Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yesterday the council published a bunch of TMOs which give effect to road closures including the closure of Peckham rye eastside (and the associated right turn onto East Dulwich Road), as well as those in Townley / Burbage road etc.


Details here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/traffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/traffic-management-orders?chapter=5


No doubt this will have an appalling impact on the residents around Barry Road / Forest Hill road on the east of our community.


The Dulwich Village changes may actually improve conditions in East Dulwich Grove, but other people will pay the price for that.

Wow, they come in force next Thursday I wonder if that means all the roads get closed then or whether it permits them to install them anytime between Thursday and when they expire. This will be the death knell for these plans as they will cause such chaos that the council will have no option but to remove them all.


I wonder if Cllr McAsh sent his "we're listening" blog as he knows the closure of DV will improve EDG and move the problem off his ward and onto someone else's.....hmmmmmm....


Rahrahrah - feel free to lobby admin to remove this thread as you do every time you read something you don't like! ;-)

Oh great - more people to be treated like second class residents by the council. If anything good is to come out of it is that the Labour will lose hold over Southwark - or at least will have to share - after the next local election.

ab29 Wrote:

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

> Oh great - more people to be treated like second

> class residents by the council. If anything good

> is to come out of it is that the Labour will lose

> hold over Southwark - or at leas will have to

> share - after the next general election.


You mean local elections I think :)


Edit: and labour have the advantage in the next ones IIRC (due to the weakness of the Liberal Democrats nationally at present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwark_London_Borough_Council_elections

JohnL Wrote:

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

> ab29 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Oh great - more people to be treated like

> second

> > class residents by the council. If anything

> good

> > is to come out of it is that the Labour will

> lose

> > hold over Southwark - or at leas will have to

> > share - after the next general election.

>

> You mean local elections I think :)


Oops yes - just corrected it:) Truly p****d off today ;)

ab29 Wrote:

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

> JohnL Wrote:

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

> -----

> > ab29 Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Oh great - more people to be treated like

> > second

> > > class residents by the council. If anything

> > good

> > > is to come out of it is that the Labour will

> > lose

> > > hold over Southwark - or at leas will have to

> > > share - after the next general election.

> >

> > You mean local elections I think :)

>

> Oops yes - just corrected it:) Truly p****d off

> today ;)


LOL - I feel the same this week - horrible - just checked the figures and the Liberal Dems need to get a revival nationally to mount a comeback here in 2022 IMHO.


I don't think the Tories have much of a base in Southwark but you never know these days.

I don't think the Tories have much of a base in Southwark but you never know these days.


Maybe it's another red wall due to fall, but I suspect that the wealthy middle class socialists who live in London will be the last to give up on 'never vote Tory'. On the other hand, I would certainly consider voting for an independent standing on a 'Dulwich for Dulwich people' ticket. Or indeed a Camberwell ticket, since joining the boroughs was in my view a huge mistake. Indeed, any candidate who was prepared to put the wishes of the majority of their potential constituents first, and not a party ticket, might get my vote.


Should we ever be allowed to vote again. Or will our councillors now be councillors for life, as the Mayor appears to be?

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I don't think the Tories have much of a base in

> Southwark but you never know these days.

>

> Maybe it's another red wall due to fall, but I

> suspect that the wealthy middle class socialists

> who live in London will be the last to give up on

> 'never vote Tory'. On the other hand, I would

> certainly consider voting for an independent

> standing on a 'Dulwich for Dulwich people' ticket.

> Or indeed a Camberwell ticket, since joining the

> boroughs was in my view a huge mistake. Indeed,

> any candidate who was prepared to put the wishes

> of the majority of their potential constituents

> first, and not a party ticket, might get my vote.

>

>

> Should we ever be allowed to vote again. Or will

> our councillors now be councillors for life, as

> the Mayor appears to be?


Yes it's hilarious- if you walk around Dulwich Village and the roads around it at election time all the houses belonging to doctors etc who send their kids to the private schools all have Labour posters in the windows!

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...