Rockets

Yes it does require planning. I just parted with ?234 for the pleasure. Apparently the council views the applications favourably but do require you to pay for the pleasure - a bit surprised they don't waive the fee for bike storage given their commitment to active travel and their inability to satiate the demand for cycle hoops.

But why they did they have a review based on get rid of them, keep them as is or alter them? Malumbu - the suggested changes are diversionary kite-flying from the council so they can say - we're making changes... I don't see anything in their suggestions that will change the chaos they have created. And to Legal's point the biggest issue is the DV junction and they are doing nothing to solve that problem - seemingly at the behest of a few dozen people who live on Court Lane and Calton.

And even with all the cajoling the pro-LTN did to get the likes of LCC and Southwark Cyclists to have their say in tbe review the "remove them" share was still 55% of the overall total inputs received. They couldn't even manipulate that part of the review. Which is why the council are grasping at the "these two roads want them" nonsense. It's all they have, everything else gives them a resounding no. The longer the publication went on was reflective of how much work they were doing to try and find a reason to keep them.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The residents of Dulwich have spoken...Keeping > the DV > > measures on the basis of weak support on Court > > Lane and Calton is another very dangerous > > precedent for them to set. > > It's complete nonsense that "the residents of > Dulwich" all want rid of the scheme and that there > is only weak support only on Court Lane and Calton > Ave. This thread is a echo chamber that is not > representative of the outside world. DKHB - take the time to look at the data the council published from the review. It's all in there. Let us know if that changes your view......

The council are going warp factor 9 on the spin on this one.....some epic turd polishing going on in Tooley Street - you have to commend them for their continued blatant disregard for the democratic process!

Remember how we were kept being told that the emergency services had no issue with the closures by the council and the pro-LTN supporters. Check out the emergency services response document for the truth....a very different narrative than the one that was being peddled....

Legal - it looks like a token gesture to say "we're listening and making changes" and I don't think it will much difference at all. The residents of Dulwich have spoken and they want this disaster the council forced upon us at the behest of a few self-interest groups and self-interested individuals removed. It just shows the weight of feeling against the measures that despite trying to rally support for them by pulling every underhand trick in tbe book the council have not been able to rally a mandate to continue this horrendous experiment. Yet they chose to do so. The council cannot be allowed to put the will of a few over the will of the majority. Keeping the DV measures on the basis of weak support on Court Lane and Calton is another very dangerous precedent for them to set.

Chick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here is a link to their proposal. > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review? > utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source > =govdelivery&utm_term= > > Laugh, I almost fell off my chair And a very selective group of documents that they link to....very different from the documents we saw last night. Talk about trying to bury the story and drive people to the data you want them to see rather than the data that tells you what is really happening and what people think of the measures.

Just seen the newsletter that dropped through our door. Apparently we told the council we are all supportive of the measures.....they seem to have forgotten to mention that 65%+ of local residents responded to tbe review saying they wanted them removed. This are the only stats they present from the review: The majority of respondents (55%) were supportive of the overall aims of Streets for People as set out as priorities in the survey. In particular, a majority of respondents (77%) agreed that improving air quality and road safety on the street where they lived was an important priority. The largest level of support in the survey (82%) was for improving air quality and road safety for local schools. This council is shameless, absolutely shameless and I hope they one day get held to account for their constant manipulation of what they are being told by their constituents. I really hope they have the backbone to hold some public meetings around this - I think they need to hear from people directly instead of hiding behind Covid as a reason not to engage with the people they represent.

What makes me laugh is they claim to be socialists and take every opportunity to call out corruption and sleaze yet are more than happy to stand back and let it happen on their watch. Hypocrites every single one of them and a classic illustration why politicians of all political persuasions are so despised by so many - putting their own party's ideology ahead of the will of the people they are supposed to represent.

For the few not the many. How are they going to try and spin this? Every trick they pulled to try and validate their approach has backfired royally yet they are keeping the measures. The measures clearly aren't working and the majority of people in the area don't want them. The data is there to support it yet they continue regardless.

We finally got offered a single space in a bike hangar two streets away from our house....which wasn't much use as we applied for spaces for each of our bikes. Now had to spend ?234 to get the council to review planning permission to put an Asgard in our front garden. Expensive business trying to embrace active travel if you don't own a house with a side return......

To me this seems like a very sensible use of LTNs and I can see the justification and rationale for keeping them. BBC News - Covent Garden and St John's Wood to continue al fresco dining https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58583771

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the village ward councillors may only > exist online. I've never seen them in the flesh - > not even out canvassing. I'm not aware of a ward > meeting in the last couple of years, the council > webpage seems to have been updated in July to say > that a date for one would be added shortly. > They're supposed to have six per year (including > the two South multi-ward meetings), although I > think the council decided it would be reduced to > two during COVID (ie only the multi ward meetings > which have a very limited remit - surprising, > that,at a time when constituents were likely to be > vocal were a ward meeting held). Surely they must be able to start proper meetings again now. If you can sit in a football stadium, go to a concert or the theatre then surely councillors can start doing surgeries and meetings again? I suspect they are using Covid as a cover to not have to face their constituents!

The police responding to my wife's incident (she is fine thanks she put up a fight and the idiot may have thought he had bitten off more than he could chew!) came from Stockwell as there are no responding officers at Peckham anymore apparently (don't know if this is temporary). Unfortunately for the police many of the kids doing this are exactly that, kids, and they know they are untouchable and know how to play the system. It's why they are all wearing the same clothes and riding the same bikes so it makes it very difficult to identify them.

You would presume our local councillors would have been there - does anyone know?

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Its true that if the LTNs threatened businesses > then consideration should be given to what could > be done. Its not clear though that the effects > quoted are actually as a result of the LTN (a > bunch of people against LTNs saying' its affected > my business, definitely not the pandemic isn't the > same thing as showing demonstrable reduction in > trade). Also suspect that the wording has been > carefully crafted to date - where some businesses > like dry cleaners will be down lots, others less > so. > > Final point is that despite it being so apparently > dreadful for businesses we are in a position were > 3 businesses are opening up - one of them directly > onto Dulwich Square. I'm going to assume that > they did their due diligence before opening and > considered that the location would be good - which > does make the claims that LTNs are death to the > high street difficult to reconcile. Whilst its > clear that new businesses often get rent > reductions / rent free periods, I'm also assuming > that they've forcasted on a future rent paying > basis. > > > > Bicknell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > but councilors should care if local shops say > > duwlich ltns are threatening thier business? > > shouldnt they? > > if not why not? The new shop in "The Square" is a cheese shop. I like a bit of cheese but I did asked myself "really" does someone think that they can sustain a shop selling cheese in a location like that with such limited footfall? Even the cafes are struggling there (and that was before the new one opened) as when the sun isn't shining footfall drops to negligible levels. It is interesting that some of the shopkeepers are saying that they have lost a lot of the destination shoppers. If I remember rightly the council's own research on Lordship Lane suggested that 22% of all shoppers were from outside the immediate area and had driven and it would be interesting to see if the council has, or is planning to do, a similar survey to determine what the combined impacts of the CPZ and LTNs have been on visitors now.

I know it is One Dulwich article and the pro-LTN supporters will take it with a pinch of salt but given significant numbers of traders turned up to the meeting to vent their feelings on the issue and to all oppose the LTNs it will be putting Cllr Rose under a lot of pressure and it will be interesting to see what decision she, and the council, makes. It is clear that there is overwhelming opposition from large swathes of the Dulwich community against these measures and no matter how many people the council manage to encourage to "have their say" in the review they have to start listening to their constituents. We wait with baited breath to see whether they put ideology ahead of constituents.

A word of warning. My wife was a victim of an attempted bag snatch today on Grove Vale and whilst her vice-like grip on the bag prevented it from being taken the thief did get her phone. It happened at lunchtime. The police told her there are groups of thieves working Dulwich at the moment on bikes and there have been multiple daily robberies this week. The thieves are always dressed head to toe in black clothes and ride black bikes (so they cannot be easily identified) and will approach from behind, knock into you and then snatch what they can whilst you are disoriented. Apparently there are 5 of them who are well-known to police who are working the area. Keep your wits about you everyone.

This thread over the last few days reminded me of this.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah Rockets - how we've missed you replying to > messages with your opinions presented as facts. > Welcome back -was a bit worried about you as at > least 2 people had expressed an opinion and you > hadn't been on to own the narrative! > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DulwichCentral Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Chris_1 Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > Plenty of space for everyone, > > > > despite it being the biggest gathering at > > that > > > > junction to date I think! > > > > > > Did you not see this event based from the > > square > > > and passing through it several times? It was > > > bigger > > > > > > > > > https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-families-ge > > > > > > > > > t-on-their-bikes-to-show-support-for-safe-cycling- > > > > > > routes/ > > > > > > I love the fact that one of the pictures you > > shared is of the flotilla of (LCC/Southwark) > > cyclists who cycled down Woodwarde Road from > > outside of Dulwich and had to be directed to > the > > "square" for the photo opp! ;-) Northern - I am afraid those are facts because if the picture had been taken as they came down Woodwarde Road I would have probably been in it as I was walking the other way up Woodwarde when I saw the cycle flotilla and heard the ringleader calling out to people which way they needed to turn at the bottom of Woodwarde. So putting two and two together would suggest, would it not, that many of the cyclists were not familiar with the area and had been (I won't say bussed in) cycled in especially for the event that got sold as Dulwich residents showing their support? Anyway, glad you've missed me ;-) BTW did the tide turn and our dear friend Manatee floated off out to sea?

It may well be a power outage of some kind - does it have any electricity company branding on it? We had a powercut in the depths of winter once and the engineers turned up at about 10.30pm and determined they needed to dig up the road to fix it and said you have two options 1) we start digging now through the night or 2) you have a generator. Being a considerate neighbour we went for the generator - little did we know that once you take the generator you drop to the bottom of the engineer priority list so we had what sounded like the old InterCity 125 chugging out diesel fumes for 2 days before they came to fix the issue.

Every day is GroundHog day!!! ;-)

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Chris_1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Plenty of space for everyone, > > despite it being the biggest gathering at that > > junction to date I think! > > Did you not see this event based from the square > and passing through it several times? It was > bigger > > https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-families-ge > t-on-their-bikes-to-show-support-for-safe-cycling- > routes/ I love the fact that one of the pictures you shared is of the flotilla of (LCC/Southwark) cyclists who cycled down Woodwarde Road from outside of Dulwich and had to be directed to the "square" for the photo opp! ;-)

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DC - no those photos show people standing on > one > > side of the road. The other side of the road is > > completely clear in the first photo - the > people > > are congregated on the Post Office side of the > > road so the other side of the road is > completely > > unobstructed. > > > > I am not sure what narrative you are trying to > > conjure here. > > > > Again, this is amplifying the blinkered and > myopic > > attitude of many LTN supporters that is turning > > more and more people against the measures. > > If you are cycling along DV and turning right into > the square you would not be expecting a large > crowd blocking the planters. If you are stuck in > the middle of the road with children on bikes you > can't easily reverse to enter the square on the > other side away from the crowd. > > In the original post this is what happened to RRR > > Then there were numerous posts from anti low > traffic people denying that people had blocked the > road. > > Then that was proven to be factually incorrect > with photographic evidence. > > What's the narrative there? You're the expert ;) DC - this so called photographic evidence shows the post office side of the junction partially blocked by a group of old people protesting. Those same photos show the other side of the junction is completely clear. In fact, one of the photos actually shows a cyclist exiting the junction from Calton on the side of the protestors so claims that the junction was blocked is the only factually inaccurate statement in all of this. But we know this is a tactic being repeatedly used by pro-LTN lobby - attack the anti-LTN lobby on anything you possibly can. The real issue here is that the pro-LTN lobby are annoyed that at one protest more old people bothered to turn up in numbers greater than all of the "party in square" events combined.