Rockets

Northern - it's a worrying turn and cannot be accepted. It's clear what point Clean Air Dulwich are trying to make and it is incredibly passive aggressive and actually quite threatening. If that was your house I am not sure you'd be best pleased. As I said before it is a dangerous precedent to set and it seems, from the second tweet, that some are going to follow their lead and highlight the perceived "hypocrisy". But I am sure there are many who probably think it's acceptable. DC - nothing to say on Spartacus's comment - I don't agree with such comparisons but don't feel the need to comment on it. If there is proof that the council are going into schools to encourage and influence children to partake in the review then that is a different matter. I have no problem with the council bringing the review to everyone's attention but if, as is suggested, they are going out of their way to influence the result by lobbying schoolchildren when they have failed miserably to alert a lot of residents of the review then that would be disappointing, but not surprising from Southwark. They will seemingly engage in any underhand tactic to get the result they so desire. In my view councils should equally present both sides of the argument but, as had been seen during this process, it seems Southwark don't subscribe to that approach.

Seriously uncool of Clean Air Dulwich to post pictures of people's houses just because they are showing the anti-LTN posters. It seems some of their supporters are now taking this as a signal that they should be doing similar things if they think the posters are hypocritical because someone owns a car A dangerous precedent is being set by Clean Air Dulwich and they should remove that post and refrain from such gutter tactics. What next, people posting pictures of cyclists emerging from houses with cars on their drives? Clean Air Dulwich need to grow up a bit.

Sorry to hear that. It is well worth investing a small amount in an RF protected box (you can get them on Amazon)to keep car keys in (especially the newer advanced car keys) as thieves are able to bridge the connection if the car is parked close to the house and the keys are in close proximity.

Oh no, not (yet) another oversight by the council......how unfortunate that these oversights only ever seem to happen when there's anything related to the LTN review involved....! ;-) It's the brazenness of it that astonishes me....they operate like there is never any recourse. It's getting a bit like Liverpool City council and look what happened there......

Ab29 - it's part of the ever changing narrative from the council as they try to find ways to protect their LTNs. Firstly Cllrs, like Cllr McAsh, were saying if traffic doesn't reduce everywhere then the scheme will have been a failure and then they changed it to suggest that A-roads were made for more traffic and therefore, by default, increases there would need to be considered (one can only presume as an acceptable consequence of closing other roads). It suggests they are aware there is a problem with displacement and I also think this is why Cllrs have been suggesting there may need to be tweaks made. But it may be too late if enough people have been forced to vote for the "Return the measures back to how they were before".

Perhaps someone will add Thank You for Supporting local businesses .....because we certainly didn't. They have some front putting those up given the lack of any tangible support for the traders anywhere in Dulwich from the council. In fact they seemed to go out of their way to make things as difficult as possible for them.

Chris_1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that was the best one of the meetings the > council has hosted so far - although that might be > a function of the bar having been so low following > the first two meetings. I think my group was > fairly similar to most: hard to disagree with the > governing ideas (do you want clean air? Do you > like nice things?) but overwhelmingly against the > current implementation. School streets, or very > brief timed closures to facilitate clean and safe > travel for kids was pretty broadly supported. > > I was encouraged - as someone who lives on a > boundary road, and who has been massively > negatively impacted by the measures (specifically > Turney and Burbage restrictions) how many times > groups seemed to comment on the impact on boundary > roads. > > One thing that has amazed me is the extent to > which people have lost confidence in the council. > That feedback was abundantly clear from my group > at least - no trust that the review is anything > other than an exercise in ?going through the > motions? and the outcome is already predetermined. > I don?t know that today remedies that - comments > in the chat suggested not all of the group > summaries were quite so glowing as the groups > reported. > > I really hope they take feedback onboard and > modify some of these schemes to make life easier > for people on boundary roads. Suspect hopes might > go unanswered. Perhaps if the council agreed to subscribe to the Clean Air For All mantra then we could see some progress. All anyone wants to see are measures that lower pollution for everyone - that surely can't be too much to ask for but nowadays Labour finds it very difficult to admit they got anything wrong (nothing is ever their fault). They are reluctant to make changes that show that their path is anything other than the right one.

The TFL side road stats were manipulated to convince people streets needed closing. Car ownership in London has been declining year on year, probably not as fast as we would all wish but the doubling and massive increases in traffic on side roads is a narrative manipulation tactic used by self-interest groups.

Unfortunately it was a fundamentally flawed approach from the get go that was pushed through under the dubious justification of the need for social distancing using the pandemic as the Trojan horse to push through measures they had no local mandate to do. They hoped people would buy in but all they managed to do was galvanize support from vested-interest groups who weren't actually reflective of the thoughts of local residents. Since then they have been desperately trying to skew everything towards the outcome they so desperately desire. Meanwhile us local residents are having to live with the fallout and you know if the review forces a council about turn not a single councillor will be accountable.

Rahx3 - we can. It's been an utter mess and massively weakens the council's position in terms of trustworthiness. Do you remember when they put the monitoring strips only on the closed roads at the outset? I think that shows what they were interested in proving. If the council was an actual business people would have been fired by now for the shambolic nature of how they have gone about it.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just seen on Twitter that Southwark Cyclists are > advising their followers to respond to the > consultation in ways that include advocating for a > modal filter in Red Post Hill. Really hoping all > these plans involve a new hospital somewhere as > this is a key route to Kings for staff/ anyone not > in an ambulance. It?s bad enough with the timed > closures on DV. Can it not be ALL about cycle > routes? > > ETA I do wonder if this links into the email > exchanges back in November when Southwark sprang > the Phase 2 closures on TfL. Just checked back and > it was during a telephone discussion about Red > Post Hill that TfL seems to have expressed concern > that Southwark had neglected to tell TfL that the > closures were going in (notice given on Thursday > for Monday implementation). See attached. Southwark Cyclists won't be happy until they have complete cycle domination and every non cycle vehicle has been eliminated... All joking aside it will be interesting to see how Southwark manages the views of residents over non-residents in the review. The council seems to be more interested in, and actively encouraging, the views of the people who night occasionally pass through the area over those who have to live here.

Legal...ha ha...the process is robust, fair and inclusive...I think the council is trying to convince themselves it is... It probably isn't surprising that they aren't sharing any data at the meeting....everything they have done in this process has been shambolic. Alternatively maybe it is because they have to yet work out a way to cut the data to give them the outcome they want! ;-) Also the break-out rooms idea is absurd...what if you have an opinion on more than one of the subjects? Reeks of trying to divide and conquer if you ask me. This council is utterly out of their depth and seems to be making it all up as they go along.

I thought there must have been a protest/demo of some kind when I saw a big group of cyclists being led to Dulwich Square on Sunday - not, ahem, convinced that the headline is entirely accurate that it was all Dulwich families - not many of them seemed to know where they were going.....;-) https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-families-get-on-their-bikes-to-show-support-for-safe-cycling-routes/

The issue is there were always traffic hot spots, and yes Calton junction with DV was one of them but that was more due to the meddling the council did to try and fix the problem and it just made it worse than it had ever been (and that was validated by their own monitoring that showed that after they made changes to the junction it was more polluted and more congested than it had been before). What I find so disingenuous about those types of twitter posts is that no-one wants traffic, no-one actively wants pollution and congestion - we all want less pollution and less congestion yet what those posts fail to acknowledge (and actually most pro-LTN lobby fail to acknowledge) is that removing traffic from one place and moving it somewhere else doesn't solve the problem it makes it worse. It's almost as if Clean Air Dulwich wants people to believe that since the closures went in EVERYWHERE is a car-free nirvana. It's not. They know that, we know that but they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it. For every 2015 - 2019 video they produce someone on Croxted Road or East Dulwich Grove or Underhill or Lordship lane could produce one highlighting how much worse things are there since the arrival of the LTNs. I want less traffic for all - not a small section of our community and all those videos do is suggest groups like Clean Air Dulwich are concerned about is protecting the car-free nirvana they negotiated with the council at other people's expense....

I just finally got round to filling in the council questionnaire and it really saddened me to see the botched mess the council has made of a once in a lifetime opportunity to actually do something positive about pollution and climate change. As I waded through the myriad of leading questions desperately trying to garner my support for more measures and CPZs I couldn't help but think how did they get themselves into this mess where the only option I have is to register a vote to return the measures to their previous state. This is an abject lesson in how not to do things. The council have let us all down - they have failed everyone on both sides of the debate massively, divided our community and have created more pollution and congestion than ever before. I might write a book: Southwark Council and the LTN folly.....

MrsBoris - I hope you and your family are well and so sorry to hear about the ordeal you went through. I am very glad that the person is now in custody and I hope that you can take some small comfort from that. Thank you so much for you and your friend for alerting people to what happened - it's what forums like this are for and I am sure people were more vigilant as a result.

Heartblock - that document remains the most damning piece of evidence against the council and their foolhardy implementation of the LTNs - it really is the smoking gun to the ludicrousness of the decision to put these LTNs in. Their actions with the LTNs completely contradict and ignore their own advice and conclusions in that, and other, report/s. It begs the question why did they go ahead with it - who got in their ear and made them think this was a good idea - which lobby groups were involved and why and what influence/leverage did they exert on the council and councillors?

Does anyone know what the decision-making process is for the location of hangars? Some roads seem to have lots whilst others have none and like our road, not for a case of people not asking - all of our neighbours added their details to the council list years ago yet no hangars have been forthcoming yet a road around the corner has multiple hangars.

Ex- where are the moving it from or to? It's a bit chaotic around there at the moment as Court Lane is closed and Thames Water has turned up and closed the bottom of Woodwarde Road to re-dig the road they dug up a couple of months ago.

I see Court Lane seems to be being resurfaced today - is this in preparation for the grand re-opening.....;-)

Looks like there is a photo op taking place in Margy Square. There is a photographer there and a load of cyclists passed us one of whom was carrying a large More Safe Routes flag.

Not that, but I did hear that Court Lane was going to be made one-way as the council was acknowledging that there were problems being caused by the throttling of east/west routes by the closures. Maybe the two are linked?

jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've never come across this being a problem in > Southwark. Planning regulations can vary and you > can imagine there being issues in, for instance, a > conservation area. But I would argue for a lenient > approach given the need to encourage cycling. > > Best wishes > James James, good stuff. Many thanks for your quick reply.

Cllr McAsh, whilst we wait to see whether we get a hangar what is the council's policy towards cycle storage units in front gardens? I saw a report on the BBC that Islington were telling householders to remove Asgard (and other similar bike storage structures) from front gardens as such "out buildings" were not permitted beyond back gardens. As someone who does not have a side return I have ordered an Asgard cycle storage unit for our small front garden. Does Southwark permit such units? The unit complies to all permitted development thresholds (but apparently so do the ones that councils like Islington seem to have a problem with when people out them into front gardens).

Talking about things dropping through your door that annoy people. This dropped through our door today and it absolutely incensed my wife for its blinkeredness (and she hasn't been easily riled by the LTNs). She met a friend today who had also received it and she also found it infuriating and had followed the link to the CleanAIrDulwich twitter feed as she wanted to comment only to find that the comments are locked to prevent people from leaving any feedback (I am sure CleanAirDulwich would say to prevent trolls but many interpret it as they get more people disagreeing with them than agreeing and so it helps to manage the narrative). Of course we all want "More of this" and no-one wants to go "Back to this" but if "More of This" means other people have to endure "More of that" then that doesn't seem right or fair. This is what so annoys people - this "well we're all right Jack" attitude and blind ignorance to what is happening as a result of these changes.