The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[Penguin68]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There are loads of new businesses in Dulwich.

Name 3 in the area which forms part of the 'Dulwich Square' complex. 

I used, for my sins, to work closely with Retail Marketing experts, their watchword was always Location, Location, Location (the three most important things in retail). If you block passing traffic and make access more difficult you inevitably reduce potential (and of course actual) footfall. Which is death, eventually, to any business whose necessary and solvent catchment area is not 'within walking distance' locals - particularly where public transport is limited/ non existent. Because night-time access is slightly easier the pub and restaurants may survive, but anything but the smallest, general, shops probably won't. Restrict access and parking and you kill retail areas, except, sometimes, in city centres, but these have to be (very) well served by public transport.

[Spartacus]

@Earl Aelfheah They may have seen the square as an ideal location, or been sold the concept so its not in question why they opened there. Not sure wht you think thats the issue. 

Footfall is factor, passing traffic (of any kind) is another as someone passing by may 'discover' the shop and go there, but if they are diverted away from the area, as currently, they won't know about it or accidently discover it and so won't go there to use it. 

Pretty logical really and thats the problem as that impacts growth and economic prosperity for any business, and equally if people can't get there from further afield easily then they may choose to shop elsewhere. 

[Insuflo]

14 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

I didn't speculate to a reason, 

If your earlier posts were not speculation re the closure of this business, then I’m Edam.

And if cheese shops are a generically good business model, as you stated, I’m sure another fromagerie will take its place. It’s a wonder to me there’s not one on every corner.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yes footfall is a factor. I have little doubt there is more footfall now that there is a large pedestrian area outside the shops; It certainly feels as though there are a lot more people milling about now, than when it was just a narrow pavement. But It's not for me to prove that footfall hasn't fallen - you're the one saying it has - where is your evidence?

There is very little evidence that lot's of car traffic improves the viability of a local shopping area. In fact most research shows the exact opposite - that an easily walkable, pleasant pedestrian area increase footfall and spending in local shops. Dulwich Village is not (ad never has been) a destination shopping street - it caters primally for local and nearby residents.

The cheese shop was a new business which opened after the square was introduced. You seem to dismiss the idea that the square contributed to the creation of that new business, but then make a causal connection between the square and it's closure. Explain that logic. It appears to be just bad = square, good= not square. 

Other nearby businesses that have opened since it's introduction (from top of my head) - Gails, Megans, Redemption... apparently a new organic veg shop is on the way too.

Edited August 6 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Sorry @Earl Aelfheah I forget that you are the chair of the ATCM and know everything about town centers and how local retail businesses run...

 

Point to mention, the cheese shop was a new branch of their existing shops so not quite a new business but an expansion opportunity...

 

You mention 3 businesses that have opened, chains that can weather lower footfall as their model isn't reliant on a small number of outlets, but you fail to mention the ones that have closed, of which there are a few and mostly sole businesses or small chains. 

 

@Insuflo businesses rely on footfall to bring sales and if its not there, they close. Other factors may also have an impact but as they are still trading elsewhere its potentially mainly down to footfall and sales in Dulwich Village. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

17 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

@Insuflo businesses rely on footfall to bring sales and if its not there, they close.

You keep saying this. But where is your evidence of reduced footfall? 

Chains are typically very adept at researching footfall before opening new stores, and I have never heard of them targeting areas with low footfall.

I don't believe anyone would accept that Gail's is using it's size to 'weather low footfall' in the Village.

Edited August 6 by Earl Aelfheah

[Insuflo]

16 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

 

 

@Insuflo businesses rely on footfall to bring sales and if its not there, they close. Other factors may also have an impact but as they are still trading elsewhere its potentially mainly down to footfall and sales in Dulwich Village. 

Not that you’re speculating or anything.

[Earl Aelfheah]

There are just some wild claims being made on this thread, by people desperate to paint the square as a disaster for business, for air quality, road safety and as the cause of rampant crime. But of course there is no evidence for any of these things. The apocalyptic fantasies are so far removed from any reality it just comes across as slightly ridiculous.

Pretending that the village has turned into some sort of hellscape, or worse, convincing yourself that it has, is not going to ease your sense of grievance at being slightly inconvenienced by a road layout change made half a decade ago, which you didn't approve of. 

We're talking about a 200 foot (ish) stretch of road being used to create more space for pedestrians and shoppers. It feels like a little perspective would be good.

Edited August 6 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

3 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is just nonsense.

Glad you agree that your resonse is nonsense 

4 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

Not that you’re speculating or anything.

Experience, common sense and logic are my guides here. 

Ate you experienced in running a small retail business ? 

Edited August 6 by Spartacus

[Earl Aelfheah]

39 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Glad you agree that your resonse is nonsense 

Ah, the 'I know you are but what am I' retort. Brilliant. Is this an example of your "Experience, common sense and logic"

Edited August 6 by Earl Aelfheah

[spider69]

Think its time this post was moved or shut down 

[Spartacus]

24 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Ah, the 'I know you are but what am I' retort. Brilliant. Is this an example of your "Experience, common sense and logic"

What on earth arw you talking about? 

You are not making any sense at all now @Earl Aelfheah

[Insuflo]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Experience, common sense and logic are my guides here. 

Ate you experienced in running a small retail business ? 

It doesn’t matter what you claim to be guided by, you are speculating on the reasons for the closure of this business, something which you have denied. 
l have never run a small retail business but I worked in many when I was younger. Have you ever run a cheese shop? 

Edited August 6 by Insuflo

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

Edited August 6 by Earl Aelfheah

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Experience, common sense and logic are my guides here. 

🤔 

[DulvilleRes]

On 05/08/2025 at 21:56, first mate said:

@Earl Aelfheah you will continue to argue about the stats and each of us will decide whose interpretation we find more convincing.

However, you also said:

"Putting aside what a PCSO may or may not have said to Rockets,"

this is effectively calling another poster a liar. Unless you can prove it then I think you should withdraw.

@Alice and @headnun Thanks for that info. Really good to know more police to be out and about and, as said earlier, perception of crime is a thing too.

@Glenham That's a shame. How many shops have closed in the area now?

 

Maybe Rockets saw a poltergeist PCSO. It wouldn't be the first supernatural event associated with the Square - a few years back about 200 people turned up to an anti-LTN demo, but the anti-LTN lobby claimed they saw a further 800 people there.

[Rockets]

@DulvilleRes I am afraid for you, and the other naysayers on here, the PCSO was very much real and very much said what they said! I know that really upsets you but it is very much the truth!!!

I am not entering the Cheese Shop war discussion because clearly you need to sell a lot of cheese to make money no matter where you are located (the owner of the cheese shop was a big fan of the LTN) but the increasing numbers of empty shops around the Dulwich Village LTN does seem to run counter to everything we heard from the council and lobbyists that LTNs improve footfall and people spend more in LTN areas. Of course, there are a lot of things that contribute to shops making or breaking it but empty shop after empty shop since the LTN went in is not a good look.

@Earl Aelfheah thanks for much for sharing the Streetscan link as it is helping me to avoind having to do things manually...

 

Interesting when you use that site to look at the categories of crime that I have looked at (robbery, theft from person and other theft).

Let's look back over your famous "5 years since the LTN went in" - what has happened to the robbery and theft from person category in the LTN area (you selected) in particular? Do you have any explanation for that - just a co-incidence perhaps? So it looks pretty clear (even by your data) that we can say that some crimes have increased over the last 5 years around the LTN. Do you agree as the resource you sent definitely confirms that?

P.S. Thanks for sending that link as it is saving me so much time!

 

 

Edited Friday at 09:20 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets Not sure what you think that's showing, but I'll help. From 2021 onwards:

The numbers for Robbery have moved exactly in line with the London average

'Theft from the person' has trended down significantly against the London average.

'Other theft' trends down against the average up until 2023, after which it stays flat and the London average falls back down; Worth noting that for Dulwich it's fallen again for the first 5 months of 2025 as previously mentioned. 

What's interesting is that you've ignored all the other types of crimes. Here's the trend for all crime. As you can see, since 2021, The crime rate for the area around the filter has trended down compared to the London average. So by your logic, this is 'proof' that the filter is reducing crime.

Edited Friday at 10:28 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah I am not looking at all crime (but I am sure you know that are desperately trying to deflect and distract). From the outset I have focused on the three crime types locals are most concerned about and those that may benefit from quieter streets.

But I am sure you cannot also help but notice that previous London-wide crime trends have not been mirrored in the Calton LTN area historically. But now it is. Also, I looked at other streets like Burbage, Eynella and Crystal Palace Road and  some further afield in Dulwich and the same upward trends were not being recorded - judt look at Theft from Person over the years. That website is great,  thanks for sharing.

[Earl Aelfheah]

49 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I am not looking at all crime

You think the fact that all crime has trended down against the London average is irrelevant? Why is that?

49 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But I am sure you cannot also help but notice that previous London-wide crime trends have not been mirrored in the Calton LTN area historically

You've literally posted a chart showing that for robbery they absolutely have been. In fact between 2015-2018, before the filter was introduced, there was a significant increase in robbery above the London average.

For the other two types you've cherry picked, they've seen slight movements towards the background trend before and after the filter. They've trended down against the average since the filter was introduced.

I'm glad you like the site. It does have some interesting data. But your interpretation of those charts is truly bizarre. They don't support your claim that the filter has lead to a disproportionate rise in any crime at all - quite the opposite. 

Edited Friday at 11:21 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

42 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You think the fact that all crime has trended down against the London average is irrelevant?

It is when, since 2024 I have been looking at three specific types of crime. You're using it as a "nothing unusual going on here" diversion tactic. You're trying to make it about all crimes. I am looking at those that the residents of the area are most concerned about growing. And your stats confirm they are growing and have been since the closures went in. Surely you can agree to that fact at least?

44 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They've trended down against the average since the filter was introduced.

But what residents are concerned about is not the average but what is actually happening in their area, what they see, feel and hear every day and that is an upward trend since around 2020/2021. I was saying that, you doubted my original stats and now your stats confirm it too. We can safely say, and surely all agree, that there has never been as many cases of reported theft from person in the Calton area and there has been a significant uptick since 2020/2021.

[Earl Aelfheah]

5 hours ago, Rockets said:

I have been looking at three specific types of crime. You're using it as a "nothing unusual going on here" diversion tactic. You're trying to make it about all crimes.

This is simply untrue. I have addressed the specific categories that you've cherry picked. But if you think that the filter has had an impact on crime, then you cannot ignore categories that don't fit your narrative. It is not logically coherent (shock horror). 

5 hours ago, Rockets said:

I am looking at those that the residents of the area are most concerned about growing.

Really? What about violent crime - down in absolute terms and way down against background trends. Why have you not picked that? Applying your logic, it is evidence the filter has reduced violent crime.

5 hours ago, Rockets said:

But what residents are concerned about is not the average but what is actually happening in their area, what they see, feel and hear every day and that is an upward trend since around 2020/2021.

Yes, but you've suggested that the filter has caused an increase in crime, which suggests a disproportionate increase in crime. There has been none. Crime, is down against background trends. 

Robbery has moved in line with the London average since 2019. Between 2015-2018, before the filter was introduced, there was a significant increase in robbery, way above the London average. So how come that isn't relevant to your 'analysis'?

'Theft from the person' has trended down significantly against the London average since 2021.

It's an extreme form of confirmation bias when you're cherry picking data, it still doesn't align with your preconceived notion, and yet you convince yourself it's evidence you were right anyway. It's beyond ridiculous.

Edited Friday at 16:48 by Earl Aelfheah

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1) "Police recorded crime does not tend to be a good indicator of general trends in crime".

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2025

 

2) There has been a significant increase in some types of crime in London over the last year - particularly theft, which went up 28%.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-latest-crime-statistics-knife-murder-shoplifting-sadiq-khan-ons-b1239843.html

 

3) All of this is a world away from Rockets's "absolute" belief that LTNs cause crime. It's nonsense. It's an invention. It's toss. There's no proof of that at all - even he admits it.

[Rockets]

10 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's an extreme form of confirmation bias when you're cherry picking data, it still doesn't align with your preconceived notion, and yet you convince yourself it's evidence you were right anyway. It's beyond ridiculous.

@Earl Aelfheah but it is not. The numbers and trends are there for all to see. You are trying to distract and deflect. This is clearly why the PCSO told.me what they did. I know you dont like it but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue or concern.

2 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

3) All of this is a world away from Rockets's "absolute" belief that LTNs cause crime. It's nonsense. It's an invention. It's toss. There's no proof of that at all - even he admits it.

Again where have I actually said that? You're trying to put words in to my mouth.

The proof is in the numbers @Earl Aelfheah shared that in the 5 years since the LTNs went in certain crimes have been increasing. You cannot deny that.

[Earl Aelfheah]

8 hours ago, Rockets said:

The numbers and trends are there for all to see.

Explain how. Between 2015-2018, before the filter was introduced, there was a significant increase in robbery way above current levels and the London average. Since the filter was introduced it has fallen back in line with background trends. The data on violent crime is even more stark - falling in absolute terms and massively against background trends. Both are lower now than ‘pre-filter’. And of course ‘all crime’ is lower too.

By your logic (not mine), this suggests the filter has reduced robbery and violent crime specifically and ‘all crime’ generally. Explain how you think the opposite is true?

Edited Saturday at 07:05 by Earl Aelfheah