Metallic

Administrator Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please, please, please stay on topic I was definitely on topic. More LTN roads will come if the Labour admin in Southwark is re-elected en masse. As for the ED streets closed there are plenty more with potential. Surely this IS the topic?

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "At times I've asked myself the question: is this > a straight debate amongst neighbours about the > best way to reduce traffic, or is it being used by > some to push a wider but concealed political > agenda?" > > I think exactly the same about the opaque Clean > Air Dulwich or Friends of Dulwich Square - have > the friends of the closed Dulwich Village junction > stopped for a minute to think how this closure > will affect their neighbours on South Circular or > Lordship Lane? Why is their need to have the roads > closed so they can cycle there is more important > than my desire to have rush hours twice a day > instead of all day long in front of my flat? I would say that none of them give a jot. If they did they wouldn't fight so vociferously for their streets to be closed. As for the residents living near the closed junction, on Calton Avenue and Court Lane - I have no words for their selfish behaviour towards their fellow Dulwich residents. I'm praying further closures won't hit the old Area B once the elections are over if Margy Newens and Richard Leeming are returned., because our district can't take any more of their vanity projects.

It?s correct that the Lib Dems did attempt to call in the Dulwich scheme in October 2021 - this is a link to the request and Southwark?s decision not to call it in https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102409/Request%20for%20Scrutiny%20Call-in%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20Review.pdf As you can see, the attempt to call in was made on the grounds, firstly, of inadequate/ insufficient consultation. This was easily batted away by Southwark officers, as the Lib Dems must have known it would be. The second grounds were a little garbled but seem to imply that the Council had not gone far enough! Also easily batted away by officers. What is striking is that in their 10 March 2022 ?position statement? on the Dulwich LTN, the Southwark Lib Dems cite longer car journeys, pollution displacement and unacceptable congestion on the boundary roads, as well as the impact of the measures on local businesses and emergency vehicles/ carers. These issues were all completely evident back in October 2021, and had been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Lib Dem councillors and candidates. If the Lib Dems really are concerned about these issues, why didn't they use them as grounds in their call-in request, which might have given it a chance of success, and when they could have really made a difference? I feel strongly about the businesses and more importantly the residents of all the boundary roads suffering and at the time sent in an email asking the Lib Dems to call it in and didn't receive any explanation as to why it didn't happen.

I hear the Conservatives are canvassing here in Woodwarde today. Get your questions ready about the dark and quiet roads of this LTN part of SE22.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How would this differ for the Conservative > candidates in the village? At least the Lib Dems > would be part of a wider group in the council > rather than 1 or 2 lone Tories! The Lib Dems won't do anything. The news that the Tories have put up a solicitor and an accountant could mean trouble for a few committees. And they have promised us on the doorstep that they will fight to get the junction re-opened - the bane of all our lives if you live kettled here. Unlike you, who I believe live in a motor free paradise apparently and who actively campaigned for the closures that have also caused so much pain..

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Back on subject: Looks like Libdems are now > against Dulwich LTNs. Good. Don't be naive. Their Southwark policy will not allow them to do what they are claiming. Look at the northern Southwark LibDems!

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark Labour Cllrs really rubbing salt into > the wounds on Sunday. Do you think so? I read it as we have locked you in, but no one should complain we are stopping East Dulwich Hill residents from getting to the Park safely as now you have the world's most expensive crossing to use.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve attached a screenshot of the twitter post. > > Kissthisguy that?s true, you could probably add > Safe Routes to Schools to the potential overlap > list as well. I?m not sure what the legalities are > as opposed to the ?right thing to do? > considerations. Something to idly ponder. Looking back at @legalalien's post about the Clean Air Dulwich funding (which they now say that they declined, fair enough), there is an interesting application from Grove Vale Residents (Melbourne Grove, Derwent Grove) for street parties. Could it be possible that multi-hatwearing members of CAD are also members of Grove Vale Residents, who get funding from Southwark (?500!) for street parties, which they then invite councillors to, with the intention of getting their road closed? As Private Eye would say, I think we should be told!

Anyway, back to LTN business.

Sorry. I was looking at the twitter feed of the Dulwich Village Ward councillors and saw there was a row about grants being allocated and someone not being honest when they applied. Or rather, maybe being misleading. But I thought it looked as if it had got a bit out of hand and so was just relating what I had seen. It probably isn't very important but I don't really like seeing anyone accused of stuff that is not really very important in the end of things.

Sorry this post was posted on the wrong list.

Does anyone know p3girl, because it looks as if they have been effectively accused of making a fake application for council funds which has Councillor Leeming in a dither. On reflection not sure the application was ?fake?. It may have been for an organisation that sounds similar to an existing one, which could have led to confusion, but it doesn?t sound like a joke or malicious. It also may not be from the same person who wrote the forum message Councillor Leeming took a screenshot of - or at least someone did! Some worrying assumptions seem to have been made by Councillors, and CAD, more worryingly being broadcast on social media which could constitute a libel. Assumptions appear to be that this was fake/bogus and therefore was malicious and designed to ?pretend? to be CAD. And the same applicant of that fund request is the same person as P3girl. None of which appear to be proven, unless Councillors Leeming and Newens, plus Katy Savage and Helen Pickering who I have heard are the organisers of CAD have some? Did they contact the applicant to ascertain it?s veracity and genuineness? Maybe they are members of EDF and we can hear from them? I think this is the resulting fall out from not liking to be challenged about actions Southwark Council have taken, and being the people who have to face their voters out. They must be finding it difficult when they are canvassing. It is definitely linked to the LTN discussion and in my road there are many residents asking what will come next? We are already kettled in. Will Dovercourt Road or Beauval Road be next on the list for changes? Or even Eynella Road - remember that early idea for the junction by the Library to be closed completely?

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would be interested to know whether it's just > the LD councillors in the Village Ward or whether > it extends to other wards eg Goose Green as well. > > I thought the leaflet that I received was quite > well written. People can say anything when they are trying to get your vote. The fact they won't act after the elections is just "meh".

Thank you for reading the Climate Change information. I have lost heart.

I just desperately want the old Callow's premises to be a bar. It's what those 'close our road it is awful with ratrunners' residents deserve.

Sunlover00 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m going to Balham this wed to drop off supplies > listed on their essential list. If anyone has > items that they want to drop in pls pm me for > address. I don?t have a lot of space but perfect > for medical and sanitary/hygiene products like > toothpaste/brushes etc At the moment I hear they only are accepting battery packs.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The other thing Tooley Street is quite big on is > developing the nighttime economy. Given proximity > to the station, might some sort of bar / nightclub > enclave be a possibility? > > ETA on a related note, looks as though there?s > going to be a ?Social Regeneration Charter? for > Dulwich at some point in the near future - see > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/regeneration/regenera > tion-that-works-for-all?chapter=10. Presumably > delayed due to COVID. > > More about social regeneration charters at > https://www.communitysouthwark.org/social-regenera > tion-charters. > > Something to keep an eye out for so it isn?t > hijacked by in-the-know lobby groups, I suggest. Perfect place for a night club or bar? The old Callow's building.

I still have no understanding of the stats showing fewer cars in central EDG whilst at either end the stats show car numbers have gone up. So where do they go? Cloud Cuckoo Land?

goldilocks. The meeting I was referring to is Environment Scrutiny Commission 9.3.21. On Youtube: (I hope!!)

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Said in jest - more than once... > > Anyway, lets take a moment on Cllr Burgess. She > has been for the past 2 years, deputy cabinet > member with responsibility for Low Traffic > Southwark. Her title changed at some point, can't > quite recall when or to what though but > essentially the same mandate throughout. > > Over a year into her role there was a committee > meeting where she was asked about what progress > she'd made on a borough wide freight policy (to be > clear - she was scheduled to talk, rather than > asked when not expected). This was something that > was firmly within her mandate and her response was > vague, none defined and apparent that she'd done > precisely nothing and then she finished with 'was > that enough, or would you like me to do some more > blue sky thinking'. > > If Cllr Burgess had been doing her job for the > past 2 years then maybe Southwark would be closer > to a last mile logistics policy which might be > addressing all the next day delivery issues that > are an increasing component of the traffic on our > roads. But instead she's spent 2 years producing > precisely nothing (though maybe this mystery paper > will outline it all). It looks as if you have lost it goldilocks. Why so nasty? Losing the argument? I had a look at that meeting. (The Environment Scrutiny Commission zoom meeting 9/3/21.) I have been continually hoping to hear Councillor Rose actually qualify her decisions that have affected so many of us in SE22 and SE21. But no chance. And this week's sound quality was too awful to follow in several places. She doesn't answer letters, emails or give a round up of her views that anyone can understand. It has been going on too long as that video shows. Far from being workshy, I reckon Councillor Burgess seems to have contributed to the strategies that Councillor Rose has outlined in many of her endless and rambling presentations to her ceiling. And I think she is remarkably clear and consistent on issues of social justice, data and so on. By the way I didn't hear a question on freight. goldilocks I think you are making trouble for Councillor Burgess. When all us locals interested in the coming elections and how all the candidates are performing, clarifying their position, trying to excuse or cover up what they've done or whatever, these meetings are irresistible. And legalalien is right when she says, above my post "Well, I still appreciated Cllr Burgess? contribution. Not least the bit where she suggested that the policy should not be to grant LTNs ?on request? by groups of residents, because of the real risk that would result in small groups of residents with more social capital getting benefits for themselves at the expense of those less engaged." Sound familiar?

I asked Goldilocks if they lived in an LTN - no answer.

It is still a very dodgy junction for emergency vehicles and cyclists to traverse.

For some reason I haven't received that Streetspace newsletter. Was it posted or just put through the letterbox?

Goldilocks: do you live in an LTN?

kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From the Times this morning [?] > > Rush hour traffic is a third lighter than > pre-pandemic levels > > https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rush-hour-traff > ic-is-a-third-lighter-than-pre-pandemic-levels-0x0 > sfw6gs > > Relevant bit: > "London?s morning rush hour congestion decreased > by 21 per and evening rush hour by 19 per cent > compared with pre-pandemic levels in 2019." Any > Southwark claims of LTN "success" needs to be seen > in this context. Especially as the traffic is worse during rush hours on east Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane and Croxted Road. The latter where I have some close friends who are very distraught.