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

[alice]

45 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

I live on Underhill Road, and over the years I’ve watched traffic through our neighbourhood get worse and worse. We regularly see collisions, road rage incidents, and pollution levels that are honestly alarming.

From reading the plans, the proposed measures aren’t about helping just one road, they’re about reducing cut-through traffic across the whole neighbourhood. The 18-month trial exists specifically to test whether the impacts are fair and beneficial, and to adjust if they’re not.

Most traffic will be pushed back onto major roads, where it belongs, and away from residential streets. That means safer roads, cleaner air, and quieter streets for everyone who lives here. Cornflower and Balchier will get litteraly no traffic because of the one way system, and Dunstans has lights that desuades map apps from suggesting it.

This is personal for us. We have a newborn baby who is already struggling with respiratory issues, and pollution is not helping. No family should have to worry about their child’s health because their streets have been taken over by cars. Any measure to reduce pollution is a positive one. 

If you’ve opposed this plan, I’d genuinely ask you to reconsider and possibly send positive messages/posts. Let’s prioritise the people that live in ED over the convenience for non-residential traffic.

An absolutely astounding first post. 

[Rockets]

49 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

Most traffic will be pushed back onto major roads, where it belongs, and away from residential streets. That means safer roads, cleaner air, and quieter streets for everyone who lives here. Cornflower and Balchier will get litteraly no traffic because of the one way system, and Dunstans has lights that desuades map apps from suggesting it.

Firstly, welcome to the forum!

Can you explain how you think that this one closer will push traffic back onto major roads - is it not more likely to push more traffic down Dunstan's and St Aidan's?

Was the increase in traffic you reference worse post the Dulwich LTNs going in, which were designed to "push more traffic onto major roads" but, in fact, did the exact opposite as it created more congestion on major roads that led to people using roads like Underhill to circumnavigate the congestion on major roads? @Moondoox who said they live on Ryedale said exactly that.

I mean, if the claims of an FOI discovering correspondence from the council saying: "If we could bypass the internal governance processes to move this project forward" "likely to be a contentious scheme, with not much evidence to justify it"  then clearly they have little confidence that this is going to have the impact you so clearly need.

I am afraid your streets "are being taken over by cars" due to the council's LTN roll-out in other parts of the area. This is the LTN displacement issue that no-one in the council or those who support the council's LTN efforts will ever want to admit to.

Edited 22 hours ago by Rockets

[East Dulwich South]

1 hour ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

I live on Underhill Road, and over the years I’ve watched traffic through our neighbourhood get worse and worse. We regularly see collisions, road rage incidents, and pollution levels that are honestly alarming.

From reading the plans, the proposed measures aren’t about helping just one road, they’re about reducing cut-through traffic across the whole neighbourhood. The 18-month trial exists specifically to test whether the impacts are fair and beneficial, and to adjust if they’re not.

Most traffic will be pushed back onto major roads, where it belongs, and away from residential streets. That means safer roads, cleaner air, and quieter streets for everyone who lives here. Cornflower and Balchier will get litteraly no traffic because of the one way system, and Dunstans has lights that desuades map apps from suggesting it.

This is personal for us. We have a newborn baby who is already struggling with respiratory issues, and pollution is not helping. No family should have to worry about their child’s health because their streets have been taken over by cars. Any measure to reduce pollution is a positive one. 

If you’ve opposed this plan, I’d genuinely ask you to reconsider and possibly send positive messages/posts. Let’s prioritise the people that live in ED over the convenience for non-residential traffic.

Longtime lurker. I live within a few hundred metres and walk/cycle/run/bus past these junctions every day. And drive past maybe once a week.

What concerns me is not the intent, it's the lack of due process and evidence here. As a nearby resident I wasn't consulted, neither were seemingly anyone other than those on Ryedale. 

I am very concerned about displacement nearby. Underhill/Dunstans is already a pain to navigate by any mode of transport each and every day, and I don't look forward to how it will fare with yet more traffic volumes. Likewise, as someone who has the misfortune of having to use the already strained P13/63/363 buses fairly often, I don't look forward to adding what, another potential to 1-3 minutes to each and every journey.

What is so infuriating about the council is the only visible interventions I see are more sticks. The school streets on Goodrich and Friern Roads. CPZs off Lordship Lane. There are no carrots. Bus services are as spotty as ever (try having a sick dog and needing to get to the vet on the P13). Except for the exorbitantly priced bike hires, which coincidentally our councillors seem to advertise for.

I very much believe in the aims here. But the execution leaves a lot to be desired.

Edited 21 hours ago by East Dulwich South
accidental pluralisation of Lordship Lane

[East Dulwich Friend]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Firstly, welcome to the forum!

Can you explain how you think that this one closer will push traffic back onto major roads - is it not more likely to push more traffic down Dunstan's and St Aidan's?

Was the increase in traffic you reference worse post the Dulwich LTNs going in, which were designed to "push more traffic onto major roads" but, in fact, did the exact opposite as it created more congestion on major roads that led to people using roads like Underhill to circumnavigate the congestion on major roads? @Moondoox who said they live on Ryedale said exactly that.

I mean, if the claims of an FOI discovering correspondence from the council saying: "If we could bypass the internal governance processes to move this project forward" "likely to be a contentious scheme, with not much evidence to justify it"  then clearly they have little confidence that this is going to have the impact you so clearly need.

I am afraid your streets "are being taken over by cars" due to the council's LTN roll-out in other parts of the area. This is the LTN displacement issue that no-one in the council or those who support the council's LTN efforts will ever want to admit to.

I'm afraid I don't know these acronyms. My hope is that for many drivers, and especially for navigation apps, the additional distance to St Aidan’s, combined with the delays caused by the four-way traffic lights on Dunstans, will naturally divert traffic back onto major roads.

If you live on Dunstans, I completely understand the concern that traffic may increase, and realistically it probably will for a short period. That concern is valid.

However, the presence of traffic lights also introduces an important layer of control, helping to regulate flow and reduce the kinds of speeding, aggressive driving, and unpredictability we currently see on smaller residential streets.

[East Dulwich South]

3 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

I'm afraid I don't know these acronyms. My hope is that for many drivers, and especially for navigation apps, the additional distance to St Aidan’s, combined with the delays caused by the four-way traffic lights on Dunstans, will naturally divert traffic back onto major roads.

If you live on Dunstans, I completely understand the concern that traffic may increase, and realistically it probably will for a short period. That concern is valid.

However, the presence of traffic lights also introduces an important layer of control, helping to regulate flow and reduce the kinds of speeding, aggressive driving, and unpredictability we currently see on smaller residential streets.

Pardon my incredulity but how could one live in central London and not have once heard of the acronym for low traffic neighbourhood? As widely used by the government, media, and the council themselves?

[EDlifechat]

I'd be content if the council had introduced a scheme that was fair and treated everyone sensibly. However, this intervention is clearly aimed solely at displacing as much traffic as possible from Ryedale onto the parallel section of Dunstans Road at the expense of Dunstans residents. The council's own correspondence makes this very clear. Any solution should have holistically covered St Aidens, Dunstans and Ryedale as well as Balchier and Cornflower. So I don't see any need to moderate my views on the matter! 

[Rockets]

34 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

I'm afraid I don't know these acronyms.

Which acronyms do you not understand - not sure how anyone living in Dulwich does not know what an LTN is. Can I ask you then, did the traffic on your road increase over the last 5 years? The LTNs (low traffic neighbourhood - which is what the council are putting in on Ryedale) were put in after Covid.

35 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

My hope is that for many drivers, and especially for navigation apps, the additional distance to St Aidan’s, combined with the delays caused by the four-way traffic lights on Dunstans, will naturally divert traffic back onto major roads.

I am afraid that is not how this works in reality. The major road roads are now badly congested due to the Dulwich LTNs and are the slowest routes of the 3 or so options to get to the A205 Eastbound from Dulwich. So unless the new congestion caused by the Ryedale closure on roads like St Dunstans is so bad that it means that route is now, no longer, the fastest route. That is very, very unlikely to be the case. What is far more likely to happen is that new side road routes become the quickest route.

LTNs pay Paul by robbing Peter.

So any support for the Ryedale LTN does not fix a problem it merely moves the problem from one street to another.

And actually, as a resident of Underhill, there is an very high percentage chance your road will become even busier when these measures go in - be careful what you wish for!

 

[East Dulwich Friend]

2 hours ago, East Dulwich South said:

Longtime lurker. I live within a few hundred metres and walk/cycle/run/bus past these junctions every day. And drive past maybe once a week.

What concerns me is not the intent, it's the lack of due process and evidence here. As a nearby resident I wasn't consulted, neither were seemingly anyone other than those on Ryedale. 

I am very concerned about displacement nearby. Underhill/Dunstans is already a pain to navigate by any mode of transport each and every day, and I don't look forward to how it will fare with yet more traffic volumes. Likewise, as someone who has the misfortune of having to use the already strained P13/63/363 buses fairly often, I don't look forward to adding what, another potential to 1-3 minutes to each and every journey.

What is so infuriating about the council is the only visible interventions I see are more sticks. The school streets on Goodrich and Friern Roads. CPZs off Lordship Lane. There are no carrots. Bus services are as spotty as ever (try having a sick dog and needing to get to the vet on the P13). Except for the exorbitantly priced bike hires, which coincidentally our councillors seem to advertise for.

I very much believe in the aims here. But the execution leaves a lot to be desired.

I use the P13 regularly and I know how frustrating it can be. The biggest issue I consistently experience is buses getting stuck when cars are turning out of Ryedale. That is almost always where delays occur.

I struggle to understand how removing one feeder road into Underhill would increase traffic on Underhill itself. The broader point still stands: reducing the ability to cut through residential streets will push drivers back onto larger roads.

Navigation apps like Google Maps have completely changed how people drive. Cut-through routes used to rely on local knowledge, but now they are available to everyone. That behaviour needs to be discouraged, and traffic should be directed back onto main roads where it belongs.

I agree that the lack of improvements to public transport is frustrating, but that should not stop us from making progress where we can.

I’ve just read more about LTNs, and you’re right, I’ve seen them mentioned in the news. So far, I’ve stayed out of the debate because it can feel quite hostile.

I tend to presume councils have their residents’ best interests at heart, because they have no reason not to. Councils aren’t private companies; they exist to represent and look after the community. However, it seems like they haven't been very open or communivative about this. Which is bad.

My faith in humanity aside, the more I read about LTNs, the more I find it hard to see any real downsides, especially when looking at provable, peer-reviewed results rather than local hearsay.

There is actual academic research on whether LTNs in London reduce pollution or just make it worse, and the evidence shows clearly that they do reduce pollution overall, not just push it to other streets. The numbers don't lie.

One study by Imperial College London looked at three LTNs in Islington and found that polution levels dropped by about 5.7% inside the LTNs and by nearly 9% on the boundary streets compared with control sites. Traffic also fell by more than half inside the LTNs and by 13% at the boundaries. This shows the schemes lowered pollution without displacing it to neighbouring roads. So Dunstans would actually see a reduction in both pollution and traffic, not an increase. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/241731/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-reduce-pollution-surrounding-streets/ 

There is also research on driving behaviour in Lambeth that shows residents in four new LTNs introduced in 2020 cut their driving by about 6% overall, which is roughly 1.3 km less per day per vehicle than people in nearby areas without LTNs. So people would be less tempted to drive locally if they don't need to, leaving the roads clearer for people that may have mobility issues or need to drive. https://www.westminster.ac.uk/news/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london-borough-cut-daily-driving-among-residents-by-13km-research-finds (University of Westminster)

The evidence does not support the idea that traffic will be displaced onto Dunstans. On the contrary, it confirms the intention of the scheme: to encourage drivers using Google Maps to stick to main roads, discourage unnecessary driving, and do so without penalising people who genuinely need to drive.

Either way, I fear they may have cancelled the plan, because I haven't seen any work happening. Which is a shame, because instead of a potentially imperfect plan being trialed, nothing will be done, and the whole area will continue to be a noisy, polluted rat run. Which benefits no one. 

So again, if you’ve opposed this plan, I’d genuinely ask you to reconsider and possibly send positive messages/posts. Let’s prioritise the people that live here over convenience for non-residential traffic.

[Rockets]

Again, did you experience an increase of traffic on Underhill Road after the Dulwich LTNs went in? Remember the council's limited monitoring showed traffic had increased by 6% on Underhill after the LTNs went in.

46 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

I struggle to understand how removing one feeder road into Underhill would increase traffic on Underhill itself. The broader point still stands: reducing the ability to cut through residential streets will push drivers back onto larger roads.

Ryedale is a route vehicles take to and from Underhill. If what you claim is correct about Waze and traffic lights or if St Dunstan's becomes even more impassable at the junction with Forest Hill road vehicles will likely continue along Underhill to find another, quicker, route. 

The flaw in your argument is that this is reducing traffic using one road only. All this does is displace traffic to another neighborouring road.

46 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

My faith in humanity aside, the more I read about LTNs, the more I find it hard to see any real downsides, especially when looking at provable, peer-reviewed results rather than local hearsay.

Ah, about those peer-reviewed results....;-). Don't get us started...just do a search for Anna Goodman LTN poster! 😉

 

51 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

The evidence does not support the idea that traffic will be displaced onto Dunstans.

Errr....how exactly? You're using "evidence" from distinct ring-fenced LTN areas rather than an LTN consisting of one isolated street. The council has also admitted, in the documentation that you have claimed to have read, that traffic will likely be displaced to St Dunstans.

54 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

So again, if you’ve opposed this plan, I’d genuinely ask you to reconsider and possibly send positive messages/posts. Let’s prioritise the people that live here over convenience for non-residential traffic.

If I lived on Underhill I would not be backing this programme at all as it will not reduce traffic on Underhill at all, it may actually increase it. It's a bit like Turkeys voting for Christmas!

 

57 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

I’ve just read more about LTNs, and you’re right, I’ve seen them mentioned in the news. So far, I’ve stayed out of the debate because it can feel quite hostile.

Righty ho....so.......you dont know the LTN acronym, but you have seen them mentioned in the news but stayed out of the debate because it can feel quite hostile. Did you happen across all the Rachel Aldred/Anna Goodman research by a quick Internet search....;-)

[malumbu]

7 hours ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

I live on Underhill Road, and over the years I’ve watched traffic through our neighbourhood get worse and worse. We regularly see collisions, road rage incidents, and pollution levels that are honestly alarming.

From reading the plans, the proposed measures aren’t about helping just one road, they’re about reducing cut-through traffic across the whole neighbourhood. The 18-month trial exists specifically to test whether the impacts are fair and beneficial, and to adjust if they’re not.

Most traffic will be pushed back onto major roads, where it belongs, and away from residential streets. That means safer roads, cleaner air, and quieter streets for everyone who lives here. Cornflower and Balchier will get litteraly no traffic because of the one way system, and Dunstans has lights that desuades map apps from suggesting it.

This is personal for us. We have a newborn baby who is already struggling with respiratory issues, and pollution is not helping. No family should have to worry about their child’s health because their streets have been taken over by cars. Any measure to reduce pollution is a positive one. 

If you’ve opposed this plan, I’d genuinely ask you to reconsider and possibly send positive messages/posts. Let’s prioritise the people that live in ED over the convenience for non-residential traffic.

I've banned myself posting, well offered to the Forum and one person agreed that I should not post on this thread.  So will not comment on the general repetitive Rockets view that LTNs are dreadful, Southwark are corrupt/incompetent, and it is all down to some mythical cyclist lobby,

However when I saw subsequent discussion on this post it got me going.  Fortunately I had a look at this post and I'd totally misinterpreted it.  Or some of the subsequent comments.

Thanks for what you posted and I am very much on your side.

It would be good to hear more about how you have have clocked that there are more collisions and road rage.  There is no excuse for driving like this, certainly not "oh we only drive like this due to the LTN".  

Cheers and good luck.

 

[first mate]

@malumbu

said: "So will not comment on the general repetitive Rockets view that LTNs are dreadful, Southwark are corrupt/incompetent, and it is all down to some mythical cyclist lobby"

Isn't that exactly what you have just done?

Thank goodness we have posters like Rockets prepared to challenge the pro LTN perspective. We could even call it a public service;)

 

[MaryT]

I’ve lived on a neighbouring road for 30 years. Yes, I drive but I don’t think this is an argument about those who drive and those who don’t. I genuinely have never seen any ‘excessive’ traffic on Ryedale; it suffers the same amount of traffic as any of the local side streets, so I’m unclear as to why this proposal is merited. As others have said, it will simply force traffic elsewhere, especially St Dunstans Rd. Its not obvious why Ryedale specifically should benefit from a quieter street if that’s to the direct detriment of others? More importantly, I regularly see congestion at the traffic lights on St Dunstan’s Road, junction with Forest Hill Road, at busy times because the road is narrowed by legitimately parked vehicles. This means that oncoming traffic can’t get onto St Dunstans Road when the lights are in their favour. This can block the junction and that’s very dangerous, given that it’s immediately adjacent to the crossing to the Park entrance, with kids, buggies, dogs and cyclists all accessing that gate. That problem will worsen exponentially if this scheme goes ahead. FYI,  local Councillors are Maggie Browning, who I think is still on maternity leave, and Jon Hartley who doesn’t bother to reply to emails, as discussed elsewhere on this forum (don’t let that stop you emailing him anyway!) Anyway, I’ve put my feedback into Southwark on the portal.Hope others do likewise, whatever side of the debate you fall on…