Jump to content

Recommended Posts

FairTgirl Wrote:

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

> For anyone who has not seen it - Cllr McAsh posted this on his blog today. https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/faqs->on-goose-green-ltn-measures


It is good to know that at least one of the local councillors is listening to their constituents and thinking a bit more deeply about the implications of these road closures. However there is a major flaw in the his analysis. He quotes from a Guardian article viz. "congestion in London has risen dramatically. On one day in September, it was 53% higher than the previous year." to claim that traffic has increased so more LTN's are needed. This interpretation is not correct, indeed it is significanlty flawed.


The measure of congestion used by Waze for this statistic is journey time NOT traffic volumes. So what this is saying is that journeys are taking a lot longer. Other studies, eg DoT and TfL, show that traffic is still below pre-lockdown levels. If so, what this means is that the congestion is caused, not by extra traffic, but by the road closures themselves. And, as the Guardian article shows, this actually increase pollution on the roads affected by the displaced traffic.


So, ironically, it seems that LTN's and road closure are actually increasing pollution, which groups like OneDulwich and many posters on here have been saying for months.

Clearly there's a lot of Daily Mail readers around. Quite a few new readers can be found across Peckham Rye as news of the Phase 4 closures spreads ;-).


Someone is setting up an e-petition on the Southwark website to lobby against those closures. I reckon the council will be spending a lot of their cabinet meetings talking about the road closures before long......although I did notice today someone set-up an e-petition to allow sheep to graze again on Goose Green....something I think we can all get behind!


No doubt the sheep grazing petition will have substantially more than the 51 who have signed the pro-closure petition....


I noted during the council meeting that the pro-closure lady was trying invalidate the e-petition against the closures on the basis that postcodes aren't entered when supporting the e-petition and that people from outside the area had been signing.....I presume that's a bit like Southwark cyclists encouraging their members to leave comments on the Streetspace sites or infiltrating OHS consultations.


There is a simple solution - the council runs an area-wide consultation and see what the public feedback is and make decisions on the wishes of the majority of Dulwich residents. I suspect there are far more local residents in the 2,600 who signed the anti-closure petition than the 51 signing for pro-closure!

FWIW I?m all in favour of Parklets and cycle hangars as long as they are strategically positioned to benefit those who need them and not those with side gates and large back yards - and as long as they don?t remove much needed parking near small businesses. Mind you, I do read the Daily Mail from time to time - I try to rotate my news source each day so as not to become too comfortable in my views. I?d recommend it.

I heard they also get a council tax amnesty and chocolates and flowers delivered once a week...by bike obviously.


Isn?t the main entrance to the school due to move to east dulwich grove? Or is that just for some years.

So they're closing a road at school times that has already been closed - a double whammy!? Why do they need this - according to the pro-closure propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has now been fixed - reference the photos of children milling around the school. Or is it that the closure of the road has created a school drop-off cul-de-sac - as is happening at the end of Court Lane at the moment which looks like a car park?


Have the traders been consulted as the council states that there is a "minor inconvenience" that no-one will be able to get access to the parking bays? This could be the final nail in the coffin for some businesses around Melbourne Grove.


Are the residents in support as that prevents all access to their properties during those hours?

so the further Dulwich Village and Carlton Avenue DYL's are to make it easier for residents with off street parking to access their properties? How is this in the spirit of reducing traffic? this administration is woefully out of control
Recent bad traffic has some unusual features. I do not think it is caused by road closures. I think it is due to more people driving, particularly to school!! Roads seem more quiet than usual in the day-about midday.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Just wanted to make sure everyone on this thread

> is aware of the decision for an experimental

> school street closure on Melbourne Grove

>

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetail

> s.aspx?ID=7190


There are some quite surprising changes going through on there.


E.g 25 feet of new double yellow lines on Crystal Palace Road at the request of the homeowner because they can't always get their own car over the pavemement and onto their private car parking easily enough...


Seems at odds with the councillors' aims of reducing private car ownership / use

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> legalalien Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Just wanted to make sure everyone on this

> thread

> > is aware of the decision for an experimental

> > school street closure on Melbourne Grove





> >

> >

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetail

>

> > s.aspx?ID=7190

>

> There are some quite surprising changes going

> through on there.

>

> E.g 25 feet of new double yellow lines on Crystal

> Palace Road at the request of the homeowner

> because they can't always get their own car over

> the pavemement and onto their private car parking

> easily enough...

>

> Seems at odds with the councillors' aims of

> reducing private car ownership / use


yup as I posted earlier, there are some desperate double standards at play here

If you have cars parked tight up to the entrance sides of entrance drop you are unable to see what is coming up or down on the road.


People will only think of their needs not others


With the amount of traffic on CPR I would have thought this is required.

You can see why councils love cameras on bus gates.

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18810571.lewisham-council-get-millions-lee-green-ltn-fines/


New on here but have been reading comments on all the road issues seemingly for the last year at least. What a waste of time all those consultations were, only for the council to cheat and impose all these LTNs anyway. I think a few people are just trying to change all our lives, instead of just their own. And ruining our freedoms in the process.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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