West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[malumbu]

59 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

And these costs are not funded by Councils, in the main. We also have issues to do with Defence responsibilities - should the Council be picking those up to?

And the day that Lambeth or Southwark council picks up the responsibility for managing and funding the NHS I will agree that this too becomes their issue. 

Because you are cycling mavens (but many people can't cycle for perfectly good reasons, including inclination) you are delighted by such Council mission creep. 

Yet you resist so strongly any attempts to control cyclists as regards speed or responsibilities to other road users arguing your personal choice and those of other cyclists trump the concerns of others... hey ho!

@Penguin68What on earth are you on about? I'm talking about walking and cycling and the health benefits.  Why confuse it with another issue.

[Penguin68]

Because Health, like Defence, are not Council responsibilities. Just a reduction ad absurdum. 

[malumbu]

So local authorities have no responsibility for our wellbeing?  Good heavens.  Local authorities and health authorities have long since worked together on public health and social care.

It's a statutory duty.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/public-health-and-safety/health-and-wellbeing/public-health

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/adult-social-care

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06844/

Edited June 5 by malumbu

[Rockets]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ge92xldrjo

[ab29]

30 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Because Health, like Defence, are not Council responsibilities. Just a reduction ad absurdum. 

hear, hear

[malumbu]

3 minutes ago, ab29 said:

hear, hear

Scroll up two posts.  I'm surprised how poorly informed someone of you are, somewhat blinded by your distrust of everything that Southwark and no doubt many local authorities do.  Sadly a sign of the times, fake news etc.

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

..and a reminder that the majority of households in our borough don't own / have access to a car. I think it's perfectly right for our representatives to allocate a greater proportion of space to people getting around by foot, bike and bus. 

But the vast majority of households in this area (where the council has decided to roll out these measures) do have a vehicle. Why? Because the transport links are poor and there are more families. 

This whole "majority of households do not own/have access to a car" is such distraction narrative nonsense - Southwark is a big borough - in the north of the borough (where the highest density of housing is) transport links are excellent and car ownership is low. In the south of the borough transport links are poor, the density of housing is lower and car ownership is high.

Go figure.....

 

[ab29]

15 minutes ago, ab29 said:

hear, hear

and hear, hear it is 🙂based on yrs of living in Southwark council area

@malumbu: if you really cannot see issues that ordinary people have - and these issues have been voiced on this forum and elsewhere  - then we really have a problem with the councils full stop

Edited June 5 by ab29

[malumbu]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

But the vast majority of households in this area (where the council has decided to roll out these measures) do have a vehicle. Why? Because the transport links are poor and there are more families. 

 

 

 

Why do you keep perpetuating the myth that transport links are poor?  You are not happy with every action taken to discourage car use and keep stating that public transport is not good enough. It's all relative and compared to most of the country public transport is excellent. So good that in distance terms I use it even more than a bike over the whole year.

2 hours ago, ab29 said:

and hear, hear it is 🙂based on yrs of living in Southwark council area

@malumbu: if you really cannot see issues that ordinary people have - and these issues have been voiced on this forum and elsewhere  - then we really have a problem with the councils full stop

What issues.  Some restrictions on driving?  I'm all in favour.  Suggest some of you ordinary people spend a week living in an area where Reform is running the council in a few months time.  You may appreciate things.

And as there are only score or so of us posting on this subject in an an area of 100,000 plus how do either of us necessarily represent ordinary people, whatever that means.  Unless you are talking about that excellent 1980 film. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_People

 

[ab29]

14 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Why do you keep perpetuating the myth that transport links are poor?  You are not happy with every action taken to discourage car use and keep stating that public transport is not good enough. It's all relative and compared to most of the country public transport is excellent. So good that in distance terms I use it even more than a bike over the whole year.

What issues.  Some restrictions on driving?  I'm all in favour.  Suggest some of you ordinary people spend a week living in an area where Reform is running the council in a few months time.  You may appreciate things.

And as there are only score or so of us posting on this subject in an an area of 100,000 plus how do either of us necessarily represent ordinary people, whatever that means.  Unless you are talking about that excellent 1980 film. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_People

 

like, keep dreaming southwark council

[Sue]

8 hours ago, Rockets said:

@march46 sorry I have to laugh that even the WHO poster shows what looks like a cyclist speeding towards a pedestrian crossing with clearly no intention to stop.....;-) Not the best clip art selection by the WHO there....

I initially thought that too, but it looks like the cyclist will pass the end of the crossing long before the pedestrians get there!

[ab29]

16 minutes ago, Sue said:

I initially thought that too, but it looks like the cyclist will pass the end of the crossing long before the pedestrians get there!

West Dulwich LTN Action Group needs your help to challenge Lambeth Council in court! We need to raise £30k by Monday, 9th September – please donate here: https://gofund.me/ec59a9b3

We are fighting Lambeth Council’s proposal to impose a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) on West Dulwich, which will cause increased traffic and pollution – just like their disastrous scheme in Streatham.

The council has manipulated data, ignored our legal letters, and failed to properly consult residents. We support reducing pollution, but not through a one-size-fits-all LTN that will create a problem which we currently do not have!

Your contribution will help us take the council to theHigh Court for a judicial review. It's time to hold them accountable for their misleading actions and poor decision-making.

Please donate, share our cause, and help us fight for a fairer solution. Together, we can make a difference – and if we succeed, you may even get your money back!

Donate here: https://gofund.me/ec59a9b3

[Rockets]

29 minutes ago, Sue said:

I initially thought that too, but it looks like the cyclist will pass the end of the crossing long before the pedestrians get there!

Ha ha, but the pedestrians are on the crossing - the cyclist has to give way to them and stop....the Highway Code is very clear about that.

I think that poster is hilarious and I cannot believe someone from the WHO didn't notice their visual Freudian slip....

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Why do you keep perpetuating the myth that transport links are poor? 

Because it is not a myth but a fact. A fact backed up by comments from your beloved Southwark council and TFL. You know that the further outside a city centre you get the worse the transport links get right? Or are you arguing that the southern most parts of the borough of Southwark have better or comparable transport links to the northern parts? And please don’t start talking about comparing here to some village in the countryside - that is basically doing the same as the council bleating on about most people in Southwark don’t own a car….it’s trying to create a narrative to fit your argument.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 05/06/2025 at 14:44, Penguin68 said:

And these costs are not funded by Councils, in the main. We also have issues to do with Defence responsibilities - should the Council be picking those up to?

No. Defence has nothing to do with local councils. Councils in London (and across the UK) have a legal duty to maintain public roads and footpaths to ensure they are safe for use, including for pedestrians and cyclists. 

There is also a duty on London boroughs to promote public health and sustainable travel. This duty is reinforced by legislation like the Health and Social Care Act 2012

TfL and other organizations provide funding and support for boroughs to implement active travel projects.

So one very much is their business, the other obviously, is not.

Edited June 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

The West Dulwich LTN is no more. It's gone, joining the Streatham Wells LTN on Lambeth LTN naughty step.

[Spartacus]

I wonder if Lambeth will refund all fines generated by it as it was deemed to be implemted illegally? 

My million quid is on that they won't and another court case or group action claim.

[malumbu]

36 minutes ago, Rockets said:

The West Dulwich LTN is no more. It's gone, joining the Streatham Wells LTN on Lambeth LTN naughty step.

Oh dear, selective reporting.....

From Lambeth's website:

The Streatham Wells LTN was suspended on Thursday 7 March at 1pm. The suspension was announced as a result of concerns about public transport delays and the anticipated impact on the A23 due to construction work. 

Transport for London (TfL) will begin a £9 million project on the A23 to substantially upgrade the experience for walking and cycling, starting at the end of spring and continuing into 2025. These improvement works will necessarily require some reduced road capacity while this major investment takes place. Alongside this investment, we are working with TfL to implement a comprehensive package of bus priority measures along the length of the A23 to separate buses from general traffic and help prevent bus delays in future. 

 

Sorry to disappoint you, there was no order for it to be scrapped.

[Rockets]

Oh dear, wishful thinking on your part......the trial LTN in Streatham Wells was removed (or suspended as your comrades in Lambeth spun it! ;-))

[ab29]

20 hours ago, Rockets said:

The West Dulwich LTN is no more. It's gone, joining the Streatham Wells LTN on Lambeth LTN naughty step.

Let it be Dulwich next! 🙂

[malumbu]

No chance

[Rockets]

Aren't there a few others going through/about to go through the High Court elsewhere the country?

I presume Lambeth will have to refund any fines dished out in their unlawful LTN?

 

Given the similarities between criticisms of the West Dulwich LTN by the high court judge and other schemes and the propensity for our councils to have, ahem, issues with oversight and getting the simplest of things wrong one does have to wonder how long it is before another LTN falls victim to council corner cutting as they rushed to get them installed, often against the will of local people with botched and misleading consultations.

 

Place your bets folks....

[ab29]

Southwark council - Andrew Simmonds and Catherine Rose (does she actually exist?)  - cannot hide for ever

Edited June 10 by ab29

[first mate]

Yes, but Cllr McAsh is the person in charge of Streets for People and he is very clear that he wants to rid the borough of as many cars as possible and make car journeys as slow and tortuous as possible. The mechanisms available to him to achieve his 'vision' are LTNs, double yellow lines, CPZ and - perhaps this is too far-fetched, allowing multiple street and roadworks to all happen at once. Is it likely that the man currently set to be Council Leader will have overseen botched consultations opening the door for legal challenges? Hmm.

As for Cllr Rose, she is now in charge of damaging parks.

Edited June 10 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

You are living in a fantasy world if you think that the changes to road layout made half a decade ago in the Village are going to somehow be overturned through a legal challenge. By who, and on what grounds exactly? It's pathological.

Edited June 12 by Earl Aelfheah

[ab29]

On 10/06/2025 at 21:42, first mate said:

Yes, but Cllr McAsh is the person in charge of Streets for People and he is very clear that he wants to rid the borough of as many cars as possible and make car journeys as slow and tortuous as possible. The mechanisms available to him to achieve his 'vision' are LTNs, double yellow lines, CPZ and - perhaps this is too far-fetched, allowing multiple street and roadworks to all happen at once. Is it likely that the man currently set to be Council Leader will have overseen botched consultations opening the door for legal challenges? Hmm.

As for Cllr Rose, she is now in charge of damaging parks.

Council arrogance - what's new - and it is my money they waste

9 minutes ago, ab29 said:

Council arrogance - what's new - and it is my money they waste

Like, the bridge in Dulwich Park - closed for over a year - what is wrong with it? 

Whatever issue was there a year ago, it is now so much worst (=more expensive to fix)

Where is the solution, why still closed, even tough the park is used by everyone?

How come millions of pounds are wasted on tiny tiny Dulwich Village junction and yet the bridge in the park is rotting away?

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You are living in a fantasy world if you think that the changes to road layout made half a decade ago in the Village are going to somehow be overturned through a legal challenge. By who, and on what grounds exactly? It's pathological.

On the same note, why would universally hated so-called ltn be accepted?

Who cares about what happened decades ago?