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

[JamesSE22]

11 hours ago, jimbo1964 said:

It's incredible how may people would rather clog up the streets driving to Lordship Lane or Dulwich Park rather than hop or a P13 (or even walk if able). 

 

My experience of driving the 16 minute walk from Ryedale to Lordship Lane is 5 minutes of driving and 10 minutes trying to find a parking space.

Walking isn’t for everyone, some people will still need to drive. But if more people who can walk do walk then there should be less overall traffic for those of us who need to drive to contend with.

As a pedestrian, motorist and cyclist, I’d welcome more LTNs on local roads (not A/B roads) to help make our network more suitable for cycling.

[MonkeyNews]

For all the talk on here, it is actually in place yet?

[Penguin68]

Not first thing this morning 

[jimbo1964]

Seems to be some procrastination going on. Not clear if it's the council or Conway. As far I know it's still happening. 

[CPR Dave]

Took a walk down Ryedale today and I can't see any of the traffic problems complained of. 

 

Is there any chance these were just temporary issues caused by the problematic temporary traffic lights that were in place at the St Aidan's road junction last summer / autumn?

Anyway, there's a feedback form here where you can let the council know how terrible this idea is, if it ever gets implemented!

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

 

 

[ianr]

46 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

Is there any chance these were just temporary issues caused by the problematic temporary traffic lights that were in place at the St Aidan's road junction last summer / autumn?

Anyway, there's a feedback form here where you can let the council know how terrible this idea is, if it ever gets implemented!

According to the papers released in response to the FOI application the allegations of excessive traffic speed and volume were made in March 2025, with the ensuing automated trafic counts being made in the last week of April; so no obvious chance.

I suggest you reserve at least some of your feedback to the council until some time into the first six months of implementation, when you'll be more likely  to have the benefit of some knowledge of its effects.

Edited Friday at 17:37 by ianr

[Insuflo]

1 hour ago, CPR Dave said:

Took a walk down Ryedale today and I can't see any of the traffic problems complained of. 

 

Well done. That’s conclusive. Case closed.

[CPR Dave]

I think it will be more likely to be the disadvantages of knowledge of its effects, Ian, but I did say the form was there to let the council know  "how terrible this idea is, if it ever gets implemented!".

[jimbo1964]

Or what a positive benefit it would probably be. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 04/02/2026 at 11:06, Lebanums said:

I'm not disagreeing with you that something needs done, just not this.

What then?

[CPR Dave]

Maybe relieve the pressure on Ryedale, St Dunstans AND St Aidans, by making the bottom ends of Friern Road and Upland Road fully accessible to the tax paying public again, instead of making those private enclaves for the rich and privileged?

[malumbu]

What do you mean by tax paying public?  Most adults pay tax, including the rich and privileged.  Or is this that deep state I've heard about on social media.

I'm not rich and privileged but I believe in some restrictions on drivers.  

[MrsR]

Not now going ahead

 

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/backlash-leads-southwark-council-to-axe-plans-to-close-east-dulwich-street-to-traffic/

[Rockets]

Power to the People!!! Well done the sensible people who fought this.

There still remains, however, a lot of questions for the council and councillors to address about how they ended up in this mess, why they wasted tax payers money taking this approach (which Cllr McAsh admits was not their usual approach), who was trying to force this through and why they were so keen to by-pass their own internal governance.

And beware....McAsh suggests they will be back again (I suspect after the election if Labour wins that ward). I very much suspect the impending elections forced this move from the council as they knew this would be a massive vote-loser for them - so use your vote wisely Dulwich Hill - this particular Labour leopards don't ever change their spots!

I do very much hope that any potential candidate for the ward (from any party) is pushed by residents to get answers and assurances this cannot happen again - the council should never have let it get to this point and someone needs to be held accountable.

 

After the News got in touch, James McAsh, the Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets and Waste, said the council had dropped the measures. He said: “We recently shared proposals to close Ryedale to motor vehicles in response to concerns about through-traffic and vehicle speeds. These measures were intended to be trialled under an Experimental Traffic Management Order, allowing their impact to be properly tested. While this is not our usual approach, we were keen to urgently address concerns. 

 

“Since then, we have received considerable feedback from the local community about the possible impact of the scheme on the wider area. We have listened and decided to stop the scheme and instead, take the time to review how best to address the concerns raised. This will inform the development of broader joined-up proposals as part of our Streets for People strategy, which includes extensive community engagement at every stage. 

[Sue]

Pity they didn't take this sensible approach in the first place!

[spider69]

Perhaps they might now revisit the Champion Hill closure. Perhaps ex Cll Barber could lead there visit ad return it to how it was.

[Penguin68]

Many have already suggested, including some in Ryedale, that full width speed humps would do much to reduce driver speeds and seems an immediate possible remedy. The width of the road through much of its length additionally causes two way traffic to slow down and pass only with caution, again addressing speed issues.

Local people, I am one, frequently use the cross roads to access Underhill from Forest Hill Road/ Peckham Rye and vice versa. The more of these open, the less traffic each one carries. And the less nuisance to residents. 

Those who wish to exclude others from using roads they live in are nimbys of the worst sort, but wishing speeds to be reduced for safety is entirely reasonable. 

Edited 22 hours ago by Penguin68

[Ryelander]

1 hour ago, MrsR said:

Not now going ahead

 

Great news! common sense finally prevailed.

[CPR Dave]

I think the individual councillor that tried to force this through should take responsibility and apologise, whoever they are. 

[malumbu]

Why is it common sense?  The sense that I am getting is entrenched views and not seeing the bigger picture.  Happens every time that there are proposals to restrict traffic, charge for parking and the like.  

Have no strong views on the scheme.  Just bemused by some of the reaction, noting that a few of you who live in the area were actually for the scheme.  

The one thing I would say is that many motorists lack common sense.  Otherwise they may be a bit more responsible.

[Rockets]

16 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Why is it common sense? 

Because it was clearly a ludicrous decision that lacked commonsense.

17 minutes ago, malumbu said:

The sense that I am getting is entrenched views and not seeing the bigger picture. 

Yes I absolutely agree with you that the someone in the council could not shake off their entrenched views and see the bigger picture on this one - in fact their bigger picture didn't even extend to the neighbouring streets from Ryedale. Some might say that is blinkered.