Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

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

haha - i'm guessing you've not spent much time passing that shop Bicknell?



Aqua was less of a shop and more of a project as far as I could tell - like something to do, sometimes. It didn't really open much and sold a really random selection of stuff. There are some nice bits in there but its just not somewhere that reliably traded. Will be great to get a new business in there - anything really as long as its a shop that opens!



Bicknell Wrote:

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

> shop next to cafe on closed junction in dulwich

> village closing down. so maybe trade not so good.

>

> dv has a lot of nice places to sit. would rather

> have shops than another place to sit

Yeah. They can visit and then go back where they belong - to a dirty, polluted road where they can continue to aspire. Or expire more likely.



legalalien Wrote:

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

> 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

Vanity project for Village Councillors ... wealthy areas trying to be ? a house in the country? by exporting traffic to poorer areas, while still having all the convenience of a city. Meanwhile Southwark builds high rises on green spaces in the poorest areas.


Well at least when the cleaner leaves the gardenless flat on a busy road for the cleaning round, they can experience the clean, traffic free roads of Calton and Court...and have something to aspire to.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Vanity project for Village Councillors ... wealthy

> areas trying to be ? a house in the country? by

> exporting traffic to poorer areas,


So how do explain same happening in Brixton, Peckham and Oval? 400 plus filters have been installed all over London.

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.

The criteria for filtering streets is to stop rat-running (largely caused by sat-navs) and create safe routes for active travel. Hence the measures in Dulwich.


Did Google / Waze consult us before 'redesigning' streets into rat-runs?

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.

Did Google / Waze consult us before 'redesigning' streets into rat-runs?


They didn't design rat runs. Instead their algorithms look for routes which are currently uncongested/ quicker and divert traffic down these. As moving traffic tends to generate less polluting particles than standing traffic (if only because they complete a given journey quicker/ with fewer hold-ups) this may well be health beneficial. The effect of this is to (probably) create less pollution and certainly to distribute polluting activities wider, which reduces the intensity of impact on particular high use routes. Almost the reverse of what the Dulwich LTN schemes do, in fact.

Thank you Legal, you clearly explained. If Southwark had followed their own guidelines, then the LTNs in this area would be very different.


Calton and Court are wide arterial routes and not little country lanes - not very different from Croxted and ED Grove, except for the modal value of housing - ?3,112,550 in Calton and the majority of sales in East Dulwich Grove during the last year were flats, selling for an average price of ?530,500.


This 'rat-run' idea is not only ridiculous it is insulting to residents on ED Grove, Croxted, LL and Grove Vale - apparently we are lesser mortals who deserve 'rats' on our roads. Seeing car ownership is very high in the chosen LTNs and significantly lower on our ratty roads, it would appear that most of the 'rats' driving down my road, live in the LTNs!


The 'lobby' for a gated community has been active in Calton/Court/Melbourne and Derwent for many, many years. Professional, white, wealthy, middle classes...(apart from the wealthy part, I fit that demographic), who are very able to vocalise and organise.

The point of having councillors is that they should consider impacts of any decision on those less able to organise, voice opinion and have little or no agency.

Instead this really is the vanity project of one councillor, without any consideration on the surrounding areas, so that they are popular with these pressure and lobby groups.

It is quite shameless and entitled.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Thank you Legal, you clearly explained. If

> Southwark had followed their own guidelines, then

> the LTNs in this area would be very different.

>

> Calton and Court are wide arterial routes and not

> little country lanes - not very different from

> Croxted and ED Grove, except for the modal value

> of housing - ?3,112,550 in Calton and the majority

> of sales in East Dulwich Grove during the last

> year were flats, selling for an average price of

> ?530,500.

>

> This 'rat-run' idea is not only ridiculous it is

> insulting to residents on ED Grove, Croxted, LL

> and Grove Vale - apparently we are lesser mortals

> who deserve 'rats' on our roads. Seeing car

> ownership is very high in the chosen LTNs and

> significantly lower on our ratty roads, it would

> appear that most of the 'rats' driving down my

> road, live in the LTNs!

>

> The 'lobby' for a gated community has been active

> in Calton/Court/Melbourne and Derwent for many,

> many years. Professional, white, wealthy, middle

> classes...(apart from the wealthy part, I fit that

> demographic), who are very able to vocalise and

> organise.

> The point of having councillors is that they

> should consider impacts of any decision on those

> less able to organise, voice opinion and have

> little or no agency.

> Instead this really is the vanity project of one

> councillor, without any consideration on the

> surrounding areas, so that they are popular with

> these pressure and lobby groups.

> It is quite shameless and entitled.



I stopped reading just after ?wide arterial routes? and for the record the value of housing is Immaterial. Go to Leyton and see for yourself.


?An arterial road or arterial thoroughfare is a high-capacity urban road that sits below freeways/motorways on the road hierarchy in terms of traffic flow and speed?

teddyboy23 Wrote:

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

> Also the planters are going .not sure on the

> date.instead the cameras will monitor the traffic

> as in dulwich village .same times will apply is.no

> through road between 8am 10am and 3pm 6pm


That?s interesting. Has anyone else heard of this?

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Not that, but I did hear that Court Lane was going

> to be made one-way as the council was

> acknowledging that there were problems being

> caused by the throttling of east/west routes by

> the closures.

>

> Maybe the two are linked?

Making Court Lane one way is a great way to ensure there is an accident. One way roads encourage speeding thereby increasing the likelihood of pedestrian fatalities.

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

    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
    • Having just been to Co-op to redeem a 50p off Co-op members' card voucher on an item that is now 50p more than it was last week, Tesco can't come soon enough
    • Surely that depends on the amount.  It can be quite piffling.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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