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

[East Dulwich Friend]

Having spent a very short amount of time in this forum, I am afraid I have come to the conclusion that there is literally no point in engaging in discussion with bad faith outsiders that seemingly spend their entire day glued to a computer. Why are non-residents taking up entire pages of this forum with biased conspiracy theories, when they don't live in our area? Please leave space for actual residents to debate. To the anti traffic measure brigade, you may never have the capacity or willingness to realise you're on the wrong side of history, as I'm sure this is not the first time you have been on the wrong side of history, and it will not be the last. I am so impressed by the restraint many actual residents have shown when dealing with the bad faith responses. I now change my original ask, from people reconsidering their opposition to the trial based on actual evidence rather than hearsay, to not engaging in debate with the non-residents, as their presence here is not appropriate, respectful, or constructive. Take your feelings to the ballot box. Labour have held power in this constituency since 2010, Sadiq Khan has held power since 2016. They are huge proponents of reducing cars and pollution, and their efforts have worked. And surprise surprise they keep getting voted in. So I'm afraid, along with being on the wrong side of history, you're on the losing side of the debate. I'll now join you in your rudeness...debate here has been like the below clip from the show Jam. Over and out. 

 

[EDlifechat]

16 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

Having spent a very short amount of time in this forum, I am afraid I have come to the conclusion that there is literally no point in engaging in discussion with bad faith outsiders that seemingly spend their entire day glued to a computer. Why are non-residents taking up entire pages of this forum with biased conspiracy theories, when they don't live in our area? Please leave space for actual residents to debate. To the anti traffic measure brigade, you may never have the capacity or willingness to realise you're on the wrong side of history, as I'm sure this is not the first time you have been on the wrong side of history, and it will not be the last. I am so impressed by the restraint many actual residents have shown when dealing with the bad faith responses. I now change my original ask, from people reconsidering their opposition to the trial based on actual evidence rather than hearsay, to not engaging in debate with the non-residents, as their presence here is not appropriate, respectful, or constructive. Take your feelings to the ballot box. Labour have held power in this constituency since 2010, Sadiq Khan has held power since 2016. They are huge proponents of reducing cars and pollution, and their efforts have worked. And surprise surprise they keep getting voted in. So I'm afraid, along with being on the wrong side of history, you're on the losing side of the debate. I'll now join you in your rudeness...debate here has been like the below clip from the show Jam. Over and out. 

 

Fine if you believe that. Close Dunstans too. It's unacceptable to just traffic calm one residential road at the direct expense of the neighbouring residential road. All this scheme is designed to do is turn a small residential road that is no wider than Ryedale into a main road. And as I understand it the reason that Ryedale doesn't have proper humps and so it's a cut through is that Ryedale residents in the past have objected to them being possibly too noisy! Come back to me as a Dunstans resident once you are up for proper humps going in on Ryedale and there's still a problem. I don't own a car, I just don't want to live on a main road for your convenience and luxury. 

[East Dulwich Friend]

2 minutes ago, EDlifechat said:

Fine if you believe that. Close Dunstans too. It's unacceptable to just traffic calm one residential road at the direct expense of the neighbouring residential road. All this scheme is designed to do is turn a small residential road that is no wider than Ryedale into a main road. And as I understand it the reason that Ryedale doesn't have proper humps and so it's a cut through is that Ryedale residents in the past have objected to them being possibly too noisy! Come back to me as a Dunstans resident once you are up for proper humps going in on Ryedale and there's still a problem. I don't own a car, I just don't want to live on a main road for your convenience and luxury. 

I live on Underhill, and completely understand your concern of the imact on Dunstans! I'd feel exactly the same. However, the research shows from up and down the country, where these measures are implemented, that after a short adjustment period, it has a positive impact on local roads (on average a 9% drop in traffic). Anti traffic measure people will arge that the data is biased and reference one or two dodgy researchers, but that just simply couldn't be true accross so many peer reviewed studies. The peer review process is designed to pick holes in research. Peer reviewers take pleasure in pointing out flaws and biases. There is enormous, well funded anti-traffic measure pressure from the billionaire class, who have tried to fund negative studies, but failed because the data is clear. Also, Dunstans already has slow traffic lights to desuade traffic. All of that said, I think your concerns are completely understandable, I would also be nervous, and I can see the council have been absolutely terrible at making a good case for these measures. I just see that the research outcomes are very clear. I can't find a single study that says otherwise. But I'd welcome anyone to share a peer reviewed study that shows negative impact. There is a lot of money behind the anti-LTN movement. More than enough to fund an £80k study.

[Earl Aelfheah]

23 hours ago, Rockets said:

To be fair what you claim to be a "fake AI summary"

It isn't a summary. Are you suggesting that @Lebanums is telling the truth when he says he used the prompt 'scan it and give me a synopsis?' to produced a detailed seven-point governance risk critique?

I would love to know whether you are actually claiming to buy that / don't understand how AI prompts work, or are simply saying that you don't care that he's been deliberately misleading. 

25 minutes ago, EDlifechat said:

Fine if you believe that. Close Dunstans too. It's unacceptable to just traffic calm one residential road at the direct expense of the neighbouring residential road. All this scheme is designed to do is turn a small residential road that is no wider than Ryedale into a main road. And as I understand it the reason that Ryedale doesn't have proper humps and so it's a cut through is that Ryedale residents in the past have objected to them being possibly too noisy! Come back to me as a Dunstans resident once you are up for proper humps going in on Ryedale and there's still a problem. I don't own a car, I just don't want to live on a main road for your convenience and luxury. 

I do appreciate your concern on this. The fact is however, that the trial is likely to proceed. I would advise you to put pressure on the council to do a lot of baselining and proper monitoring of the impacts. There is a lot of misinformation around the impacts of these types of measures. A well managed trial will demonstrate whether or not there is a negative impact on surrounding streets.

Edited 6 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

23 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

Anti traffic measure people will arge that the data is biased and reference one or two dodgy researchers, but that just simply couldn't be true accross so many peer reviewed studies.

The only flaw in your argument is that the research is exclusively only carried out by, as you put it, "two dodgy researchers". Why? Because those are the researchers funded by TFL and the Mayor to, ahem, "impartially" survey TFL and the Mayor's implementations.

27 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

There is enormous, well funded anti-traffic measure pressure from the billionaire class, who have tried to fund negative studies, but failed because the data is clear. 

Do you have any links to this - first time I have heard anything about this?

32 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

I live on Underhill, and completely understand your concern of the imact on Dunstans!

Underhill will also bear the brunt of this...so be careful what you wish for. In fact, if the council then has to take action on St Dunstan's you'll be seeing a lot more traffic on your road. And I worked that one out myself despite of your accusation about Thick People!

To be fair, I am so pleased you have, amazingly quickly, developed such a strong opinion especially given you claimed, no matter than a few days ago, to have never heard of an LTN before...now you are calling people who disagree with you "thick people".  I think you are exposing yourself a bit here. In the matter of 8 posts you've gone from "I don't know what LTN stands for" to landing on "there is a lot of money behind the anti-LTN movement".....that's one hell of a shift #justsayin

Anyway, if this is the end of your time on the Forum it's been an absolute pleasure having you   thank you for joining and sharing your views.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets You constantly mock the large body of academic research, but offer no peer reviewed research to support your many 'alternative' claims.

You've smeared academics repeatedly, including individuals you've previously cited favourably when (you've mistakenly thought) their work aligns with your position.

You've repeated claims of increased pollution in the area many times, including on this thread, which are demonstrably false. 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Are you suggesting that @Lebanums is telling the truth when he says he used the prompt 'scan it and give me a synopsis?' to produced a detailed seven-point governance risk critique?

And you have ducked this question.

It would be good to know whether you're defending what you know to be deliberately misleading statements, or whether you actually believe that they're true.

Edited 5 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah try to keep it on topic please - we see what you are doing here.

21 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And you have ducked this question.

And what you're ducking is the clear proof, in the FOI materials, that the council tried to avoid it's own internal governance procedures, ignored the testimony from its own executives and those invited to give opinion and were hellbent on rolling this out as quickly as possible and to push any hurdles aside without any formal consultation. That is what the FOI materials show - now you want to argue about what AI prompts were used to generate, what I feel, was a far more reflective AI summary than yours. I suggest if you want to talk about various AI LLMs and how the prompts work you take that to the lounge because the longer you go on about it the more it looks like a weak attempt to distract from the aforementioned subject matter which is there for all to see in black and white.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yes, you've ducked the question again. Are you suggesting that @Lebanums is telling the truth when he says he used the prompt 'scan it and give me a synopsis?' to produced a detailed seven-point governance risk critique, or that you don't think he's telling the truth, but you don't care?

[JamesSE22]

4 hours ago, Lebanums said:

But closing one end of the road doesn’t really solve it, as cars can still pass from both directions at the FHR end with the proposed measures.

The proposals would prevent anyone exiting Ryedale onto FHR unless they were already on either Ryedale, Balchier or Cornflower - ie local residents. It will also ensure only those seeking access to three roads plus the top end of Dunstans Road and Dunstans Grove will turn off FHR onto Ryedale. [See attached] This will significantly reduce traffic at this junction and the accompanying road rage / knocks / speeding.

It's worth mentioning again that according to the traffic studies, Ryedale currently experiences traffic greater than Balchier, Cornflower, Dunstans and St Aidans combined and also has the speediest speeders (more than even Wood Vale which has a central reservation). [See attached]

For this reason I'm supportive of the measures proposed. I'd like to the council to go even further and keep as much passing traffic to local A and B roads as possible.

Quote

Double yellow lines on the bend would allow cars to pass safely and have the least impact on surrounding roads.

I'm not supportive of reducing parking for local residents simply to make it easier for drivers who are not local to pass through our roads. I'm not sure why anyone would be.

[jimbo1964]

I don't think it would. That section is long and narrow. So vehicles often meet somewhere in the middle. 

 

[Lebanums]

1 hour ago, JamesSE22 said:

The proposals would prevent anyone exiting Ryedale onto FHR unless they were already on either Ryedale, Balchier or Cornflower - ie local residents. It will also ensure only those seeking access to three roads plus the top end of Dunstans Road and Dunstans Grove will turn off FHR onto Ryedale. [See attached] This will significantly reduce traffic at this junction and the accompanying road rage / knocks / speeding.

It's worth mentioning again that according to the traffic studies, Ryedale currently experiences traffic greater than Balchier, Cornflower, Dunstans and St Aidans combined and also has the speediest speeders (more than even Wood Vale which has a central reservation). [See attached]

For this reason I'm supportive of the measures proposed. I'd like to the council to go even further and keep as much passing traffic to local A and B roads as possible.

I'm not supportive of reducing parking for local residents simply to make it easier for drivers who are not local to pass through our roads. I'm not sure why anyone would be.

Residents of Cornflower or Balchier will not be able to use Ryedale to exit onto FHR, as they are both one-way with a right turn only on to Dunstans. To reach the A205, residents from both streets would instead have to turn right onto Dunstans, carry out a three-point turn at Dunstans Grove, then drive back along Dunstans in order to exit left onto Underhill, and so on.

Alternatively, they could turn right onto Dunstans and use St Aidens (which faces the same issue as Ryedale and was previously rejected under the same scheme due to its impact on Ryedale), before continuing onto Underhill. Another option would be to turn right onto Dunstans, travel up FHR, then via Wood Vale, before coming back down to Underhill, and so on.

We did not request an LTN. Our concerns were limited to traffic speed and the persistent congestion at the bend near FHR. There were a number of Ryedale residents who signed the petition were not in favour of this measure.

The data table you provided also fails to note that both Ryedale and Wood Vale—where traffic volumes and the percentage of speeding vehicles are higher—are fitted only with ineffective speed cushions, whereas the other locations have full-width, carriageway-wide speed humps. Data is only meaningful when considered in its full context. Note that the data collected was during the school easter holidays last year and not reflective of a normal day.

Why wouldn't you be supportive of a measure that creates a solution with minimal impact as opposed to a measure that creates problems for others?

Edited 3 hours ago by Lebanums

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, JamesSE22 said:

I'm not supportive of reducing parking for local residents simply to make it easier for drivers who are not local to pass through our roads.

Welcome to the forum! Why are these journey's "not local"....because they are displacement from the other LTNs. I am sorry folks this is what happens when you put LTNs in - councils then have to chase the displacement. This closure will cause more displacement and the Pavlovian response from the council will be..."do you want an LTN". Of course for the residents of Dunstan's this likely won't be a solution as you will basically make it impossible to exit the Underhill area towards Peckham.

56 minutes ago, Lebanums said:

Alternatively, they could turn right onto Dunstans and use St Aidens (which faces the same issue as Ryedale and was previously rejected under the same scheme due to its impact on Ryedale),

So did the council think that a St Aiden's LTN would create problems for Ryedale and yet decided to throw St Dunstan's under the same bus?

 

2 hours ago, JamesSE22 said:

I'm not supportive of reducing parking for local residents simply to make it easier for drivers who are not local to pass through our roads. I'm not sure why anyone would be.

But this is the very approach the council has taken to manage this supposed issue elsewhere in Dulwich - they have extended double yellows to the maximum permissible length to aid junction safety - clearly it is a ruse to remove parking spaces but was this considered by the council or were they just desperate to put another LTN in?

This whole plan is utterly ridiculous - has the council devised a way for refuse lorries to not have to just do loops of St Dunstans and Ryedale on the weekly rounds?