Metallic

I am thinking this is just a desert of whiteness - until you get to the very out of place Scots pines. Who on earth thought they would look nice? Someone yesterday said it was a nod to climate change, but if it is, surely we should have had palms planted there? In my view this space will be used by waiting parents for the schools to come out, and by the look of it at other times in the day, it is deserted. There is no hope for the shops.

It seems as if Dulvillres hasn't got the urge to explain their post to us all. They get at us, but we can't get to them. Perhaps they are doing research for the DS committee no one can get on to. Or something.

Dulvillres has the inside story, so do tell all instead of pussyfooting around.

Strangely enough, the rump of those not at the Dulwich Arts Society Lecture did not feel they could speak for others - you fail to see this was a disparate group with people who did not know each other. I'm told they explained to the Chair they could not attend at a two day notice, and so they didn't go! As for hostility, look at yourself Dulvilleres! And the legal time for the SGM was in March 28 days after it was requested. Rules don't seem to matter to the Chair in that matter. I know the pub room was free so the only costs were ones made up by the Chair. By the way, the One Dulwich group are not funded by anyone.

Yes old people can't read their smart phone screens. Nor can they work out undemocratic changes to what is basically a trees, gardens and wildlife group. So the Trustees had to help them by excluding them. There there dear. This was largely to protect the anonymous members of the new Transport Committee as they pick and choose who to listen to. And who is the Chair of the committee? <removed name>. Was she huddling in anonymity down at the front? Just asking. I forgot to say that the voting slips tiold all the old people what to do - just like pages of instructions which arrived a few weeks ago. Yes the voting slips had an instruction in bold telling the voters to vote against all the SGM motions, just to make sure the old dears didn't get muddled.

I suspect the sequel to be more Herne Hill.

I reckon we should all ask why they want so much unchallengeable control? I belonged to it years ago and I'm not sure why I wasted a tenner a year.

What rubbish. Inertia and a very hard knocking up of real Labour supporters.

I have had it for months. It is great to have a download speed of 400+ after BT gave me 11 at the most. For the first year you are discounted and then for my band it costs £28. Any difficulties you call the helpline and it is sorted remotely - I haven't had problems however.

The complete rubbish spouted at the first consultation meeting at Dulwich Library was an insult to our intelligence. (McCash wants to use parking places for parklets by the way - lovely seating that is backing on to a road, has rubbish and dope paraphernalia left in it - nice outside your house. And a few months ago I was told by the woman who is local chair of Police panel that crack apparatus was found by the Burial Ground.) CPZs are an inevitable move to get you from using your car and that is the most anti-social behaviour on behalf of the council who give not one jot about anyone living in non urban areas like Dulwich Village and West Dulwich south of the South Circular. We all have to travel to decent food shops and some of us are too old to walk and carry.

Catherine Rose of course. And don't forget in the early Our Healthy Streets plan for Eynella, they wanted to close the junction and make it people friendly.

And Rahx3 in case you can't/won't click through to it here is that it says on Page 6 of TFL's report: Root Cause of Delays Herne Hill is the best logical alternate route for northbound drivers who are otherwise unable to travel through Dulwich Village This has caused increased flows through this section of network resulting in increased congestion. Pretty compelling huh? I wonder how the councillors and pro-LTN lobby are going to try and spin their way out of that one....... Thanks Rockets, that's helpful. I'm pretty dubious of Southwark News reports on LTNs, as they've run a campaign against them that's included very misleading, sometimes false reporting. It's a shame that they quote the report out of context, and don't link to it, but not that surprising perhaps. Reading the report, it sounds as though the issues with increased bus times referred to in the Southwark News headline were prior to the changes Southwark put in place in March. Although it does sound that Croxted road Northbound (whilst improving), may still be experiencing increased traffic. So perhaps the headline ought to be - a very successful traffic reduction scheme isn't 100% perfect and there continues to be monitoring and some adjustments being made. That is pretty shocking. My friend who lives on Croxted Road is pretty adamant that your explanation is wrong. The traffic is as bad as it has been since the LTN system was put in, and she should know I think. The decreased timings have made it worse. Clearly no problems during the school holidays, however.

Sorry I haven't got the hang of this yet - I was trying to reply to Spartacus!

What has that to do with Southwark? Nothing!

The glut of people walking about in yellow high viz taking numberplates of legally parked cars made me wonder if Southwark are going to match the plates with DVLA details which they clearly have access to. Then leading to parking restrictions of some kind on these roads where the checkers have been seen.

All this adds up to, is that all the Dulwich LTNs imposed against the will of the people are rubbish, life-ruining things that have affected how many people live. Unless you are sitting in your quiet little enclave, which in some respects I am - but I care about people on the fringe who have taken the traffic we use to share. Bad design. Bad outcome. Bad.

I have had an agenda and last Minutes via Neighbourhood Watch friend not living in my road, for Dulwich Village ward meeting of the team with Safer Neighbourhood Panel next Monday at the Dog. Public meeting presumably. Anyone ever been to the one for Village ward? Goldilocks, if these meetings run on, I think it is important to start early, and after all, you could still turn up a bit later couldn't you?

Have you seen the double yellows and no loading signs that have appeared on Court Lane with no notices? Knee jerk reaction to that fire engine squeezing trough.

I think the two Lib Dems are wet behind the ears and think us residents are too if they believe they will go against their party policy on LTNs.

It is double yellowed both sides and up to Dekker. What will all those drop off mums do now?

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fire engine is at the DV end of Court Lane > facing onto Calton Ave. There is no built out > pavement there. > Court Lane has double yellows on both sides at > that end so looks more like it's illegally parked > cars that have caused the problem. > > Unless there is something very odd about the > perspective in the photo; as there is unrestricted > parking a bit further back allowing for parking on > both sides. But that predates the LTN, so not sure > how that warrants the headline/angle of the > story. > > The article states: The fire crew were hurtling > towards an incident in Eynella Road on 11 April, > > That appliance is facing the opposite direction > from Eynella. It's possible the driver overshot > and was looking for a way back, but there are a > further three or four right turns they would have > gone past to rectify by this point. Go and have a look - it doesn't have the problem any more.

SE22_2020er Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I'm certainly not voting for a Tory candidate > who lives in a proper gated community in Woodyard > Lane in Dulwich Village. The hypocrisy is > breathtaking! That's daft It's a cul de sac on the Dulwich Estate, I haven't ever seen gates there even when there used to be an old lady living in the original house. So it is no more gated than Townley Rd or Calton Avenue, or Court Lane. I suspect quite a few people who comment on the LTNs do so because they live on one, or sort of one in the sense the traffic is affected by cameras or planters. Just like me and most of Area B.

The Lib Dem leaflet has one mention in passing, of LTNs. One Lb Dem candidate neither works or lives in Southwark, which I saw on my postal voting information. At least one is a legal requirement. And why don't sitting councillors have to say where they live? I am very concerned that the next closure will be by the Library. It was once wanted in the old Area B Streetspace ideas. Then there will be issues over access big time. I saw on twitter about the fire engine the other day. There is also a person in Court Lane who was seriously compromised because the ambulance couldn't get to them - again seen on twitter. Winners and losers.

I think for Dulwich Village Ward, the Lib Dems seem to have virtually disappeared, and I cannot bear what Councillors Newens and Leeming have done with our lovely district. So I'll be taking a very deep breath and voting for the Tories. They are not anything to do with the national Tory cause anyway, and I would like to see some different people holding those Labour councillors to account. It is a one party borough, the Lib Dems don't have any feelings for anyone south of Walworth.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One day we will look back incredulous that traffic > was moved from the richest, greenest part of town > to create arid dead villages in the centre of a > major city. Yet this is what Councillor Leeming wants. A Village, dead from the neck up.