Ryedale SE22 - Proposal to block end of Ryedale at junction of Underhill Road - January 2026 NOT NOW GOING AHEAD

[MrsR]

This will impact traffic on Cornflower Terrace, Dunstans Road, Balchier Road

 

https://engage.southwark.gov.uk/en-GB/projects/ryedale-traffic-scheme

Edited 3 hours ago by MrsR

[James Barber]

Wont that move the traffic to Dunstans Grove? And further magnify the Dunstans Road traffic with banned left turn traffic, right turning traffic out of Cornflower and Balchier and then doing 3 point turns?

[Penguin68]

It's a terrible idea, will damage trade in Forest Hill Road and is just creating a nice private road for someone to enjoy. Congestion in the road is caused mainly by delivery vans, well, let's help stamp out those scourges. And an 18 month trial is at least a year too long if you are just interested in judging impact. And there has been no consultation at all, save, perhaps, with the privileged Rydale-ers. I live a block away in Underhill and I've heard only via social media. 

[Rockets]

What a ridiculous plan. If this is to stop traffic "cutting through" where do they think it is now going to "cut through" via? Has the council produced any data on the scale of the problem on Ryedale - anything to back up their hypothesis?

You cannot do these things in isolation as all it does is displaces traffic elsewhere. Dunstans is going to become awful - I feel for the residents there.

Councils should not be allowed to implement these experimental TMOs, they are clearly using them to circumvent proper planning and engagement.

Has anyone contacted the local councillors about this? The laughable thing was the local ward councillors were concerned about displacement from the wider Dulwich LTNs on their ward so is this an indirect acknowledgement that they are being impacted? 

Ridiculous.

 

[Dave 3]

How stupid is this council 

[Oneredfish]

Yet another hair brain scheme by a council department that is utterly devoid of logic or common sense. If you want to trial something just simply turn ryedale into a one way street towards Forest Hill Road. 
 

let’s just home that a 70% oppose to 30% approve ratio isn’t yet again deemed democratic in approving a scheme by Southwark. 

[alice]

The only road that ‘benefits’ will be Rydale. wonder who lives there. 

[mrwb]

Fines from cameras are drying up ? Better put more in ? 

[Kipper_1972]

forces more traffic to the Underhill/Barry Road intersection which is already overcongested/hazardous. Nice and easy job these days sitting in a council office with a screen and keyboard self-validating your ideas, I'd prefer it if they stood watched the current 3pm to 6:30pm mayhem

[richard tudor]

Much the same as the `champion Hill system 1 hour or so busy during rush hour and then empty all day long. But forcing all traffic to take a long round the houses route for no reason.  Lived there for most of my life never a problem. The reason as stated above have screen will change everything.

Again one has to ask the question who lives there?

 

 

[Rockets]

Someone with influence at the council perhaps? We saw the same pattern of behaviour in Melbourne Grove. Has anyone seen anything from the council to justify this decision - surely they must have monitored vehicular traffic before making this decision to determine there was a problem?

[Angelina]

I understand that the Ryedale residents presented the council with a survey with everyone agreeing it was a good idea, so the council are trying to go ahead with it on that basis. 
 

Is our council absolutely moronic and devoid of any sense? I am yet to see any evidence to suggest they can run a bath.

[sleepy-li]

Dreading this as I live on Underhill very near that turning. Bad for traffic, safety (and my asthma tbh).
Hard to believe this is being done with no consultation, it seems ridiculous - something that a handful of people may want at cost to the rest of us.
Please respond to the link as well as on here - we need all the help we can get I think.

https://engage.southwark.gov.uk/en-GB/projects/ryedale-traffic-scheme

[MrsR]

Petition - 

https://c.org/7QNPZtLD9w

Edited January 11 by MrsR

[Lollipop]

Hi everyone. Thanks for your support. I live in Dunstans Road. We were only informed this week ( some only today). The implementation date is Jan 19 which hasn’t given residents much time to object. 
We are trying to get a petition on the Southwark website but it needs their approval. Not sure how long this will take. I gather they won’t listen to any other petitions ( change.org etc). So clicking on that won’t get through to them.
We have a paper petition which we plan to submit ( via email) in the next couple of days. Our request  is that Southwark outline their reasons for this particular solution and why they ruled out other options.

If we do get an online petition approved I will post the link on here. thanks again

 

 

 

 

[CT_R]

4 hours ago, Angelina said:

I understand that the Ryedale residents presented the council with a survey with everyone agreeing it was a good idea, so the council are trying to go ahead with it on that basis. 
 

Is our council absolutely moronic and devoid of any sense? I am yet to see any evidence to suggest they can run a bath.

It was hardly a ‘survey’ - speeding on Ryedale is bad - choose one 

 

22 hours ago, James Barber said:

Wont that move the traffic to Dunstans Grove? And further magnify the Dunstans Road traffic with banned left turn traffic, right turning traffic out of Cornflower and Balchier and then doing 3 point turns?

100% it’s not just going to evaporate 

[alice]

So the council is spending thousands on this plan because of that piece of paper that is unbelievable. 
It basically tells people which box to tick. 

[Rockets]

@Lollipop  this is ridiculous but another example of Southwark Labour "democracy" in action.

it seems a few residents on Ryedale present a "survey" or "evidence" and they get whay they want and the council implements an experimental TMO to deliver it without any form of consultation with anyone due to be affected. An intervention that will create hell for residents on other roads nearby.

Meanwhile around 80% of local residents tell Southwark via their consultation on the DV closures they don't want it and they go ahead regardless.

It's getting ridiculous. 

 

 

40 minutes ago, CT_R said:

It was hardly a ‘survey’ - speeding on Ryedale is bad - choose one 

Wow! If that is what swayed Southwark we are all in trouble. 

30 minutes ago, alice said:

So the council is spending thousands on this plan because of that piece of paper that is unbelievable. 
It basically tells people which box to tick. 

Spending thousands of tax payers money to massively impact other residents.

Unfortunately this is how Southwark operate. They can no longer be trusted with the powers they have.

This is a disgrace and the front of them to think they can get away with it - they are treating Southwark constituents with contempt.

[CT_R]

Elections in May!!! 

[Riverthree]

Does anyone have any contacts at Southwark news or other news agencies who could spread the word of this ridiculous imposition by the council without proper consultation. 

Edited January 12 by Riverthree

[Angelina]

I think we can make a list of stupid things our councillors do “for the best of its constituents”.

 

[Moovart]

On the consultation there seems to be no consideration for St Aidan's road which could become an alternative cut through if Ryedale is blocked and is narrower than Ryedale. ☹️

[oldermum]

It is really important that people sign the petition opposing this and asking for a proper consultation. There are a number going round including a residents one which can be in paper form or in electronic form. Unfortunately what the council are doing is legal. They can put experimental measures in place for up to 18 months with a week's notice and with ought letting anyone in the wider are affected know. People were finding on local WhatsApp groups. If they get away with this, they will become emboldened to do more. We all know that the current cabinet member for Clean Air, Streets and Waste, will take any opportunity to obstruct cars. He is probably still planning a borough wide CPZ after the local elections.

Use your vote wisely!

[Ladharrbeinn]

Unbelievable that our local councillors Maggie Browning and Jon Hartley have been happy to go along with this without ANY consultation for the surrounding roads. 

The Southwark website (https://engage.southwark.gov.uk/en-GB/projects/ryedale-traffic-scheme) suggests the reason for closing the road is that "Under the council's Streets for People strategy, we want to reduce motor vehicle traffic on residential roads like Ryedale, and prioritise other modes of travel."

The idea that some streets are "residential roads" and others not is self-evidently nonsense. Closing Ryedale will of course simply add more traffic to Dunstans Road, where the residents already suffer greatly. All this scheme does is to prioritise the residents of Ryedale over the residents of Dunstans. 

As with other similar schemes in SE22 you suspect it's the roads with the ability to organise and lobby the council that are getting one over on the other adjacent roads. Clearly house prices in a traffic-free street will rise significantly. Labour like the sound of the dogma (prioritising other modes), and couldn't care less about the misery caused to the residents of the unlucky, non-vocal, non-self-interested streets.

 

Contacts for the councillors if you'd like to voice your opinion (from the Southwark website):

[email protected]

[email protected]

[Rockets]

And if any of those impacted by this do want to flag with the media Issy Clarke at Southwark News is the one who deals with such stories and I am sure would love to hear from someone.

[email protected]