FairTgirl

Also heard this - apparently there was a piece from Dulwich Society about this. Main entrance will be on EDG through old hospital building from Sept 2021 - as it is currently one 1, maybe 2 year groups use MB Grove N entrance. Cllr Rose - who is Transport cabinet member and an ED Charter governor - seemed to be aware of this as well.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is incredibly complex. Much of the criticism I > have of the pro-closure lobby is that they start > from a position of "well everyone can cycle so why > don't they". I consider my family to be very lucky > that we have a nice house with a small garden and > we fully appreciate that not everyone is as lucky > as we are. > > At the weekend we went for a family cycle and I > spent 45 minutes levering myself and various kids > bikes into various yoga-like positions to get the > bikes out of the garden, up the stairs into our > kitchen and through our house to get out (we, like > a lot of people do not have a side-return). We had > a lovely cycle through Dulwich Village and whilst > on this cycle it occurred to me that much of the > pro-closure noise is coming from people who live > in the biggest houses in the area, who have side > returns or bike storage boxes in their > front-gardens, many of whom can spend ?6,000 on a > family cargo bike to transport the kids to school > each day. This is just not the reality of most > people's lives. Dulwich is an outlier - it is not > at all reflective of life in London and many of > the bike lobby forget that not everyone lives the > privileged existence many of them do. Yet they > speak as if everyone can go and jump on a bike. > > Cycling remains dominated by white, middle-class > men and whilst efforts are being made to make it > much more inclusive I can't help but think that > moving it out of the middle-class demographic is > going to be the biggest challenge of all as so > much about cycling is about accessibility - i.e. > your ability to store your own bikes. The large > majority of people do not have that option. > > At the beginning of the last lockdown all of the > residents on our street registered to try and get > one of those bike rack things but we hear the > council won't be installing anymore and there are > years of waiting lists for the others - so at a > time when the council is telling people don't use > your cars - they are doing little to help people > to make the transition. > > Yes they are closing roads but what happens if > only 1% of the population in the area are able to > store bikes - it doesn't solve the problem it > makes it worse. > > I see a lot of #modalshift pictures from the > pro-closure lobby but they are of predominantly > white middle class families pottering around some > of the poshest streets in London - there was one > last week of two families on electric cargo bikes > and I looked online and was completely shocked at > how expensive they are - (you won't get much > change from ?5000 for the most basic one). > > And this is where it is complicated and where the > pro-closure lobby do nothing to help their cause > as they fail to acknowledge the challenges most > people face in making a shift to other means of > transport. Ironically these lockdowns do more to > get people out on their bikes than any road > closures - the reason, because people are living > their lives in a 2 mile bubble from their house - > they are not having to go to work etc. But, as we > have seen in a normal world people's bubbles are > much wider than that and the moment lockdown ends > people start venturing further afield and can't do > those journeys on bike or foot. I am sure I heard that the waiting list for a space in a cycle hanger is 700, possibly even 7000. Either way it's alot. Storage is a large aspect of people taking up cycling and sticking with it. A family of bikes take up alot of room, we recently put cycle storage at the front of our house as we couldn't get past the front door with them (no side gate either) but you constantly worry about it getting broken into as neighbours have been. This is definitely a prong of a multi-pronged approach required. I note that Dog Kennel Estate of flats has quite a few cycle hangers - which is great - especially as it is near ED station also. I think you can apply for space in hangers not necessarily nearest to your home if they are convenient for other reasons, eg close to a train station.

Does anyone know if this is happening this year? It used to coincide with Small Business Saturday - this year Sat Dec 5 - but given Lockdown appreciate may have gone asunder. If business can reopen by Dec 3 it would be a shame for something not to happen as local business needs so much support this year. Might anyone know who may be the contact for organising it this year?

Hi, if you are a business in SE5, SE22, SE21 or SE15 and would classify yourself as in East Dulwich, Dulwich Village area and are primarily bricks and mortar (although online is still welcome) please join a brand new private group for local business. The aim of our group is to unite the businesses of the area to create one voice and a large representative body when dealing with Southwark Council on policy that directly impacts businesses. Recent areas of concern include road closures that impact accessibility, deliveries, parking, loading bays, create congestion and send customers out of Southwark. Also the CPZ in East Dulwich impacting customer parking in Lordship Lane, now active in Melbourne Grove and Grove Vale Other areas of interest may include investment in high street appeal, events to promote business, high profile campaigns to support local business. The group will be a place to gather concerns and support, ideas and momentum towards making sure business can flourish in the area and an opportunity to explore ways business can give back more to the community. We already employ thousands of local people but how can we work with local schools and colleges more, we have a wealth of creativity and business nous amongst us we can share. On large concerns such as road closures we can use this group to ensure local business are stakeholders in all future decision making of this type. No matter your opinion on current challenges, you are welcome, the group will be about addressing future challenges, gathering support and looking for positive movements forward for us all. Link is here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/409191063790989

Cllr McAsh One it is brilliant to hear that Peckham Rye road closures are paused and hopefully off the table for good. We spent some time explaining to three Cllrs that Peckham Rye closures would be a case of closing roads at one of East Dulwich Road (Melbourne Grove etc) to prevent traffic using them, while doing the exact opposite at the other. Back to Melbourne Grove and businesses. We totally agree with Rockets. If the council supports business and is urging people to support local business why has this been so lacking from start to finish? We have seen from Southwark docs that funding was being sought by local residents for road changes on Melbourne Grove and neighbouring roads back in Dec/Jan 2019 and the previous year as well. At no point from then to now has anyone sought the opinion of business. You have apologised but not explained why? Could you please? The businesses brought up the loss of parking and the CPZ more than 6 weeks ago. The loss of parking spaces was detailed in the LSP East Dulwich Trials Road Traffic Orders Notice dated 20 August. Getting it back was described as a possible 'easy win' in a meeting 22 Sept, so why has it taken so long and still not happened? It is now 10 weeks since the road closure and we lost parking. Will increased parking simply be the reinstatement of this lost parking - or new additional parking? Is it just for Melbourne Grove/Grove Vale which lost parking or business across East Dulwich who will get increased parking? Monitoring is frankly crucial to determining success and failure of closure schemes as they are meant to be about reducing air pollution, as well as increasing active travel. Given we are in the midst of a public health crisis that is linked to air pollution, if there is any chance whatsoever that road closures could actually lead to an increase in air pollution around certain populations (eg children, elderly, BAME) already most at risk from air pollution and COVID, surely monitoring roads likely to take displacement with such heavy school populations should be mandatory? This should have been in place long before any road closures were contemplated. Wandsworth Council were operating within the same timeframes to bid, access funds and implement their LTN schemes, but they managed to gather baseline traffic data and put in air pollution monitoring. See attachments. There were no monitors on EDG and only one near Townley Road on Lordship Lane according to Air Quality reports for 2019 I know you have said you don't know about monitoring - but I have asked these questions of a Scrutiny Committe and was told to ask you and that you should have the answers. Given that TfL were communicating with Wandsworth cllrs over these matters, shouldn't you know about monitoring in your ward around substantial road closures? If you don't have decent baselines for any of this how will you determine if traffic has gone down anywhere other than the closed roads? Given that a tiny increase in air pollution can increase Covid deaths by 11% shouldn't you be making it your priority to know if these schemes could put people's health at risk?

Have found an FOI someone requested online around Tooting LTNs and some interesting communication between TFL and Wandsworth council about funding and nature of schemes and what was getting funding, what wasn't and why, and why ultimately they removed them. They also have some basic criteria for what got funded and priorities. They were under the same timeframes to bid and acesses the funding and implement as Southwark were - some of these schemes went in 1 Sept, ED Phase 2 went in 3 Sept, and somehow they managed to get in baseline data monitoring prior to implementation, from several sites and on different occasions and put in No2 diffusion tubes to monitor the schemes as well. Having watched the Scrutiny Meeting Tuesday and the work being done by Guys around schools, with some monitoring (not air still) this is looking more and more damning on Southwark. Pretty sure the only answers we have had from Cllrs around lack of monitoring (where they have admitted to a lack of it, other than just brushing the question aside) was that the closures were implemented too quickly to do it. But Wandsworth did? Given the reports that a tiny increase in air pollution can have a rise of 11% increase in Covid deaths, why would you not be monitoring, especially the obvious displacement roads with schools on?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you believe the councillors and the pro-closure > lobby what we are all seeing happen in front of > our eyes is not really there. Nope, isn't > happening - there is no displacement and the cars > are evaporating! > > We are, according to the councillors and their > friends, the small vocal minority....! > > I would implore people to document evidence of > this happening and send those pictures to your > councillors (make sure Cllr Kieron Williams is > added too) - I think it is the only way they are > going to sit up and take note that what they are > doing is making things a hell of a lot worse. It quite patently is, and agree, send everything you see to the Cllrs. They keep referring to this as kickback from a vocal minority of car users. Many of us don't have or use cars and are already very eco and care passionately about climate change but are kicking back as we represent a majority who are now seeing (and hearing from the admissions of the Head of Transport for Southwark in the meeting last night which I am just watching) that they had and have little or no monitoring in place, we also know they took no impact assessments, or equality asssessments, did not discuss with business, did not consult properly with London Fire Brigade, we know waste removal were not consulted on ED Phase 2 as they told us as much... and we are all seeing and recording the displacement and thus increased air pollution results outside schools/nurseries/houses and high streets, onto already illegally polluted roads in a public health crisis linked to.... air pollution.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was about to ask the same - Underhill and > Lordship Lane are totally gridlocked down to > Forest Hill but not clear why? It's been reporting as standstill in places for over last 2 hours. Was the same last night as well. No works or accidents reported, just sheer traffic all on same roads as far as I can see. South Circular, Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove - and East Dulwich Road - but there are roadworks there - but no where else.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Cllr Graham Neale - claiming the council was > being > > ambushed by a small but vocal minority (he > > reiterated that small but vocal minority twice) > - > > I presume he was referring to the 3 proposed > areas > > or more broadly? The small but vocal minority > > seems to be a bit of a narrative the council is > > trying to weave. > Not sure on that one- Leanne asking about > displacement now Was at work so couldn't join, I will watch the recording tomorrow - but this comment has disappointingly also popped up in a new Southwark Covid Economic Renewal Plan. This is incredibly sad as ability to access local business is a huge part of why it is failing and will continue too with no other alt transport plans or support and outright dismissiveness of a huge number of people's valid concerns.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are the council now saying they have created a > school drop-off problem by closing Melbourne Grove > at one end i.e. it has actually encouraged parents > to drive their children to school? > > Is it a problem at school times? Adding a school > street to an already closed road seems ludicrous > and seems completely counter to their > protestations that they care about the shops on > Melbourne Grove - I can't imagine this is going to > help those shops one bit and likely drive more > custom away. > > Does anyone get the sense the council hasn't got > the first clue that they are doing? > > Peckham Rye closures get binned, the DV/EDG > junction is made even worse with the huge bike > lane (was this at the behest of Southwark cyclists > per chance - they moaned that the cycle lane in > the Peckham Rye recommendations was not wide > enough and the council bowed down to their cycle > paymasters....!!! ;-)) - all adds up to a comedy > of errors and instills very little confidence in > anyone that the council should be given these > powers. I am so glad to hear Peckham Rye has been binned - hopefully for good. We spent some time pointing out to Cllrs the irony of closing one set of roads at one end of East Dulwich Road to stop cutting through, only to create that precise problem at the other end - cars potentially trying to go down Kinsale/Fenwick/Amott etc - or up Barry/ down Crystal Palace and past more schools/nurseries. The school streets, if it happens in conjunction with a partly closed road (why?) may make it more dangerous on EDG as cars turn back/deliveries have to wait/find somewhere to park/drive around. Customers that come by car - many really do come from further afield and need to for various reasons previously mentioned - will just totally give up. Calls to 'support business' by those who've been involved in this whole process and didn't speak to business once sound very hollow. It would be nice to see some actual support not just words.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (at the risk of being slightly off topic - I think > 2(a) should refer to ED Grove not ED Road. They > might need a new sign... > > Question: is there a reason why they couldn't > move the barrier at the GV end a bit further > towards EDG, so that there is parking outside the > shops that can be accessed from GV but no through > route? Because that would seem like an obvious > compromise. (Doesn't fix the problem of traffic > on EDG but not sure how much of that is caused by > these closures as opposed to the Dulwich Village > ones? That question has been asked numerous times. Nine weeks and still no answers as to why not.

It would appear that Melbourne Grove North is now also being closed at EDG end as well from 5 Nov for a School Street.

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Details from Southwark (impressed by the prompt > > response): you can join the meeting, here is > the > > link > > > > Join Zoom Meeting > > > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?ur > > > > l=https%3A%2F%2Fzoom.us%2Fj%2F99763915591&data > > > > =04%7C01%7C%7C70452ee2c264461d4b3708d87b2c10bf%7C8 > > > > 4df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63739477 > > > > 6470957909%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA > > > > wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3 > > > > D%7C1000&sdata=VtPQVKguH6XIih5q2Y21Etyb%2BMbMe > > > 0lijg5SVMC71cE%3D&reserved=0 > > Meeting ID: 997 6391 5591 > > Passcode: 788208 > > > > (I checked and they said fine to distribute it) > > > > "As it?s a meeting in public rather than a > public > > meeting , questions are at the discretion of > the > > chair . If you have a particular point you may > > wish to raise, or have addressed, it you may > wish > > to contact the chair, Cllr Jason Ochere, in > > advance. Email is probably best : > > [email protected]. > > > > The meeting is recorded and placed on YouTube > > pretty promptly, usually next morning. " > > Thanks for this. I think it would be good to know > why so much data is missing for months Jan/Feb > usually amongst the worst months for air pollution > readings) and missing for all but 2 months of 2019 > for the 4 No2 tubes located around Goose Green > school. One tube of which reads over 54 > μg.m-3 for the two months recorded. Legal > limit is 40. So I sent in some questions and did get a very polite and quick reply that they should be posed to our specific councillors or responsible cabinet members, which we already have, and thus far no one has been able to answer questions around monitoring, specifically air quality.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hadn?t seen this before but it is interesting > reading: a traffic management study of Dulwich > commissioned by Southwark, final report in April > 2018. > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Du > lwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf > > Lots of interesting info about the profile of > trips within / to and from Dulwich, and also info > about things like relative air quality, casualty > hot spots etc (locally and as against Southwark > averages) - basically hot spots are LL and Dulwich > Common. Was quite surprised how the number of car > trips to schools stacked up - significantly fewer > than most places. > > What is also striking is the very small number of > responses given to consultations (scroll to end). I read this some weeks ago and noted that most of the accidents are not surprisingly on the most heavily trafficked routes - LL, EDG and Grove Vale... (all in top 9 roads for highest traffic flow back in 2015) now even heavier. Speeding is not as bad as some like to make out. How little No2 monitoring stations there are - there are alot more than in this report but as an example given the traffic - barely any on LL - none on EDG. Cycling and bus routes east to west are very poor.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are not however an emergency service eg fire, > police, ambulance Not statutory, correct, my mistake, but a body of people whose opinion should be sought and held in higher regard than that of most given the reasons mentioned. Stakeholders certainly.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?Also having a peruse of this, and who has been > receiving money why aren't Link Age Southwark a > statuatory consultation body on road closures. > Seem an obvious choice.? > > Link Age Southwark are an admirable organisation > but why should they be a statutory consultation > body? Because they represent elderly people in Southwark for whom blocked roads, reduced access, reduced parking, delayed buses etc would have the greatest impact. Maybe there is another group in Southwark that better represents the elderly but they should be being represented, especially as they are the least best placed to be using apps to state their opinions and concerns.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If I?ve got that wrong I apologise (it would help > if they posted minutes)- although generally I > think the approve the recommendations? The > application refers to Halloween as well as the > street party as I read it. hey Legalalien - is there a way of finding out what was approved? Also having a peruse of this, and who has been receiving money why aren't Link Age Southwark a statuatory consultation body on road closures. Seem an obvious choice.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If I?ve got that wrong I apologise (it would > help > > if they posted minutes)- although generally I > > think the approve the recommendations? The > > application refers to Halloween as well as the > > street party as I read it. > > The word ?Halloween? is certainly there but it > makes very little sense and appears out of > context. Remember this is an agenda for a meeting > held in February - is it likely an RA would be > looking so far ahead? They have been looking that far ahead - are we looking at the same one, this one here attached discussing Halloween events in 2020? If they have received council funding and this is what they have done with it? They and Southwark have alot of explaining to do.

Galileo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can assure you no offence was intended, in fact > quite the opposite. An upside to making a > Halloween walk more enjoyable for all in these > rubbish times is to increase footfall along the > road which should hopefully help advertise the > local businesses. I?m sure there are those who > will happily sit at their phones and write that > it?s not enough etc but it has been weeks of > planning and work by the local community for the > enjoyment of all, which I am saddened to see you > have chosen to view as some form of veiled threat. > > > FairTgirl Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rockets Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I did chuckle to myself as I walked down > > Melbourne > > > Grove today - the residents have done a great > > job > > > decorating the street for Halloween and > putting > > up > > > the gravestones but I love how one of them is > > > trying to make a point by creating a couple > of > > > headstones with "Rat Run" on them.....and > Cllr > > > Newens suggests there is a problem with > trolls > > > from the anti-closure lobby!!!! ;-) > > > > > > I wonder if the Rest in Pieces headstone is > in > > > fact a reference to the businesses on > Melbourne > > > Grove being impacted by the closures.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 568787456?s=09 > > > > This has not gone unnoticed by the businesses > and > > I dare say it doesn't feel terribly > coincidental > > to them given the threats to boycott them > > personally and on this very forum. There is one > > entitled 'Yule Be Next' aimed at a business. It > > would be understandable if someone took that > > personally given the context of what is > happening > > on the road. > > > > Tiddles, 'Shat on' does seem quite apt and yes > > most businesses in DV and ED bar a few are > saying > > they are struggling since road closures. > > > > On another note does anyone know if Southwark > > Spine Cycling Route is still planned to go > ahead? > > If it does it might involve removing parking > for > > Bellenden Road businesses, and putting > permeable > > filters on Crystal Palace Road among othr > changes. > > > > > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/a > > > > ctive-travel/cycling/cycle-improvements?chapter=3& > > > article > > > > If they go ahead with Phase 4 in Peckham cars > will > > be seeking routes through Crystal Palace Road > and > > residential roads in Peckham where they plan to > > put this Southwark Spine Route. > > > > Having had a look at the present cycle routes > in > > Southwark - with very few east to west just > like > > Southwark bus routes, that cycling lobbyists > would > > be satisfied with these road closures. They > don't > > seem to be serving them either. Surely they > would > > like to see some proper investment in actual > > interlinked cycle paths, rather than short > closed > > roads which then spit them onto busier more > > polluted RMR roads. > > > > Southwark is giving them cheap as chips > planters, > > not real routes that go anywhere, and everyone > > increased pollution and congestion on other > roads. If it was weeks in the planning could you not then have found the time to come up with some messages for the gravestones that were neither pointed and political and made no reference whatsover to the road closures? Many many people on the forum and passersbys and business customers picked up on it and commented on it. A family event, if it is truly for the enjoyment of all, is not the time to making points and jibes. This does not come over as supportive of business.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I did chuckle to myself as I walked down Melbourne > Grove today - the residents have done a great job > decorating the street for Halloween and putting up > the gravestones but I love how one of them is > trying to make a point by creating a couple of > headstones with "Rat Run" on them.....and Cllr > Newens suggests there is a problem with trolls > from the anti-closure lobby!!!! ;-) > > I wonder if the Rest in Pieces headstone is in > fact a reference to the businesses on Melbourne > Grove being impacted by the closures.... > > > > 568787456?s=09 This has not gone unnoticed by the businesses and I dare say it doesn't feel terribly coincidental to them given the threats to boycott them personally and on this very forum. There is one entitled 'Yule Be Next' aimed at a business. It would be understandable if someone took that personally given the context of what is happening on the road. Tiddles, 'Shat on' does seem quite apt and yes most businesses in DV and ED bar a few are saying they are struggling since road closures. On another note does anyone know if Southwark Spine Cycling Route is still planned to go ahead? If it does it might involve removing parking for Bellenden Road businesses, and putting permeable filters on Crystal Palace Road among othr changes. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/active-travel/cycling/cycle-improvements?chapter=3&article If they go ahead with Phase 4 in Peckham cars will be seeking routes through Crystal Palace Road and residential roads in Peckham where they plan to put this Southwark Spine Route. Having had a look at the present cycle routes in Southwark - with very few east to west just like Southwark bus routes, that cycling lobbyists would be satisfied with these road closures. They don't seem to be serving them either. Surely they would like to see some proper investment in actual interlinked cycle paths, rather than short closed roads which then spit them onto busier more polluted RMR roads. Southwark is giving them cheap as chips planters, not real routes that go anywhere, and everyone increased pollution and congestion on other roads.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This meeting will be fascinating as on the LTN > section we will hear from Lucy Sanders who runs > Healthy Streets Ltd, the company that provides all > of the data that councils use to determine their > approach to things like LTNs. BTW does anyone know > is Healthy Streets funded by TFL? If not, who > funds them? Her group is a big advocate of LTNs > and their data was used extensively during the > lobbying efforts during OHS and they have a big > lobbying presence on social media. > > Secondly it will be very interesting to hear from > the borough fire commander on the agenda item: > LTNs: access to emergency vehicles - especially in > light of the comments from the emergency services > that they are not supportive of LTN road closures > due to the delays they cause in responding to > emergencies. Healthy Streets fund Southwarks LTNs and looks like their funding is coming via London Mayor and thus probably Tfl bailout funds. Last round of funding for 'social distancing active travel interventions' Southwark had 100K of a pot. Wonder if Southwark are seen to not be fulfilling criteria of funding, will they get as much funding in next batch or any, and can conditions be applied to it? Hugely unpopular schemes could actually prevent them from getting any money to invest in solutions (like build some cycle path, cycle hangers, trams, better bus routes) that might actually help air pollution for all.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Details from Southwark (impressed by the prompt > response): you can join the meeting, here is the > link > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?ur > l=https%3A%2F%2Fzoom.us%2Fj%2F99763915591&data > =04%7C01%7C%7C70452ee2c264461d4b3708d87b2c10bf%7C8 > 4df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C63739477 > 6470957909%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA > wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3 > D%7C1000&sdata=VtPQVKguH6XIih5q2Y21Etyb%2BMbMe > 0lijg5SVMC71cE%3D&reserved=0 > Meeting ID: 997 6391 5591 > Passcode: 788208 > > (I checked and they said fine to distribute it) > > "As it?s a meeting in public rather than a public > meeting , questions are at the discretion of the > chair . If you have a particular point you may > wish to raise, or have addressed, it you may wish > to contact the chair, Cllr Jason Ochere, in > advance. Email is probably best : > [email protected]. > > The meeting is recorded and placed on YouTube > pretty promptly, usually next morning. " Thanks for this. I think it would be good to know why so much data is missing for months Jan/Feb usually amongst the worst months for air pollution readings) and missing for all but 2 months of 2019 for the 4 No2 tubes located around Goose Green school. One tube of which reads over 54 μg.m-3 for the two months recorded. Legal limit is 40.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry rather ignorant comments, irrespective of > the comedic value (you can catch Yes Minister/PM > on Four Extra). > > And ..... Road closures funding (if Southwark will > be given anymore) should be focused in the more > northern parts of Southwark where poverty is > highest, BAME population highest, they have the > best public transport links and lowest car > ownership but the worst pollution. These are the > exact categories outlined for successful > LTNs..... > > Let them eat cake/brioche. Rather pompous > comments. That good education seems to have gone > to waste. Politely beg to differ. It's not pompous it's just common sense. Southwark Council acknowledges as much in their Environment Scrutiny Commissions Air Quality Report July 2020, which a variety of different pro and anti LTN groups contributed to - with their own comments about where they should be implemented and that attention is often drawn to those with loudest voices, not greatest need.

n dulwich northerner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I went past Fashion-Conscience and they did have a > few East Dulwich mugs in the window. They do indeed have mugs and lots of prints, small and large

These are so brilliantly written, also watched them growing up and parents loved them. Can find on Brit Box apparently.