Jump to content

Dulwich Going Greener


Recommended Posts

Dulwich is probably as green as it's going to get since every available bit of land is being built on and people seem to be going in for stupidly concreting over their front gardens- and maybe their back gardens for all I know. My neighbour is forever moaning about the tree outside the house...in spring it's the birds crapping on his car and the sap, then it's the leaves falling in his garden.....ffs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well consider this: Save Southwark 100 Acre Woods (aka Camberwell old and New Cemeteries)


The Next Event is Monday the 25th at 11am to 1pm in Camberwell Old Cemetery off Forest Hill Road


For Save Southwark Woods

[email protected]

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

@southwarkwoods

Facebook Page Save Southwark Woods


To support the call to Save Southwark Woods, sign the petition here: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-southwark-woods


Contact campaign co-ordinators for images and info:

[email protected]


Or go to:

Twitter: @southwarkwoods

Facebook page: Save Southwark Woods

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answer is yes. Dulwich going greener is still actively running and funding the Dulwich vegetable garden behind Rosebery lodge in Dulwich park. All welcome to come along and volunteer and learn lots about growing your own veg and take home some produce. They are also looking new session leaders. Summer opening times Wed 10-12 and Sun 10-12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to play devil's advocate... we've just had our front garden paved over for parking.


We don't own a car, but we want to make it easier for elderly relatives who have mobility problems but cannot reliably get a parking spot near our house (because all the people driving to the nearby gym clog up the street).


We paved with granite stones reclaimed from another driveway, and left soil beds all around the edges to provide sustainable urban drainage. We will be planting in these beds.


My point is - not every paved driveway indicates gas-guzzling, car-obsessed, environment-hating, selfish homeowners. But of course urban creep is a real issue and paving has to be done responsibly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

"My point is - not every paved driveway indicates gas-guzzling, car-obsessed, environment-hating, selfish homeowners"


Not every one, but most. What you get is TWO SPACES, that only you can use, the bit on your land and the bit of road that no one can now park on for blocking you in ?????? So you always have a saved space outside your houses ... happens everywhere people have given themselves a space for one car, they get TWO !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish the Council would ban front garden parking spaces


This would then put more cars parked on the streets - with fewer passing places on narrow streets (off street parking in effect normally creates a passing space) - and more likelihood of accidents/ damage/ vandalism (all of which has a cost). It would be reasonable, however, to require hard standing for cars to be made out of water permeable materials, either gravel over membrane, bricks laid over sand (bricks are water permeable, unless specially treated) or whatever (you can get a grid which sits over lawn and will support cars, allowing a lawn to grow through it). It is concrete or asphalt which cause environmental problems, creating run-off etc.


Of course well-tended front gardens with flowers, shrubs etc. are 'nice' (and are still achievable, depending on the size of space, when where cars are parked-up) but banning parking cannot mandate pretty front gardens - so there is no necessarily aesthetic advantage in such a ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


It would be reasonable, however, to require

> hard standing for cars to be made out of water

> permeable materials, either gravel over membrane,

> bricks laid over sand (bricks are water permeable,

> unless specially treated) or whatever (you can get

> a grid which sits over lawn and will support cars,

> allowing a lawn to grow through it). It is

> concrete or asphalt which cause environmental

> problems, creating run-off etc.


We bought our house with an off-street parking space already created but it was a condition of planning that the surface be made of special spacer type bricks to allow for permeability and support. I'm not sure if that is just because our house was a new-build or whether it is a standard requirement applied in Southwark when anyone wants a drop kerb for an existing garden, but the Council were pretty hot at specifying their requirements for off-street parking (this is back in 2006/7).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wish the Council would ban front garden parking

> spaces

>

> This would then put more cars parked on the

> streets - with fewer passing places on narrow

> streets (off street parking in effect normally

> creates a passing space) - and more likelihood of

> accidents/ damage/ vandalism (all of which has a

> cost). It would be reasonable, however, to require

> hard standing for cars to be made out of water

> permeable materials, either gravel over membrane,

> bricks laid over sand (bricks are water permeable,

> unless specially treated) or whatever (you can get

> a grid which sits over lawn and will support cars,

> allowing a lawn to grow through it). It is

> concrete or asphalt which cause environmental

> problems, creating run-off etc.

>

> Of course well-tended front gardens with flowers,

> shrubs etc. are 'nice' (and are still achievable,

> depending on the size of space, when where cars

> are parked-up) but banning parking cannot mandate

> pretty front gardens - so there is no necessarily

> aesthetic advantage in such a ban.


I don't' agree with this. I think there is an aesthetic and even psycho-spatial argument against cars parked up in front of houses. They often involve the removal of the front wall and so the feeling of walking through a safe pedestrian space is undermined. It effectively draws the road up, over the pavement, towards the houses. It removes the feeling of separation and 'free', uncontested space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Dulwich Going Greener is no longer in operation (it closed in September 2016).


Dulwich Vegetable Garden behind Rosebery Lodge in Dulwich Park is still going, and is always looking for more volunteers and session leaders. From 1 November to 1 March, it is open only on Sundays, 10.30-12.30. For the rest of the year it is also open on Wednesdays at the same time. Contact [email protected] if you are interested.


Regards


Christine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Ok here goes.....   Since day 1 of the LTNs the emergency services have been very clear - blocked roads increase response times. Southwark councillors were more than aware of this from the beginning of the LTN debacle during Covid because, when the council were going LTN mad and were trying to carpet bomb them everywhere they had suggested one for Peckham Rye and had initiated a consultation. As usual they took glowing endorsements of their proposal to close parts of Peckham Rye from the cycle lobby but got negative feedback from TFL and the emergency services due to the disruption their physical closure barriers were going to have - the emergency services made their preference clear that they do not like physical barriers. Needless to say Southwark ignored that emergency service input and pushed ahead with their plans only to cancel them when the realised LTNs were turning residents against them.   Now the video below (from March 2021) is interesting from a couple of perspectives: 1) Clearly LAS were making their feelings on permanent closures very clear to Southwark - please scroll to 1 hour 4 minutes to hear from them - 51 of the 170 delays caused by LTNs in London were in Southwark - yet it took over a year for emergency vehicles to be given access and, if I remember correctly FOIs showed that LAS had been writing to Dale Foden and the council alerting them to the delays. So why the delay and why is there a constant narrative from local lobby groups that the junction has to be closed to ALL traffic (including emergency vehicles) and why the new designs return to a partial full closure of the junction - most rational and pragmatic people can surely see that the compromise installed in 2022 to allow emergency vehicle access was the most sensible approach.   The council put the desires of local lobby groups ahead of the emergency services...which is madness...and then that leads us to point 2)....   2) Notice the presence of Jeremy Leach on the call - not a councillor but the Co-Optee of the council's environmental scrutiny committee and he is constantly pushing the councillors to do more to deal with traffic issues and reduce traffic. I suspect he is deemed one of the "expert" voices the council was turning to for guidance at this period. But, much like the activist researchers the council turned to Jeremy is very much an "activist expert" and was chair of the London Living Streets, co-founder of Action Vision Zero and part of Southwark Cyclists - so you can see why if the council was taking guidance and direction from him how they may have not been making decisions in the public interest. Clearly someone has convinced the council that the junction needs to be closed to all vehicles as there cannot be any other explanation for why they held out for so long (that created increased response times) - remember they are wasting another £1.5m to close one arm of the roads permanently again - honestly if someone wants to enlighten me to a part of this story I am missing then feel free but to me it looks like something very odd has been going on at the DV junction and the council is ignoring the majority and listening to the few...   https://lrscconference.org.uk/index.php/agenda-speakers/jeremy-leach-co-founder-action-vision-zero/     No it was 64% of the total who lived in the consultation area - 57% when the council looked at all the respondents to the consultation.   3,162 (64%) wanted it returned to its original state 823 (17%) wanted it retained as was 422 (8%) wanted a different measure installed 564 (11%) wanted the measure, but modify/ enhance it with other features   So back then the 11% got their wish!   In every consultation in relation to the DV junction there has been overwhelming rejection of the council's plans by local residents - yet they carry-on wasting our money on it regardless - just who are they trying to placate?
    • Calton was particularly hideous. An ambulance wouldn’t have got anywhere fast.   
    • Not clear what point you are trying to make here Earl? A majority of those consulted wanted measures returned to their original state. Majority is the salient point. Again, if consultations are pretty irrelevent, as you seem to suggest, then why do oragnisations like Southwark Cyclists repeatedly prompt their members, whether local to the consultation area or not, to respond to consultations on CPZ or LTNs. What a waste of everyone's time if of no import in terms of local policy-making.
    • Funny how some people don’t remember how awful it used to be  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...