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

[Angelina]

😶

Edited 16 hours ago by Angelina

[Insuflo]

6 hours ago, Tori Griffiths said:

I am standing for Labour in Dulwich Hill in the local elections. I will be pushing for a wider consultation as soon as is reasonably possible, which I would imagine starts at the 6-month mark. If, following a fully accessible and robust consultation, this change isn’t landing well for the majority of residents, then I will push for it not to be permanent. 

Good luck with your campaign, Tori. I am a Dulwich Hill voter and a Labour voter for decades.

However, for the first time my vote may go to the Greens. I will be looking for a clear commitment to action to reduce car use and prioritise pedestrians, from whichever candidate I support. Southwark Labour’s laudable efforts in this regard have been the main reason for Labour keeping my vote in the recent past.

I support the trial closure of Ryedale, which I use frequently as a pedestrian. There are no cogent arguments against the trial save for the usual yap from a martyrdom seeking motoring minority.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, alice said:

another amazing post. almost unbelievable.

Amazing isnt it...someone who earlier purported to not even know what LTN stood for suddenly appears to be an expert on peer-reviewed documents from cycle lobbyists! 😉

P.S. has anyone seen anything of @Moondoox recently? There do seem to be a few first time posters trying to throw their weight behind the council's plans....hmmmm

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Once experimental traffic orders are imposed they tend not to be reversed. The council take little if any notice of local consultation results and tend to push ahead with their agenda. 

Absolutely spot on and whilst @Tori Griffiths may be throwing a vote for me and we will do a consultation line there is very little evidence that Southwark Labour will ever listen to the view of residents. Their motto is something along the lines of "never let the views of local residents get in the way of an active travel intervention that the lobbyists asked us to do".

1 hour ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

Does research show that traffic on neighbouring roads is improved, not worsened, by these measures? Yes.

Seemingly only data analysed by activist researchers (one of who was an LCC employee, the other who is an LTN poster vandal and an active and leading member of the West Dulwich LTN campaign group - her husband runs it apparently) makes these claims...I mean the council's own limited data showed a 6% increase in traffic on Underhill after the Dulwich LTNs went in....but hey ho...

1 hour ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

If someone can find a credible, peer reviewed study that says something different then please share it.

Unfortunately TFL and the Mayor's office don't tend to fund research that shows its interventions are not working.

[Lebanums]

What was interesting from the data count from the FOI is, those streets that had speed cushions instead of full length speed bumps had both more traffic and a higher % of cars speeding. Also when speaking with people whilst gaining signatures for the petition, we agree that some measures need to be in place to stop speeding but the current solution which is also the cheapest is not it. 

On 14/01/2026 at 12:44, Rockets said:

Which is all a bit bizarre as they seemingly made the decision based on a non-council approved "petition". They're a bit contradictory aren't they?

Is this on the Southwark petition website?

It was a door to door signature. There was another petition online that took it to 339 signatures.

Edited 12 hours ago by Lebanums
Correction

[MaryT]

CT-R has just sent me the full FOI documents (sorry, that’s Freedom of Information Request, for the uninitiated). I’m so angry, I can barely speak! It’s blatant that pressure was applied to internal departments to wave this through and that they were actively instructed to forego informal consultations stages. Apparently the Council Leader and/or others (names retracted of course) were keen to bulldoze this through without reference to those of us who actually live here and pay council tax and to ‘priortize’ it over other schemes, at haste. Rather than follow transparent processes, they went to the Council’s legal team to see how they could impose this with minimal public scrutiny and how exposed they might be if they did so. Having been told that they were treading a thin line, legally, they decided to do it anyway, presumably assuming  we unwashed locals would be too stupid or apathetic to notice. I’m raging! I want to know which of our elected politicians thought that was an appropriate exercise of their public office! I’m sending the FOI response to our local Councillors and Ellie Reeves and to demand ‘WTF?!’. Unbelievable!

[CT_R]

8 hours ago, Lebanums said:

What was interesting from the data count from the FOI is, those streets that had speed cushions instead of full length speed bumps had both more traffic and a higher % of cars speeding. Also when speaking with people whilst gaining signatures for the petition, we agree that some measures need to be in place to stop speeding but the current solution which is also the cheapest is not it. 

It was a door to door signature. There was another petition online that took it to 339 signatures.

There is this ‘survey’’  that started the discussions (the one with the council member suggesting the cheapest, not the best option)

then of course once the order was issued (after a dubious Council process) there was the walk around and online ones with overwhelming views against the traffic order.

Edited 5 hours ago by CT_R

[Rockets]

12 hours ago, Lebanums said:

It was a door to door signature. There was another petition online that took it to 339 signatures.

Some who did a door-to-door signature petition to the council in relation to the Dulwich Village LTNs were told it could not be considered as it was not an official council petition and the council have not proof the folks hadn't made it all up.

Was the online one on the Southwark council petition site?

 

3 hours ago, CT_R said:

There is this ‘survey’’  that started the discussions (the one with the council member suggesting the cheapest, not the best option)

Is that a resident-led survey - it cannot be a council one as the asterisk's in the notes are way too leading for that to have been allowed on a council document. If it is a resident-led survey then this is why the council, has previously, said they cannot be counted because clearly those doing the survey know the outcome they want when they wrote the survey and its validity and legitimacy can be questioned.

10 hours ago, MaryT said:

CT-R has just sent me the full FOI documents (sorry, that’s Freedom of Information Request, for the uninitiated). I’m so angry, I can barely speak! It’s blatant that pressure was applied to internal departments to wave this through and that they were actively instructed to forego informal consultations stages.

Could someone share the FOI documents, or a summary, here? 

10 hours ago, MaryT said:

Rather than follow transparent processes, they went to the Council’s legal team to see how they could impose this with minimal public scrutiny and how exposed they might be if they did so. Having been told that they were treading a thin line, legally, they decided to do it anyway, presumably assuming  we unwashed locals would be too stupid or apathetic to notice. I’m raging! I want to know which of our elected politicians thought that was an appropriate exercise of their public office! I’m sending the FOI response to our local Councillors and Ellie Reeves and to demand ‘WTF?!’. Unbelievable!

Unfortunately, this is how Southwark labour treat their constituents - clearly someone wanted to get this in very quickly and I am sure the real reason why will come out in the wash. With local elections around the corner this may be a step too far for some but is very reflective of the way our elected officials treat the process and people around anything to do with active travel.

Clearly someone was desperate to get this in play as a matter of urgently and someone needs to explain why the council was trying to circumvent its own internal procedures. And if there are FOI documents asking the Southwark legal team about exposure from the approach they are taking, clearly someone knew they were trying to bend/break the rules and not follow the process.

Perhaps @Tori Griffiths can do some digging?

Edited 1 hour ago by Rockets