legalalien

No idea. Mine was addressed to ?The Resident?, with my specific street address.

So reading through the document it suggests you need the unique reference number from the bottom of the envelope that the newsletter came in. I?ve just fished the envelope out of the recycling bin to take a pic! Ps I guess that might imply one response per household, unless it?s like a census and one person responds on behalf of the household, listing household members. Who knows?

Next pages. Came in a blank / ? to the resident? envelope and thought it was real estate agent ?do you want to sell your house? type junk Mail - almost binned it without opening!

Newsletter through the post. First three pages attached.

I have had a new council newsletter. Will post on ?info? thread.

Rahrahrah might help if you stop bumping the threads by responding to them? I know I'm guilty of starting thread number 2 as I thought it would be helpful to have one with just info/ links to resources and not arguments - that lasted a reasonable while... but ultimately you can't control free speech. I accept that.

Better Streets for Southwark / Mums for Lungs have an online event on 26 May with a particular focus on campaigning for School Streets (one area where actually a lot of people from both sides of the Dulwich LTN debate seem to agree in large part). Info at https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/better-streets-talks-mums-for-lungs-tickets-148956766699

Just be warned that there are quite long waiting lists for hangars in this part of the borough - info as of Feb is in this document https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50012774/Supplement%20One%20Thursday%2025-Mar-2021%2018.30%20Environment%20Scrutiny%20Commission.pdf?T=9

Minor Traffic Scheme Batch 1 for 2021/22 out for decision by Cllr Rose: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50025701 Lots of small things affecting various streets so worth a look. Pay by phone parking bays around ED LTN, parking restrictions outside northern parade of shops in Dulwich Village, various double yellow lines / disabled bays, and I think some sort of cycle wands/ armadillos on Park Hall Road near the Croxted intersection.

I?m pretty sure that?s correct, yes.

SebsC yes that?s correct.

We have a school over our back fence so get plenty of school noise in the day. It's generally fine, although during lockdown it was a bit tedious hearing group after group of (presumably) key worker children singing the same two lines of various songs on repeat for hours on end. I was alarmed one day to hear "we are absolutely full, we are absolutely full, there's no room for anyone we're absolutely full" time after time after time. I mean, I know the school is oversubscribed, but it came across as a bit anti-immigration... very strange, I thought. It wasn't until halfway through the three hours of "Baa Baa Baa Baa Baa, we are woolly sheep, we are woolly sheep" the next day that it occurred to me they were practising for the nativity play!

?Things in life are rarely exclusively true- the phrase can be offensive, and the blockages can be causing issues/disruption.? Exactly.

Thanks. I had a poster up briefly, then read it properly / heard and realised some people were offended, so have taken it down pending a new poster. I think your crossing out suggestion was measured/ sensible and in fact the crossing out and displaying sends a message in itself (If I can find the poster in the recycling I might do that). My response was in light of the fact that OneDulwich have apologised and are getting new / replacement posters done. I get what you?re saying about my point re Lowlander but I do think sometimes we should give people a bit of a chance before putting them in a bucket and making a blanket judgment about the validity of their views on all things. I might be over-extrapolating! And 100% that everyone should be free to make their own judgment. ED_girl123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Legalalien I completely agree that it shouldn't be > us and them, hence why I offered that maybe people > could consider crossing that one line out. That > being said, if people feel hurt or offended, they > are fully within their right to step away and > withdraw support. I don't think Lowlander proved > your point in that sense. There is freedom of > speech, freedom of actions, but that does not mean > freedom from consequences.

Lowlander you?ve kind of made my point. I find it easy to disagree with people on some things and agree with them others, taking a position on things on an issue by issue basis. Everything seems so tribal these days, kind of ?people like me have x set of views?, rather than a more pick and mix approach.

I saw a statement on Twitter acknowledging offence had been caused and saying they were changing the posters (see attached). The tone deafness or otherwise is a separate debate (fine to have obvs) from the issue of road closures. I do think, though, that as a general principle it?s good to allow people space to reconsider and adjust their behaviour, rather than continuing the politics of division with everyone finding more and more reasons to demonise those who disagree with them on a particular issue (not to detract from your original concern, OP - I?m not suggesting you were doing that). We ought to be able to separate out issues we are debating from other issues without turning everything into ?us? and ?them?. (ETA I say this because Twitter is full of ?inappropriate posters therefore bad people therefore bad views on everything? talk. ED-girl didn?t say anything like that so just adding for context) Otherwise how can anyone learn/ change / develop their views?

Sheila, there isn?t another option, it?s that the road is completely closed to vehicles other than buses and bikes in one direction on weekdays 8-10 and 3-6. There are signs to this effect, people have mixed views on the quality of the signage as a large number of fines have been handed out. There?s another quite long thread on this.

Also looks as though they are doing some further tweaks to the experimental arrangement in the north of the borough and to one of the ones being sponsored by guys and st Thomas?. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/38728/GSTTC-Brunswick-Phase-2-notice-dated-29-April-2021-.pdf https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/38027/Southwark-Bridge-Road-phase-4-notice-dated-22-April-2021-.pdf Basically making tweaks to address issues, as ex-Dulwicher suggests the process should work. It just doesn?t seem to apply to the Dulwich schemes. Not sure whether that?s down to input (positive or negative) or lack of input by local councillors compared to other areas, or something else.

Hmm, traffic orders used to be listed in the decision notices in the council and democracy section of the website but looks like that may have changed. Will read through the recent ones. There?s a school street / timed closures relating to Heber School https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/38026/Schools-Spring-trial-notice-dated-22-April-21-.pdf

Ex Dulwicher I agree with you. I?ve never suggested ripping all LTNs out I don?t think. But I think the Dulwich closures have been poorly thought through in the context of the local area, don?t meet the success factors you mention. I?d love this discussion to go in the direction of discussing changes that might make things work better and avoid it at least reduce the time periods of traffic chaos on boundary roads. Where we probably disagree is that I think we should reverse / amend the existing closures while we agree on the alternative, as it?s not OK for the boundary road residents to choke while we try and find a workable compromise. The other problem is that I think an amended scheme would require removal of the hard / all day closure at Court Lane / Calton, and I?m not sure that?s open for discussion by some of those on here who support the existing scheme. I?d be pleased to be corrected on that.

Some here aren't obsessed with LTNs as "the enemy" and don't have a driving licence. I'd just like an answer to the question of whether, IF it can be shown to be true that there is a significant increase in congestion and pollution being caused on local boundary roads, and that this is being caused by the new traffic restrictions, those supporting the Dulwich scheme think that is a price worth paying in the interests of fixing the overall problem of too many cars on the road. Noone seems to want to answer that. The problems in the way Southwark council and its councillors operate is a bigger issue and something I have concerns about independently of the LTN thing, the more I read about.

Raeburn I don?t understand why you can hold the ideas of it being unfair but still OK in your head at the same time. I assume you think magic fairies will swoop in and solve main road problems in a flash. But there?s no plan for that to happen, and the residents of boundary roads have been suffering for months with no end in sight. Meanwhile a thought from Edmund Burke ?Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any evil design. They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength. Whereas, when they lie dispersed, without concert, order, or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel difficult, and resistance impracticable. Where men are not acquainted with each other?s principles, nor experienced in each other?s talents, nor at all practised in their mutual habitudes and dispositions by joint efforts in business; no personal confidence, no friendship, no common interest, subsisting among them; it is evidently impossible that they can act a public part with uniformity, perseverance, or efficacy. In a connection, the most inconsiderable man, by adding to the weight of the whole, has his value, and his use; out of it, the greatest talents are wholly unserviceable to the public. No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. ?Edmund Burke, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents 82-83 (1770) in: Select Works of Edmund Burke, vol. 1, p. 146 (Liberty Fund ed. 1999).?

And here you have it. Repeat after me: EDG and LL are residential streets. Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Rockets, you haven't been clear about what > you're actually asking - I haven't been avoiding > it, just didn't understand what you wanted. > > ATM, honestly, I have no idea - I occasionally > used those routes over the years, but would > actively avoid EDG if I could due to the fast and > unpleasant traffic. I've not been down them over > the last year at rush hours, so honestly can't > say? Same goes for LL - no idea. It's always > seemed jammed/congested - or traffic speeding when > it is clear at night - so has been unattractive > for years. would prefer to take the residential > streets and avoid where I could between Goose > Green and Forest Hill. No idea if this is > up/down/same, honest answer. > > I can say for a fact that traffic and pollution > has been bad for years, and that average vehicle > size is notably bigger. > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But you do realise, don?t you, that the traffic > on > > these roads has increased massively since the > > closures went in as a direct consequence of > them? > > Simple question??do you think that is > acceptable > > as part of the bigger goal? From your refusal > to > > answer the question I may suspect the answer is > > yes?;-)

We all keep going around the houses but I think it inevitably comes back to the question of collateral damage: do the ends justify the means? The lack of proper data quantifying the damage is making the debate more complicated to have, as those supporting the experimental scheme claim that it's minimal, and those opposing it claim that it's not. So perhaps we should argue on the basis of some assumptions : Q for those opposing the current scheme: if hard data showed that the impact on traffic levels on the boundary roads were minimal/ there is no significant increase in harmful pollution on boundary roads/ public transport can still run effectively/ emergency services can get to people on time - would you then accept that the current scheme is OK? Q for those in favour of the current scheme: if hard data showed that the impact on traffic levels on the boundary roads is significant/ there is a significant increase in harmful pollution on boundary roads/ there are delays to bus routes and emergency services - would you then accept that the current scheme is OK? From the debate on here, I think most answers to the first question would be yes (because contrary to assertions, the opponents aren't a bunch of local SUV drivers who object to a 5 minute detour), and also most answers to the second question would be yes. I have yet to see a single supporter of the Dulwich LTN say that if, in fact, boundary roads are massively adversely affected, then something has to change. Instead it is all "well, less cars needed". I understand the idea but fails to take account of the reality/ victims on the ground, and I think that's why the two sides will continue to differ - unless the evaporation actually happens sometime soon.

An idle thought: if those most responsible for the traffic are rich stay at home parents in overpowered SUVs ferrying Tarquin and Jemima to and from local prep schools - is there any reason to believe that an inconvenient delay is going to cause them to stop doing so? If they?re that selfish they are not going to be bothered about holding up buses / poisoning main road residents/ forcing tradespeople out of the area; it?s perfectly nice inside the SUV, hands free mobile, back seat DVDs or an opportunity for some homework... I don?t think this will work to make that traffic evaporate. Went past the Burbage Roundabout this afternoon and the kind man stopping people from inadvertently driving through the bus gates was there doing his great work. Of the four cars I saw him stop, all were elderly couples in very reasonably priced cars (not statistically meaningful, I know, just what I saw.)