Ryedale SE22 - Proposal to block end of Ryedale at junction of Underhill Road - January 2026

[otter]

never mind the poor souls on dunstans road this is pathetic those against should protest on the day

[ianr]

I would reserve judgement on the role of the 'survey' until much better information emerges.

Experimental RTOs have been around since at least the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and have some virtues, such as being more easily modified (or withdrawn?) in the light of results and the feedback provided.

You have six months from the order's inception to have your says about whether and why it should not be made permanent.   People might think it useful to get some baseline statistics before it actually comes into operation.  You could start by asking Highways what sample traffic data is already available for the relevant roads over, say, the last five years.  Then, for the most efficient data grabbing, maybe try sticking a camera in the window and recording video -- save the data collating till later, and make sure it's all clearly dated.   Bear in mind that some cameras may limit single file size.  No need to use the highest resolution, so long as vehicles are easily countable.

Here's an example of how Lambeth provided the statutorily specified necessary information about an ETRO of theirs: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-11/171-VPG-SOR.pdf  and a snippet from a recent Commons Library briefing paper https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06013/SN06013.pdf :

"There are separate rules for experimental orders, as set out in Regulations 22 and 23 of the 1996 Regulations.

"These regulations set out that the requirements on the publication of proposals and objections (which apply to permanent orders) do not apply to an experimental order. No provision of an experimental order shall come into force before the expiration of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which a notice of making in relation to the order is published.

"Councils may wish to make an experimental order as a precursor to a permanent order, as this process allows councils to bypass the requirements on consultation, notice of proposals and objections, providing other requirements have been met (see Regulation 23). This can be a more cost effective and flexible approach (allowing, for example, for immediate feedback and minor changes) than a permanent order or a temporary order (which cannot be converted into a permanent order – see below)."

 

Edited yesterday at 13:36 by ianr
para.3: 'force'->'operation'

[Penguin68]

I find it interesting that even the usual council cheer leader suspects are finding it difficult to leap to their defence this time. 

[malumbu]

Not really sure what the issue is. There isn't a lot of traffic on these roads.  You could argue then why the restrictions, but surely once the trial has been held you will know more.  Can't see it having one iota affect on the local shops.  All comes across as reactionary.  

[alice]

There are three parallel roads that link Underhill Road with Forest Hill  Rd within 50 m of each other. if one is blocked there will  be a 50% increase of traffic on each of the other two roads. 

Edited 17 hours ago by alice
Unnecessary word removal

[ianr]

.

Edited 5 hours ago by ianr
Ditto :)

[malumbu]

12 hours ago, alice said:

There are three parallel roads that link Underhill Road with Forest Hill  Rd within 50 m of each other. if one is blocked there will  be a 50% increase of traffic on each of the other two roads. 

Debatable.  Most of the traffic already goes down Dunstans.  I expect the effect will be pretty minimal.  

[Penguin68]

24 minutes ago, malumbu said:

.  I expect the effect will be pretty minimal

Oh good, well I'm glad that's what you expect. As someone who actually lives a block away from the road, and uses it very regularly, my expectations are somewhat different. Indeed I can't imagine even Southwark closing a road apparently as infrequently used as you imagine. But then you're hardly local, are you? As regards the shops in Forest Hill Road being your closest shops, and surgery, and pharmacy, and post office. So being cut off from them, effectively, isn't really your problem, is it? But then we all know that Southwark Council can do no wrong in your eyes. For some reason. 

[Insuflo]

11 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Oh good, well I'm glad that's what you expect. As someone who actually lives a block away from the road, and uses it very regularly, my expectations are somewhat different. Indeed I can't imagine even Southwark closing a road apparently as infrequently used as you imagine. But then you're hardly local, are you? As regards the shops in Forest Hill Road being your closest shops, and surgery, and pharmacy, and post office. So being cut off from them, effectively, isn't really your problem, is it? But then we all know that Southwark Council can do no wrong in your eyes. For some reason. 

If you live a block away from the shops etc on FHR, then why do you need to drive? Down Ryedale or any other road? Is walking a problem for you? 

[malumbu]

I live more than a block away and will almost always walk or cycle!  I don't feel cut off from the shops etc.

[Insuflo]

9 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I live more than a block away and will almost always walk or cycle!  I don't feel cut off from the shops etc.

Me neither. I live west of Underhill and regularly use the FHR shops, PO etc or catch the 63 to Peckham, so often walk down Ryedale. 

[Rockets]

Has anyone seen, bar the resident led "survey" anything from the council on the justification for this - or can we all make requests for changes on the basis of a few notes put through people's door?

If the council are now implementing these measures on the basis of a few residents lobbying and have not done any sort of research themselves then they are absolutely out of control.

The irony is of course that I am sure the residents of Ryedale noticed an increase in traffic when the Dulwich LTNs went in as the displaced traffic from those closures tried to find other routes through.....

[Penguin68]

29 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

29 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

Is walking a problem for you? 

 

Actually, in my late 70s and with a long term condition, yes. Or do you believe, as other council supporters do, that if I'm not fit enough to live in East Dulwich and walk everywhere, then I should move? 

Edited 5 hours ago by Penguin68

[Spartacus]

37 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I live more than a block away and will almost always walk or cycle!  I don't feel cut off from the shops etc.

As @Penguin68 had shown, this is quite an "ableist" statement.

In future please think of those with mobility challenges,happy to send Crusher around to help you get "acquainted" with mobility challenges 😉

[Insuflo]

28 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Actually, in my late 70s and with a long term condition, yes. Or do you believe, as other council supporters do, that if I'm not fit enough to live in East Dulwich and walk everywhere, then I should move? 

My question was a genuine one, not rhetorical. No need to move, just use Dunstans or go around via Langton Rise and Wood Vale; would that be a massive inconvenience?

All traffic order changes will produce winners and losers, in terms of convenience, journey times, noise etc. The 18 months of this trial will surely show if the benefits for those on Ryedale are justified by any detriments to the wider area.

[malumbu]

In deed.  There is no reduction in parking for those where driving is a necessity.  

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Insuflo said:

The 18 months of this trial will surely show if the benefits for those on Ryedale are justified by any detriments to the wider area.

But we know how this goes: after 18 months the council celebrates how happy their friends on Ryedale are and tells everyone it has been a tremendous success. They will run a consultation where 80% of the wider residents in the area say it has been awful and we don't want it and then the council will announce it is being made permanent.

Ryedale may go down in history as the nadir of the nonsensical approach this council takes to interventions - and my word there have been a few.

How on earth a survey from a load of vested-interest residents can lead to this just shows how out of touch and control the council are? But they have a big majority so clearly think there will be no recourse.

Edited 4 hours ago by Rockets

[Spartacus]

6 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But they have a big majority so clearly think there will be no recourse.

Stroll on 7th May 😎

[Insuflo]

4 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Stroll on 7th May 😎

Given that the greatest threat to Labour in Southwark will come from the Greens, prepare to be somewhat disappointed on 8th May.

[Spartacus]

There is always hope that the majority will be reduced via protest votes both against the council and the way Labour are currently delivering for the country. 

Not holding my breath but maybe lib dems and greens will rock the boat slightly 

[malumbu]

Odd that this minor initiative that doesn't affect most people is getting so much interest.  Initiatives that I expect that the Greens and Lib Dems  support in principle in any case.  All rather disproportionate.  Unless your hopes are pinned on Reform.  

[Insuflo]

9 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

There is always hope that the majority will be reduced via protest votes both against the council and the way Labour are currently delivering for the country. 

Not holding my breath but maybe lib dems and greens will rock the boat slightly 

I quite agree. After 40-odd years of voting Labour, I doubt that the current Dulwich Hill councillors will be getting my vote in May. But removing traffic controls, LTNs etc is definitely not the vote-winner some on here imagine it to be.

[Rockets]

10 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Odd that this minor initiative that doesn't affect most people is getting so much interest.  Initiatives that I expect that the Greens and Lib Dems  support in principle in any case.  All rather disproportionate.  Unless your hopes are pinned on Reform.  

@malumbu if you live on Dunstans or any other road absorbing the displacement this is anything but a minor initiative. I think the only thing disproportionate here is the council's approach to inflicting displacement hell on many of their constituents based on unscientific lobbying by a group of vested-interest residents who live on Ryedale. This is the height of blinkered selfishness.

Your implication that any resistance to this is due to someone pinning their hopes on Reform is utterly underhand and quite disgraceful. But we know this is your go-to place on anyone who dares suggest a view exists not aligned to your own.

[Spartacus]

17 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

I quite agree. After 40-odd years of voting Labour, I doubt that the current Dulwich Hill councillors will be getting my vote in May. But removing traffic controls, LTNs etc is definitely not the vote-winner some on here imagine it to be.

It is more about scrutiny of decisions than removing things IMHO 

[Penguin68]

The thing to remember is that Mal can have no impact on Southwark elections, at least as regards not being a Southwark resident or elector. His constant commentary on what is happening in our borough is wholly disinterested, in the sense he has no 'interest' in Southwark, at least as regards residence.