Latest One Dulwich update

[Bicknell]

Dulwich Village LTN ‘will not be lifted as long as Labour controls the council’ – Southwark News

[EDmummy101]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/south-london-council-raked-in-1-million-from-illegal-low-traffic-zone-b1227062.html

On 24/02/2025 at 12:52, ab29 said:

 

Campaign Update | 24 Feb

West Dulwich Action Group High Court hearing West Dulwich Action Group’s legal case against Lambeth for imposing an LTN has been heard in the High Court. The hearing was widely reported in the national press, including the Standard. It is likely to be a few weeks before the judge delivers his verdict.  New review highlights scale of opposition to LTNs A review of 90 LTNs across 17 London boroughs and six other UK cities has found that the overwhelming majority were brought in without community support. Of the 78 LTNs that were subject to public consultations, 86% had sizeable majorities of respondents opposed. Despite this, three out of four LTNs were imposed anyway. The review, based on councils’ own published results, was carried out on behalf of a coalition of more than 15 local campaign groups by One Dulwich, who are quoted in last Saturday’s Times. The article highlights the extent to which councils manipulated survey questions and results to disguise the scale of opposition. Safety at the Dulwich Village junction One Dulwich has written to Southwark Council expressing major concerns about safety at the re-designed junction, urging the Council to install better signage and road markings, and to improve crossing points. Because of the risk of serious accidents, we have asked for the Council to respond as a matter of urgency.  Thank you for your support. Best wishes,

The One Dulwich Team

Fantastic news re the win against Lambeth local authority.. let's hope we can get some LTNs removed in East Dulwich, tho I suspect the new road and "square" near ED station further cements the permanent LTN on Melbourne Grove sadly.

[alice]

First Tower Hamlets then Lambeth. 

[Rockets]

One Dulwich

Campaign Update | 12 May West Dulwich Action Group wins LTN legal battle Congratulations to the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), the first campaign group in the UK to win a legal battle over an LTN. Last week, a High Court judge ruled that Lambeth Council’s consultation was unfair and the West Dulwich LTN unlawful. The LTN was implemented last September after a consultation in which 67.5 per cent of residents objected (a similar percentage objected to the Dulwich Village and East Dulwich LTNs). It will remain in place pending further direction from the judge, who may order its removal. The judgment has given hope to our fellow campaigners in Croydon and Greenwich. Challenging councils over consultations has always been hard, firstly because the time window for legal action is so small, but also because the courts have previously seemed reluctant to rule against trial schemes, especially those introduced during Covid (listen to the report at 1:34:59 on BBC Radio 4 Today). But now, in 2025, the tide may be turning. WDAG’s win was widely reported – see The Times, The Telegraph, and BBC London. Now WDAG are calling on Lambeth to refund more than £1 million in fines issued since last September. Southwark News calls for the Council to work with Dulwich residents Cllr Richard Leeming’s comment at last week’s meeting on the Future of Dulwich made front page headlines in this week’s Southwark News: “Ward councillor asserts that Southwark’s most controversial LTN will not be lifted whilst there is a Labour Council.” The newspaper also devotes its entire editorial to the meeting, highlighting local anger and frustration, and the “vital importance in politics of bringing people with you.” “Going forward,” the editorial says, “the council should explore ways it can work with local residents to address some of their concerns – only then might we see a system that works for everyone.” We couldn’t agree more. Our councillors have our contact details – we look forward to hearing from them. Thank you for your support.

[ab29]

One Dulwich

Campaign Update | 31 May West Dulwich victory keeps the fightback against LTNs in the news Media coverage about community opposition to LTNs has continued since West Dulwich Action Group’s High Court success – excellent opinion pieces in the Guardian and the Times, an in-depth article in the Telegraph, and articles in the Critic and Spectator. One Dulwich also contributed to a discussion about LTNs on Nick Ferrari’s show on LBC (02:49:50) on 28 May. Department for Transport considers next moves One Dulwich and Social & Environmental Justice have written again to Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander asking the DfT to introduce a proper legal framework for LTNs in the light of the WDAG verdict. She replied to say that the Government is still considering next steps. No response from Southwark Council We have written again to Southwark Highways asking them to respond to concerns submitted in February, at their request, about the safety of pedestrians and cyclists at the Dulwich Village junction. So far, we have heard nothing back. Meanwhile, following the closure of D Village last month, and Dalloz Fine Art moving to Clapham, another Dulwich Village business, Romeo Jones, has sadly closed. This comes just four weeks after chair of the Dulwich Village Association Hazel Broadfoot warned about the negative effect on local businesses of the new CPZ and the “highly confusing” camera restrictions on main access roads. She said: “If we continue to make it so difficult for people to access Dulwich Village by car, then shops will close and jobs will be lost.” Thank you for your support. The One Dulwich Team  SUPPORT ONE DULWICH

"(...) huge, permanent labour majorities removed all politicall oversight"

[fredricketts]

On 27/02/2025 at 10:30, Earl Aelfheah said:

How have you concluded that there has been a trebling of pollution?

The data I've seen suggests pollution (NO2) has been dropping across the area:

SDT	Location	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023
139	Lamppost (2139 - L29) Grove Lane			33.2	24.1	27.5		18.6
136	Lamppost (2160 - L12) adjacent to Dog Kennel Hill School			33.8	20.2	23.9	22.3	20.1
138	Lamppost (2127 - L11) Pytchley Road			31.1	24.7	27.4	25.9	23.4
114	Lamppost No 1 Goose Green / East Dulwich Road	37.4	31.6	33	22.6	25.2	25	21.8
161	Lamppost 2120-02 adjacent to 8 East Dulwich Grove						29.2	25.3
162	On the southern downpipe at Harris East Dulwich Primary School, Lordship Lane						23	22.1
151	Junction of Townley Road & Lordship Lane Lamppost ( 2300 - 01)			28.6	18.6	22	20.1	17
97	Barry Road	37.5	37.3	32.5	24.3	26.8	24.4	23

It dropped mainly because of lock down in 2020. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Definitely. But pollution remained lower in 2021, 2022 and 2023.

It’s just not true to say pollution has increased (the claim was that it has trebled), which was my point.

Edited June 24 by Earl Aelfheah

[ab29]

On 25/06/2025 at 08:40, Earl Aelfheah said:

I don't understand why you've quoted my post, which makes a factual statement (local air pollution has not 'trebled' as claimed, but has trended downwards year on year, across every local NO2 monitoring site), accompanied with a laughing emoji.

You have recently made a series of posts, aimed at, or quoting me, which are incoherent and / or appear belligerent / angry (even suggesting we meet?!). I've obviously upset you, but there is nothing in the post you have quoted that I think could be considered funny, aggressive, or unreasonable. So just checking you're ok?

<Personal attack removed. Suspension given . Later posts quoting this one have been removed. - Admin>

Edited July 2 by Administrator
Personal attack removed. Suspension given. Later posts quoting this one have been removed.

[Rockets]

One Dulwich

 

Campaign Update | 31 Aug

Department for Transport ditches LTN guidance

 

On 16 August the Daily Telegraph reported that the DfT are to ditch guidance requiring councils to obtain community consent before introducing or retaining LTNs. In response, One Dulwich and Social & Environmental Justice wrote to Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander on behalf of 15 community campaign groups, representing tens of thousands of UK residents, asking her to reconsider. This was reported in The Times on 20 August.

 

We reminded her that councils have frequently imposed LTNs on local communities without their consent – 89% of those carrying out consultations according to The Times – in many cases after public surveys showing that two-thirds or more wanted them removed. This was the case in Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill. Why would any government minister want to abandon a policy that increases democratic accountability?

 

New leader of Southwark Council says that residents know best

 

In July Champion Hill councillor Sarah King replaced Kieron Williams as leader of Southwark Council.

 

After Cllr. King announced that, under her leadership, Southwark Labour would be “defined by trust: trusting our residents who know what is best for their local areas”, One Dulwich and several Dulwich residents’ associations wrote to her asking her to work with us to find practical ways to mitigate the most damaging impacts of the LTNs and to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians. We await her response.

 

Cycling on pavements

 

There are growing concerns about the increasing number of pedestrians experiencing near misses from cyclists riding on pavements in the Dulwich area. This is a particular problem at the Dulwich Village/Court Lane/Calton Avenue junction. E-bikes and e-scooters ridden at speed are especially dangerous.

 

Please raise this issue with Cllr. Natasha Ennin, Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Neighbourhoods ([email protected]), emphasising that cycling on pavements seriously endangers the most vulnerable in our community, especially small children, people with mobility problems and those with poor sight or hearing loss.

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

There are growing concerns about the increasing number of pedestrians experiencing near misses from cyclists riding on pavements in the Dulwich area. This is a particular problem at the Dulwich Village/Court Lane/Calton Avenue junction. E-bikes and e-scooters ridden at speed are especially dangerous.

Has OneDulwich guy published the data for these claims? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Nope.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

There are growing concerns about the increasing number of individuals presenting themselves as community organisations and pumping out misinformation in the Dulwich area. This is a particular problem at the Dulwich Village/Court Lane/Calton Avenue junction. FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) pumped out at speed are especially dangerous.

[first mate]

Such as?

[Spartacus]

46 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

There are growing concerns about the increasing number of individuals presenting themselves as community organisations and pumping out misinformation in the Dulwich area. This is a particular problem at the Dulwich Village/Court Lane/Calton Avenue junction. FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) pumped out at speed are especially dangerous.

Interesting statement, who has concerns and what are their actual concerns locally? 

Or are you slightly spinning here ? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I am certainly concerned with constant misinformation around supposed increases in pollution, collisions, pedestrian safety and crime, as well as suggestions that the road filter on Calton Avenue has reduced footfall and damaged business. There is no evidence for any of these claims. In fact quite a lot of evidence for the opposite in many instances.

There has also been constant insinuations of foul play, illegality and conspiracy - again with no evidence offered, and deliberate misrepresentations (or wilful ignorance) about proper democratic process. It's been going on for years now and it's driven by a handful of individuals from what I can tell (for example, the man calling himself 'One Dulwich' and claiming to represent the whole community, as well as a one particular monomaniac on this forum).

I think it has a negative impact on the community to sow unsubstantiated fears of crime and to suggest that pedestrians are facing great danger where they are not. It's particularly stark when you consider that the some of the same individuals repeatedly minimise or play down actual crash data / road danger.

Edited 11 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Goodness, you are so very angry about whoever Mr or Mrs One Dulwich is. They seem to live in your head rent free. Why not focus on things like consultation results as a barometer of local feeling about interventions you support? After all, One Dulwich simply echo those views, I think. I do though get that constantly deflecting onto your creation " Mr One Dulwich" helps you and helps you vent ( rather like the person that tore down a poster in a shop, when it said things they disagree with).

What about the MGS CPZ and the revised and reduced version, which we were told in council documents was subject to statutory consultation. Well, I can tell you, there has not been one, yet our local Cllr announced in SE22 that it was "all agreed". Does that not seem odd to you?

Edited 10 hours ago by first mate

[Rockets]

When @DulvilleRes sent me looking for the "Choose a Good Councillor" article on the OneDulwich site I found something one there that I had not seen before. Namely a brilliant piece on the Winners and Losers of the scheme: https://www.onedulwich.uk/winners-and-losers

And within that OneDulwich maps the links between the various active travel lobby groups and the council. It is fascinating. Let's be honest, if all you care about is the person behind OneDulwich but aren't interested in the lobby groups helping pull the council's strings then your attention is probably misplaced.....look @DulvilleRes your beloved Dulwich Society Travel and Environmental Sub-Committee even gets an honourable mention! 

 

 

4 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

There are growing concerns about the increasing number of individuals presenting themselves as community organisations and pumping out misinformation in the Dulwich area. This is a particular problem at the Dulwich Village/Court Lane/Calton Avenue junction. FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) pumped out at speed are especially dangerous.

@Dogkennelhillbilly in the context of my above post I think you might be right - there are so many of these local active travel lobby groups that pump out misinformation yet seem to have strong links to the council.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

4 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Interesting statement, who has concerns and what are their actual concerns locally? 

🤦‍♂️

57 minutes ago, Rockets said:

OneDulwich maps the links between the various active travel lobby groups and the council. It is fascinating. 

I for one am stunned to see that Southwark Council is linked to...Southwark Council. Thank god Mr OneDulwich is there to map these things out.

Will he be making a similar diagram mapping out the links between OneDulwich, One Greenwich, One Jesmond and the various other odd "community groups that the community can't join" that sprang up...and the local branch of the Conservative party?

Edited 8 hours ago by Dogkennelhillbilly

[Spartacus]

42 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

🤦‍♂️

 

Why the slapping forehead emoji ? 

Did you score a home goal when mentioning "I am certainly concerned with constant misinformation around supposed increases in pollution, collisions, pedestrian safety and crime, as well as suggestions that the road filter on Calton Avenue has reduced footfall and damaged business. There is no evidence for any of these claims. In fact quite a lot of evidence for the opposite in many instances." 

Hardly the growing concern but the voice of a vocal minority not acknowledging the concerns of others over the way Southwark steamrollered in the scheme. 

Got to giggle, as now the square of shame is here, steam rollers can no longer access it. 😅

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

I for one am stunned to see that Southwark Council is linked to...Southwark Council. Thank god Mr OneDulwich is there to map these things out.

I think you're, deliberately so, missing the point @Dogkennelhillbilly. Perhaps those so vexed about the supposed opaqueness of OneDulwich ought to start spending more time looking at the very, very cosy relationships between the council and the various interlinked active travel lobbying groups....

8 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

think it has a negative impact on the community to sow unsubstantiated fears of crime and to suggest that pedestrians are facing great danger where they are not. It's particularly stark when you consider that the some of the same individuals repeatedly minimise or play down actual crash data / road danger.

@Earl Aelfheah unsubstantiated fear of crime.....errrrr,the Met's latest crime numbers for Dulwich Village don't make happy reading do they....