Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yes good to see that more roads have now been added to the "Register your Interest" site but why so few were added initially is a bit odd - another council oversight per chance.....;-)


I have to admit that I am not totally convinced those roads being added mean that they are part of the review area.


See the attached from legal from the flyer being distributed to some residents in Dulwich. Looks at the shading of, what we presume is, the review area. Another page of the flyer says that all households within the LTN area, and those households either side of the boundary roads...will receive a letter - that looks like the shading area. Does this mean that roads like Underhill will not receive the letter? Surely everyone in SE22 should be both covered on the pull-down menus and receive the letter.


Does anyone have any clarity on this?

I am not sure, that's what I am trying to ascertain.


Has anyone outside of the indicated area on the map legal shared received the council flyer on the review? I only know of people receiving it who live within the blue shaded area - it seems that everyone in the blue shaded area has received one. The flyer is definitely suggesting that only those within the LTN area and households on either side of the boundary roads (which one presumes is the shading to the east of Lordship Lane) will receive the flyer/letter.

I am not sure - I am hoping all will become clear because at the moment it looks like the council isn't doing their best job and getting this review right.


It doesn't look good:


1) Didn't add the main displacement route (Underhill) to the pull-down menu and had to be chased to do so

2) Has now added a number of roads (Underhill, Melford, Upland etc) when residents complained that they were missing yet there are still roads not included in the pulldown menus that could be impacted by displacement traffic

3) Seems to have mailed the flyer to those only living within the review area (please correct me if I am wrong if anyone has had these delivered beyond the blue shaded area)

4) Has sent the flyer that includes a map that suggests the review area is limited to the blue shaded area on the map - this was the same map Cllr Rose shared on the Dulwich Hill LTN review call and she referred to it, quite clearly, as the LTN review area



I do wonder if this might go some way to explain the delay to the review - remember this review was slated to start (by Cllr Williams) in February. I suspect the council started socialising their (limited) review area and people pushed back (either within the council or outside it) that it was basically gerrymandering to get the result they wanted and they had to expand it but by that point they had already printed the flyers and they are now playing catch-up.


Has anyone heard directly from the council why roads like Underhill were missing on the initial pull-down menus? It looks like, from posts earlier in the thread, that the council were alerted to these omissions by residents.


A lot of this is all so familiar to those of us who lived through the CPZ "consultation". Remember how badly the results (68% of residents against the CPZ) went against the council agenda and how they had to squirm and manipulate the presentation of the results to get the CPZ in.


One wonders how wedded the council are to an area-wide LTN review...


The problem for the council is many constituents are putting them under the microscope and challenging their every move to make sure the review is fair and equitable to everyone impacted by the results. And the council seem to be making a pig's ear of doing that from the outset.

Alice, is it their tweet that takes you to this: https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-village-junction?s=09


I had not seen this but it is fascinating and I think goes some way to demonstrate why the council might be less than keen to engage with the wider community on the LTN review.


The fact OneDulwich had to use an FOI to get this data speaks volumes - what are the council trying to hide one wonders?

Plus I think I saw (not sure where - possibly twitter), that the hard copy leaflets went to residents on Melbourne Grove but not the businesses (who were missed out last time) - similar for closures on Rye Lane.


The One Dulwich FoI info is also on their website. Not sure what the base data looked like / how they extracted the positive info, but looks interesting...


https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-village-junction

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Plus I think I saw (not sure where - possibly

> twitter), that the hard copy leaflets went to

> residents on Melbourne Grove but not the

> businesses (who were missed out last time) -

> similar for closures on Rye Lane.

>

> The One Dulwich FoI info is also on their website.

> Not sure what the base data looked like / how

> they extracted the positive info, but looks

> interesting...

>

> https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-

> village-junction


This is correct, not a single business in the review area was sent the newsletter about the review, but flats above businesses and direct neighbours were.

It does seem that leaflets are being distributed to areas beyond the blue shading as someone PM'd me to say they had received one and they live outside the central LTN area - so hopefully this means everyone is getting one (which is important to ensure everyone is aware of the opportunity to have their say).

Jakido Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> does anyone know if OneDulwich is campaigning to

> have the Dulwich toll booth removed?


Slight difference in that College Road is a private road and therefore not maintained by council funds. https://www.thedulwichestate.org.uk/property-on-the-estate/tollgate-and-roads/private-roads

Sue - that's good news.


I think it is vitally important for everyone to have their say (for or against) and I would encourage everyone to get their neighbours to have their say.


The OneDulwich FOI demonstrates that previous closures (Calton Ave/DV) have been implemented on the basis of supportive responses from a tiny proportion of the local population (if the OneDulwich map is correct the council used feedback from less than 100 people to validate their decision - many of whom lived way beyond the impacted area).

Until they release the underlying data you'll have to excuse me if i don't take their 'analysis' at face value.


The 'report' they produced on the commonplace certainly stretched the limits of some of the words used, so would like to see the data they're basing this analysis on.


Can't see that they've shared the underlying data though?

I found the minutes for the Lewisham Healthy Streets schemes. Unbelievable that a scheme that has such a massive impact on our lives and infrastructure was decided by a few cyclists and council officials. The Feb minutes indicate that the consultation in Lewisham will only include those inside the LTN. Basically it?s a stitch up.


https://lewishamcyclists.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Meeting-Record-20210217.pdf

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • This may be somewhat out of date but virtually no environmental benefit & almost entirely grass... really? https://www.gigl.org.uk/sinc/sobi09/ Description Peckham Rye was established as an open space in the late 19th century and includes several valuable habitat features spread across the park. The park is a Grade II Listed landscape, and has recently been restored with assistance from the Heritage Lottery Fund. A small community garden within the site is managed by the Friends of Peckham Rye. Peckham Rye Park won a Green Flag Award again for 2022. The site is used by the Southwark Health Walks project as part of a Walking the Way to Health (WHI) scheme. Wildlife This large park has several valuable habitat features. The most important of these is the only remaining above-ground section of the River Peck and the most natural stream in the borough. The stream is heavily shaded by native, unmanaged wet woodland dominated by alder, ash and pedunculated oak with a ground cover of pendulous sedge and bramble. Alder dominated woodland is a rare habitat in Southwark. Although somewhat altered with weirs, other artificial structures and ornamental planting, some sections are still in their natural banks and includes yellow flag, watercress, water figwort and cuckooflower. The largest of three ponds supports marginal vegetation including hemp agrimony. A variety of waterfowl nest on the wooded island, including tufted duck, coot, Canada goose and mallard. Substantial flocks of gulls visit the park in winter and bats are likely to forage over the water. Small blocks of predominantly native woodland, mostly on the boundary between the Park and the Common, are dominated by oak and ash with a well-developed understory, but sparse ground flora. Spring bulbs have been planted in previous years. These and several dense shrubberies support a good bird population and small numbers of pipistrelle bats are present. Infrequently mown grassland is located in one large area and was seeded in 2009. It's composition includes giant fescue, ladies bedstraw, meadowsweet, black knapweed and wild carrot. The rest of the park consists of amenity grassland with some fine mature trees.  
    • Same here. Incredibly selfish behaviour. Also illegal.
    • I heard them & our two dogs were extremely upset by it..  bad enough during the evenings but at least can have music on to dilute the noise!   Some people have literally zero thoughts for others!! 
    • I have signed that petition.  Someone was letting off loud fireworks at about 3 am this morning. They woke me up.   I don’t know where they were exactly but it sounded like they were in the vicinity of Dog Kennel Hill.    
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...