days, this gave me pause > for thought. Clearly, it would be good to hear a > range of views as to what people think, > particularly the people affected.

And so what if people are only getting involved now? Maybe previously they were getting on with their lives and not thinking about these issues, and have only now started engaging. Engagement is a good thing, surely? You don?t get to decide what the motives of strangers on the internet might be, sorry.

I think write to the traffic department and ask them to explain on what grounds Southwark believe the closure is required to prevent un-works related danger to the public, copying in their legal dept and an assortment of councillors. As far as I can tell there?s no statutory objection process, and as with all these things court action is expensive / not terribly practical. But we can at least try and get the council to explain itself and justify its actions? I was thinking of sending an email.

Sorry DC, but that last comment reminded me of the attached cartoon :)

But Redpost, if that's the concern, the notice ought to reflect the wording in 14(1)(a) "because works are being or are proposed to be executed on or near the road", not 14(1)(b), "because of the likelihood of danger to the public, or of serious damage to the road, which is not attributable to such works". The "danger to the public" wording relates specifically to a closure that is NOT works-related. (ETA: of course it may be that "works" has a specific, road-related definition and doesn't cover building works.. will try and check that as it does of course affect the argument) I agree with you that in practice it might well be sensible to keep the road closed until the current works being done are complete, which I imagine might be soon. If and when development happens on the old SG Smith site, then there's another discussion to be had. What I strongly disagree with is what looks to me like inappropriate reliance on a statutory provision, which because of its vague wording, has the potential to be used to justify some sort of long-term closure, without any process of consultation or right to object. Not linking the closure to the current works strikes me as a deliberate choice. It's an important point of principle that public authorities should act properly within the powers granted to them, whatever the merits of the case in hand.

I agree. Flippit did he give any indication of what the ?public safety? / ?danger to the public? relied on might be?

Hopskip I agree that there is thought to be given to the replacement plan for construction access to that site, I have no idea what the new plan is at present. If the DV junction closure remains in place then any/ either of the alternatives are problematic - with the amount of traffic on EDG then turning into or out of GC is difficult (also quite a small turning radius), the alternative is what - traffic down Woodwarde and Calton to the site? I?d be interested to hear if anyone knows what the council has planned.