flippit

@Penguin, I still don't think you've not quite got it between SUV's and 4x4s and as an automotive engineer, I can't quite grasp what you mean by "highly engineered" and "less engineered" engines. Engineering (and design) competence ( and efficiency)in vehicles is at a pretty consistent standard across all the major vehicle manufacturers ( Toyota, VW, BMW, Ford, Chrysler, Volvo, Mercedes, Renault etc etc). They each continuously progress the efficiency of their engines and hence all are within close margins because the have to achieve enforced standards in USA, Europe, Japan etc or face massive penalties. If they don't comply with standards, they soon go out of business. So these days, the cubic capacity of the engine of any vehicle is directly related to the emissions it produces. The same applies whether the engine is in a motor bike, car, SUV or 4x4 unless it is a hybrid or pure EV. That aside, the worst polluters are diesel 4x4s driven on short runs. Sort them out by installing ANPR controlled zones that exempt pure EVs.

@ penguin68, You may be clouding the issue of emissions. The main pollution culprits are not SUVs ( or cars) but big 4x4s. Whilst there is no clear definition of what a SUV or cross-over really is, it is worth understanding that SUV?s are usually car-derived. They can be 4x2 or have the ability to adapt to a 4 wheel drive. They are really life-style cars with a higher body lift that hints at being a 4x4. Mostly they are not. Think of models such as Qashki or Mocka . Proper 4x4s are invariably bigger, heavier. They have larger engines and so, in absolute terms, have much higher emissions. Think of Range Rover, Volvo, Mercedes and BMW 4x4s. More significantly, the emissions of any vehicle are massively higher whilst the engine gets warmed up. So its short journeys on the school run that really pollute big time. So let us persuade the yummy mummies to ditch the big 4x4 and go electric. They can easily afford it- especially if they can afford public school fees.

'Strewth, I think a got a strong whiff of pro LTNner. richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also a Macdonald's, Burger King, KFC and a large > graffitti wall for the children and a small > skateboard park in one corner. > > Should keep everyone happy. Locals can then have > the village square all to their selves

@legalalien Attached are the first and second notices. What do you make of the second one and what do you suggest we do to challenge this further.

@ redpost, Not correct. There is work going on at the adjacent premises on the Dulwich Village/Gilkes Place junction. This is a different site to the the rear. The rear site has been cleared and extends from Gilkes Place to Calton Avenue. The buildings on it have been demolished and the site cleared of the mountain of the debris. There is no more debris that needs to be loaded safely on trucks behind the hoarding that that encroached out on to Gilkes Place. Hence the original justification is no longer valid. The owners have put the vacant site up for sale. redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is heavy construction work ongoing, I assume > that the rear will be redeveloped afterwards > also. > > There was a forklift accident a couple of weeks > ago which spilled materials onto the closed > street, and there is much heavy building materials > to be dropped off. > > This all justifies closing off the road > temporarily rather than clogging up the road > (which you would undoubtedly bleat about).

No he didn't and frankly couldn't - given that the developer cleared the site completely last year. The developer has abandoned the project and removed the section hoarding that extended over into Gilkes Place. When the developer removed this extension, a well-connected local resident pulled the strings in Tooley Street and the Council barrier was created. This really stinks and the stink isn't going away. If you want to get it from the "horse's mouth", I suggest you phone up Ian Law (Traffic Manager) on 020 7525 2170. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree. Flippit did he give any indication of > what the ?public safety? / ?danger to the public? > relied on might be?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why does Gilkes hold so much sway over Southwark > Council? t Because a certain person who ( shall be nameless) and who lives in Gilkes Crescent very, very near the junction with Gilkez Place Same person previously held a very senior management position with Southwark Council before going on to manage major development projects as a freelance. So, well connected in all the right places!

My OP reported that Southwark had abused the regulations concerning temporary road closures. Following this, the issue was was challenged and queries raised by several local residents in the manner specified in the notice. There was no response whatsoever. On 3rd June, one local resident managed to speak directly on the phone to Ian Law during which he was advised that the notice was illegal. He was unable to refute the charge and when challenged further his response was tantamount to "whatever, under the emergency regulations, we can close any road we want." The notice was due to expire on 10th June however it was removed yesterday and replaced with a new new temporary notice. This speaks volumes for the manner in which Southwark is bulldozing its road closure policies into effect be they temporary or LTN.

Surely this confirms that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, no matter how much taxpayers money you waste Southwark Council is deranged.

Some scarers have a photo sensor to turn them off at night.

Most birdcscarers are ultrasonic and if the batteries get low on power then the frequency drops and the sound becomes audible to humans. If this is the case buy him/her some new batteries. https://www.bestpestcontrol.co.uk/ultrasonic-bird-repellers-155-c.asp#:~:text=An%20ultrasonic%20%28silent%29%20bird%20and%20Pigeon%20repeller%20works,paved%20outdoor%20cafe%20area%20or%20inside%20a%20building.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which is precisely why I ccouched it in my > placatory terms, with "you" meaning "anyone > reading this" - please don't take offence for > yourself or anyone else where none was intended. You seem to have had problem previously with "you". If you don't want to refer to a person , why not use "ONE"? /forum/read.php?5,2192497,2203778#msg-2203778

@nigello It may be alright for you but if you have limited mobility and are aged or infirm then it is a different story. It smacks of " I'm alright, Jack"

Getting to and from work is taking much longer these days due to greater congestion arising from increased traffic on the main routes. This displacement is caused by the road closures established by London Transport and Southwark Council. And its just not delays. There are other outrageous changes such as those to buses on Rye Lane. NOTHING will be done about this unless many of us complain. Please direct complaints to ALL of the following:- [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

You mention procedure and there again, Southwark's action was also illegal on the basis of this... """2) Not less than 7 days before making an order, the traffic authority shall publish notice of their intention to make the order in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which any road to which the order relates is situated. """ They installed the barriers without giving 7 days notice PLUS they did not notify the public via the local newspapers. Note , I also have legal training!

Kindly read the actual Act.It is quite specific viz..... 14 (1)If the traffic authority for a road are satisfied that traffic on the road should be restricted or prohibited? (a)because works are being or are proposed to be executed on or near the road; or (b)because of the likelihood of danger to the public, or of serious damage to the road, which is not attributable to such works; or The two crucial criteria are (a) and (b) Neither apply in this case. A temporary prohibition cannot be issued without due cause.

Southwark have abused the regulations concerning temporary road closures. They have re-established a barrier across Gilkes Place. This replaces the hoardings around the old S.G. Smith development site. The original hoardings were created when the developers was doing demolition work on the site. But even then the justification (on safety grounds) during the demolition work were questionable because all the buildings were single storey and there was never a danger to people on Gilkes. No cranes or wrecking balls were required. The site was cleared completely and recently abandoned by the developers. The hoardings were removed. Two days later on 20th May, Southwark issued a temporary The temporary Prohibition notice (5776) and erected barriers. They did so under Section 14 (1) and 14(2) of the Road Traffic Act. These sections specifically relate to applications by builders and contractors to apply for temporary road closures. This temporary prohibition notice (5776) is spurious and contrived. The stated reason is invalid as it no longer applies since work on the development site bordering Gilkes Place and Gilkes Cresent ceased several months ago. The site is totally dormant and therefor there are no considerations of safety relevant to either Gilkes Place or Gilkes Crescent. Ian Law (Southwark Traffic Manager) issued this prohibition notice. This notice is illegal because:- 1. There was no application by a builder or contractor. 2. The reason given is false as no work is being done on site. This is yet another blatant abuse of power by Southwark and they should be held to account. This can become permanent unless we object. Please email your objection to [email protected] and complete the complaint form at https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp As Section 14 (1) and 14(2) do not apply then this prohibition notice has been issued illegally and is therefor invalid. ACT TODAY TO STOP THIS BECOMING PERMANENT.

Have a look at......... https://videalert.com/civil-traffic-enforcement/bollard-control/ If they Southwark invested some of the money they received from central government on ANPR access then we would not be having the concentrated pollution and grief we are having at present. The chattering classes in Dulwich will not forgive the arrogance of Cllrs RICHARD LEEMING and MARGY NEWENS for sacrifising our health because of their stupidity.

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------ > Re ANPR timed restrictions not being listed as an > option in the review, suspect it's because it > isn't a practical or safe option - as was > discussed during OHS consultation. > I'm fascinated by this assertion. It was raised during the consultation but the response from Cllr Dale Foden was thoroughly disingenuous. He said it wasn't feasible and that Southwark could not access the DVLA database. He said that the council camera operatives viewed snapshots of the all vehicles contravening the timed restrictions. So if it was say a bus which was exempt then they would ignore it. If it was a private vehicle they would record the number plate and process the fine. In this technological age this manual process is slow, costly and prone to error. Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) can do this automatically by accessing the DVLA database. Foden said it was not possible to access the DVLA database. The reality is that Southwark and other London boroughs do so already. Google for LSP Dulwich trial Phase 2 (notice dated 15 Oct 2020).pdf. Think also of ULEZ etc In fact any member of of the public can make access the database and check Make, Model, Specification etc, etc etc of any vehicle by entering the registration number. This was a blatant attempt to mislead the public by a senior Southwark official. It is a serious offence for a public official to deliberately mislead the public. There is no justifiable reason why they cannot use ANPR to give exemption to users of zero emission vehicles. There would be a fast uptake of these and the reduction in pollution would be significant. https://motorbreaker.co.uk/news/low-emission-zone-ulez-and-lez-zones-explained https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_six_month_evaluation_report_final_oct.pdf https://www.ageas.co.uk/solved/your-car/new-charges-for-london-drivers-how-the-ulez-will-work/ http://www.transport-network.co.uk/Invisible-filters/15786

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The review document is a joke, it's shameful in > its brazenness - designed not to gauge local > opinion but to prove the success of the project. > It is no surprise that groups like One Dulwich are > saying they are left with no option but to suggest > that everything returns to normal. > > This council is totally out of control and is > clearly manipulating the review and the review > process..but did we expect anything else from > them? Agreed. Southwark must think folks will swallow their "consultation" survey. Such a primitive attempt to manipulate the result they want. They are blinding themselves to the reality that such a strategy actually alienates local residents and motivates them to protest and demonstrate. There is already a strong up-swell of resentment and this will only strengthen. Councillors Leeming and Newens should take note that their stance on this will not be forgotten.

Yes, Chicken, it's worn a bit this now. Give it a rest.

It's us the less affluent in the chattering classes who do not own a car who have to rely on buses. And the fact is that the bus journeys are now taking much longer because all the displaced traffic has come over to the main roads where the buses operate. Can't remember when I last saw a bus on Calton Avenue, Court Lane or Gilkes Cres. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You could apply nearly all of those 10 items > listed as reasons not to increase road capacity. > The one I find most questionable however, is the > idea that making it as easy as possible for people > to drive short distances somehow benefits the > least affluent, when in reality it?s the least > affluent who tend not to own or drive a car.

10. BENEFIT THOSE WHO HAVE MOST AND HARM THOSE WHO HAVE LEAST This is very much the case when one looks at East Dulwich Grove. Many of the houses there have been sub-divided into flats so occupation density is high. I realized this when doing leaf-letting rounds. Hence the number of separate households and occupants in EDG far exceeds the numbers in Court Lane, Calton Avenue, Gilkes Crescent etc etc that have closed off. Yes, the wealthy toffs in the so-called "Dulwich Square" have benefited big time. Meanwhile the school kids and the chattering classes, of which I am a member, are suffering big time.

Will do. This reminds me of the comedy called "She stoops to conquer"

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I've seen no mention on this thread of a couple of > troubling incidents at the end of the week before > last. In the first one, a deeply unpleasant and > personal notice was posted on the front and side > doors of an elderly lady with a pro LTN point of > view. The "elderly lady" you refer to is a sprightly and determined urban activist who has been repeatedly ripping down down posters that were attached to local residents perimeter fences. She also utilizes a telescopic aluminum pole to pull down posters that are higher up. Even though she may not agree with the anti-LTN campaign she has no God-given right to interfere. She has been caught on CCTV and we have resisted the suggestion to expose her. Spare us the "dear old lady" bit; she is a street-wise urban guerilla.