Metallic

Chris_1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The working group has met a couple of times > apparently, there?s been some chatter with TfL > about the Herne Hill junction but anticipate this > will be very slow (multi year - if at all). I?m > not sure if they are meeting on a regular schedule > or if it was just a couple of chats so they could > say they were working to help Croxted. And of course not inviting you Croxted roaders to join in. That is far too obvious.

MCMC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well said. A group of wealthy residents creating > their own ghetto is disgusting. > > Stop them coming here to go to M&S for gin for a > week and this nonsense will soon end. > > #endthewealthghetto > > #makedulwichgreatagain Except it seems very few people in Calton Ave and Court Lane, in the bigger number of them, wanted this closed off area. I know I didn't, and people in Woodwarde, Court Lane, the Village certainly didn't. Your comment fans the division. You don't know who and how many you are actually slagging off.

I am writing about the LTN row so this is the right page. Isn't it horrid for the viewpoints to be so split? And here we are listening to news of another MP murdered. Passion runs so high, and some of the nastier comments I have read on here about the different angles of this very local row, seem to show a bit of simmering hatred for people who don't agree with you and who you think you can badmouth as you are anonymous. So let's all be more respectful to each other, please. And that includes the Councillors who pay no heed to what their constituents say to them, or listen to that other viewpoint.

I heard years ago that The Estate own it and that there has to be another pub built on the site. Now I believe the Estate should build the Almshouses there. They have to put them somewhere and that is a place with buses on the doorstep.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I gather the council refused the LD?s call in > request on the Dulwich decision (not sure why, the > first six minutes of the overview and scrutiny > commission video of last night?s meeting has no > audio so not sure if mentioned there) Does anyone > know? There?s a lengthy discussion about the Rye > Lane decision and the reasons for refusing to call > that in later in the meeting (have described it on > the Rye Lane thread - it was an interesting > watch). > > They run out of time to discuss Streetspace > schemes other than Rye Lane so postpone for future > discussion. Convenient to run out of time!

"Final comment - a consultation is not a referendum (can you imagine a referendum say on bringing back hanging, or leaving the EU - surely not). It is a measure of the more extreme views, pro and anti." I saw that on Twitter, attributed to Cllr.Leeming. I must say the two councillors for the ward have not shown themselves in the best light to their WHOLE electorate. Only to the FEW people we all know from Calton Ave, Court Lane and Gilkes Crescent.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I really hope this is not true. > > https://twitter.com/DulwichCleanAir/status/1446775 > 368346652673?t=IIOKFSDic7Gmimj__5Ti1g&s=19 > > > Do any traders on Melbourne Grove have any info? It is true alright. Heard it from a trader down in the Vale who was wondering if they were going to be next for a visit.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 18 months in and there is not a sign that what > you > > say happens is happening. In fact, there isn't > an > > LTN anywhere that has not displaced traffic > from > > one set of roads to another - the traffic > doesn't > > evaporate it displaces. > > > > LTNs are failing. That much is abundantly > clear. > > > The Southwark Council data shows traffic down 10% > across the area - 16,000 vehicles less per day > across the area. > > Maybe One Dulwich and their various off-shoots > have got secret ways of measuring traffic they > think are more sophisticated and accurate than the > council's 24/7 monitoring strips on all roads in > the area. I do recall seeing one of their members > standing by the roadside with a pen and a > clipboard. Maybe he is their source of > information. Well you would know wouldn't you? How do you feel about ignoring the views of thousands of people? Happy with that?

Maybe we should apply for funds for a Death of Democracy party, with some loud, dark band made up with frightening make up to scare the bejesus out of everyone. Seriously, I cannot write that name. DS. All the years I have lived here, I have never been so disgusted by the behaviour of the councillors for our Ward. When so many people have strong feelings and basically you are met with an "Oh well....".

P3girl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Like the Bermuda Triangle, the Dulwich Triangle, > bounded by LL/EDG/DV is almost "dead zone" for > people with cars. There is no bus service that > crosses the zone so elderly and disabled people on > the Western side of the triangle have a long hike > if they need to travel to LL shops and the > library. Similarly residents on the South Eastern > side have a long hike to get to places like Tessa > Jowell Centre, ND Station and Dulwich Park. Plus > shops and businesses on LL and DV suffer because > of traffic congestion. > > One suggestion would be to run a smallish bus > (electric) on a circular route as shown on the > map. It would mean opening a bus gate in DV. It's > all LH turns so could operate efficiently. I am > confident it would remove quite a bit of local > traffic. > > The route could be shortened by opening Melbourne > Grove to a bus gate. > > Just a suggestion to garner ideas. > > https://i.imgur.com/HQ66lNe.jpg I know this has been suggested many times. A green bus linking West Dulwich, Herne Hill, the Village and Lordship Lane somewhere. I seem to remember Cllr Leeming saying too expensive on a zoom meeting, or at least maybe in the chat, can't recall which.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Raeburn I think there is some doubt as to whether > the statement in the Southwark FAQs is actually > accurate, I seem to recall that the fortnightly > meetings referred to weren?t happening (can > someone confirm)? I?d be very cautious about > relying on statements on the Southwark website as > a source of fact. They failed to comply with their > statutory duties to advise TfL in advance as well, > if the FoI responses from TfL are correct. I?d be > keen on Southwark not posting statements that are > untrue, as people are likely to believe them. Am > less worried about Rockets ;) The published FOI says that there were 4 meetings between LAS and Southwark, in 5 months. Southwark said on zoom and in print that they held FORTNIGHTLY meetings with LAS. This is what I find so depressing. A lie. Ambulances using the closed off area are constantly having to do u turns near Gilkes Place because they can't get through Calton Avenue. Neighbours have videos to prove that.

Joseph Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had it on the background, it was on about > 8:00am. It was a govt minister essentially saying > councils should consult their area but it was a > council / mayor issue rather than governmental. Cheers. Southwark don't want to repay the money Shapps awarded, and they love their Penalty Charges Bank account. In with about a ?3 million balance. When I read this I just could not believe it. But all the councils taking LTNs out must be paying back, so I wonder if Penalty Charge Notices stand or whether they would have to refund all that too. I think it would be interesting to do a street by street breakdown of whgo has been fined. Just for information.

Joseph Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich LTN got a mention on LBC this morning too. What was said? Or what time -ish so I can listen to it.

Dulwich needs better councillors who realise they are representing everyone across the board and not just the few they have dinner with. Time to realise also, that we have seen through their attempts to represent DV Ward and found them seriously wonting. One of them doesn't even live here to see what life is like, he has to make a special journey to see for himself, before he denies it is terrible. First he admits there is excess traffic on Croxted Road, then he says it was built to take it, then he says traffic numbers have fallen on it. All in about three days. Meanwhile in the dark quiet canyons of closed off Dulwich, women scurry from place to place because quiet streets are nerve wracking. He doesn't address that at all, he lives in a bustling area and he is a man. Spare a thought for our roads here in the Silent Belt.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Really ...people complained about this post > inciting violence? Good grief. > > Dear I love my LTN that has made my house worth > more and my nice road traffic free people. > > I do understand that people living on ED Grove, > Croxted, LL in a gardenless flat, who depend on > public transport to keep their job, who are upset > because their road that was busy, but is now full > of idling traffic are irritating when they remind > you that your ability to buy a nicer house in a > nicer street, which is now even nicer, comes at > the cost to others...I do understand that deep > down you may feel a tingle of shame that despite > the EqIA from Southwark, showing how disabled, > elderly people feel trapped, disenfranchised and > negatively impacted that the LTNs and the square > of shame remain. > > It isn?t language I would necessarily use, but do > let people take a moment of true despair that the > consultation was a sham and their lives have been > made a little more s**t. > > So no need to make faux complaints of ?disgusted > of Calton? or ?shocked of Melbourne? or ?terrified > of Elsie? when someone uses the word ?battle? or > ?war?. > > Honestly.... A brilliant, brilliant post.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryH > ome.aspx?IId=50026429&PlanId=674 > > ETA according to the Southwark website, the report > giving background/ recommendations needs to be > published 5 working days before the decision is > made, and once the decision is made it is subject > to a further five working day call in period > during which the overview and scrutiny committee > can look at/ demand the cabinet member turn up and > explain the decision. > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and-democracy > /how-we-work/how-individual-decision-making-works. > No idea how/ whether this works in practice. > > Membership of overview and scrutiny committee > here: > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDeta > ils.aspx?ID=308 > > Wonder if any of the LD members might be persuaded > to raise the issue of failure to properly consult/ > release data etc. Although not sure how useful > this would be with a Labour majority on the > committee. Well if they mess this up, as a public body, a local authority, I'm afraid they will unleash the hounds of hell. In all the years I have lived and worked in and for Southwark, I do not remember a bigger mess up than in the way this has been carried out.

northernmonkey wrote: "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." Well northernmonkey, I doubt they did due diligence they are here on a wing and a prayer, just like Fired Earth. And when the hype has died down, they will be on the 5 hours without customers just like every other trader. As for Aqua, the owner was widowed and realised she didn't want to carry on alone. There was no need to be spiteful about the business. Finally, there is a junction, closed at present, and not a square. Surely you can stick to the closed roads you and your colleagues had created, and leave the Villagers to have a junction and hope it opens for the sake of everyone. At the top of my road at the Plough there was a threat to pedestrianise the road between ex Lloyd's Bank and the Library, that will be next I bet.

Apparently I don't have any manners.

Forgot to say I totally agree with Heartblock and DougieFreeman.

Seems hpsaucy and northernmonkey, plus their mate 3xrah are all getting hot under the collar. They are probably on their whatsapp group every night, along with other mates from MG, DG and maybe the councillors, plotting the next response. "Your turn." "No your turn." "No it is your turn." Grow up for goodness sake and see the problems people are having in East Dulwich Grove, Croxted Rd and Lordship Lane are all to do with a policy which actually began a while ago when you got your streets closed off to through traffic. My street is very much quieter because of the Calton Ave/Court Lane system and I do not like the fact that it comes at the expense of children's lungs.

They have been at it in Beauval Rd. Too close for comfort. Scary in the night to hear such activity by a nearby car.

It is not called the square.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These pictures attached clearly show people > blocking the road, and standing between the > planters will have caused problems for people > turning from Dulwich Village. Fact. > > When the events were on in the square there were > clear warning signs that an event was taking place > and marshalls in high viz jackets asking people to > walk bikes through the square but not making them > dismount whilst still on dulwich village. Fact. > > As to whether people empathise more for children's > safety or elderly people protesting about the > inconvenience of not being able to drive as freely > as before is a matter of personal opinion - not > fact. > > Most people would be both concerned about > children's safety AND genuine issues concerning > the elderly. > It is possible to hold two thoughts at the same > time. I thought you and your colleague said you never used the word 'square' to describe the closed junction?

hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Come on Northern, you can choose to continue on > a > > route or not. Aside from issues of > inconvenience, > > no one is forcing RRR and his/her children to > > continue moving forward on their bicycles into > > 'danger'. This whole point about 'danger' to > > children is quite obviously a tactical > > confection. > > > > > > northernmonkey Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > How was there a choice to turn up first mate? > > Was > > > the protest advertised in advance? > > So - what would you do if you were stuck with two > kids in the middle of the road wondering whether > to turn or not? Not a nice situation to be in. > > Calling this a 'tactical confection' - is this the > new catchphrase to replace alleged 'trolling'? > HP When you are on your bike, do you look ahead to make sure you can turn? Do you wait for a clear road? Of course you do, you don't turn from a turn right lane (bikes only) in front of traffic. So why was this so dangerous when there is room to wait at the barrier when you ask pedestrians to get out of the way.

EVERYONE Please stop calling it "The Square". It is a closed junction and the confluence of three roads, and it is not a Square.