Join the Dulwich Society

[DulwichSociety]

If you are not already a member, you can try our monthly eNews free for 3 months as a taster: https://www.dulwichsociety.com/society/enewsletter-free-trial. To keep you informed of what's going on in Dulwich we publish a quarterly printed Journal, a monthly digital eNews and an annual ‘Dulwich Gardens open for Charity’ booklet. We maintain a website, three Twitter accounts and an Instagram account plus we offer talks, walks and tours. Just £10 per household per year, join here: http://dulwichsociety.com/membership

[Pugwash]

We have been members for years - get both the e news and magazine. Good information on what is happening in local area and events etc.

[DulwichSociety]

Thanks Pugwash, appreciate it! The more members we have, the more we can do, the stronger our voice with local decision makers such as the Dulwich Estate and the local councils.

[CPR Dave]

So you can campaign for road closures?

[Chick]

Haven't we got enough closed roads?

[Spartacus]

Maybe more LTN objectors should join to change the narrative away from being pro LTN 🤔

[Jenijenjen]

@dulwichsociety I may be missing something but there doesn’t appear to be a search facility on your website?

[Penguin68]

There is - it's nested under 'Features' on the site - this is the link to Search

https://www.dulwichsociety.com/search

[Penguin68]

So you can campaign for road closures?

I don't think that's quite right. I believe that (pre LTNs and maybe pre-lockdown) the Society endorsed general moves to reduce road generated pollution (who wouldn't? - remember that the ULEZ expansion was theoretically directed at that as well) but without specifying or endorsing particular solutions - when the specific LTN proposals were actually made the Society still endorsed the claimed objective but did not endorse the particular solution - the Society seemed to recognise the very divisive impact potentially of the actual solutions proposed and realised its own membership would be very divided by them. I therefore believe that the Society as a whole has not taken any public position on local LTNs although individual members of the Society clearly may well have quite clear (and often conflicting with others) views of their own.

I therefore believe that the Society has never endorsed the actual 'LTN solutions' now in place - despite some claims made by 3rd parties - whilst still believing that reduction in traffic generated pollution (not its redistribution) in Dulwich is a good objective.

For that reason it would not be right to suppose that the Society has, or does 'campaign for road closures' as a general statement of policy. We all know of roads that have been closed or partially closed, some supported by the Society - those leading onto Peckham Rye for instance, or around schools at key periods - but these have tended to be for 'obvious' safety reasons.

[Jenijenjen]

Thanks Penguin 👍

[DulwichSociety]

There is - it's nested under 'Features' on the site - this is the link to Search

https://www.dulwichsociety.com/search

 

👍

[DulwichSociety]

So you can campaign for road closures?

I don't think that's quite right. I believe that (pre LTNs and maybe pre-lockdown) the Society endorsed general moves to reduce road generated pollution (who wouldn't? - remember that the ULEZ expansion was theoretically directed at that as well) but without specifying or endorsing particular solutions - when the specific LTN proposals were actually made the Society still endorsed the claimed objective but did not endorse the particular solution - the Society seemed to recognise the very divisive impact potentially of the actual solutions proposed and realised its own membership would be very divided by them. I therefore believe that the Society as a whole has not taken any public position on local LTNs although individual members of the Society clearly may well have quite clear (and often conflicting with others) views of their own.

I therefore believe that the Society has never endorsed the actual 'LTN solutions' now in place - despite some claims made by 3rd parties - whilst still believing that reduction in traffic generated pollution (not its redistribution) in Dulwich is a good objective.

For that reason it would not be right to suppose that the Society has, or does 'campaign for road closures' as a general statement of policy. We all know of roads that have been closed or partially closed, some supported by the Society - those leading onto Peckham Rye for instance, or around schools at key periods - but these have tended to be for 'obvious' safety reasons.

 

👍