dande

Leon is excellent. Super professional. Friendly and reliable. Been relying on him for a couple of years now and I would have to say he’s probably the best electrician I’ve ever worked with.

I find this thread fascinating because of its dialectical dynamics i.e. it's hard for all of us (no matter how emotionally self-aware we are) to argue and debate without "taking sides". We love supporting "our side" against the "other side" even on something as parochial as road closures. That's why I have been studying the growth of One Dulwich with some interest. They now have nearly 900 supporters. See onedulwich.uk/supporters Their latest bulletin includes an appeal to all residents to avoid binary ("for it" or "against it") thinking. They point out that the vast majority of us "support safe cycling and walking, clean air and reducing traffic" and are "open to any traffic plans that focus on these objectives" provided they are "logical, fair and reasonable". Easier said than done, of course. But surely it can't be that difficult for the Council to (properly) listen to the views of its residents; go back to the drawing board; and come up with something that's less irrational and less inequitable.

For many of us, it's clear that we need the Council to urgently re-think and re-wind. Unfortunately, it's never easy for people to do u-turns. There is often too much emotion and pride at stake. That's why I would urge all of you to please support the One Dulwich initiative. I've just checked their website and they now have nearly 600 registered supporters. What I like about the One Dulwich team is their commitment to finding a compromise solution that is fair and balanced. I think they're the best shot we have at encouraging the Council to take a more joined-up approach to the creation of healthy streets. To be fair to the Council, I think their intentions were good but they didn't fully dimension just how perverse the outcomes would be. For example, whilst I believe their objectives were socially progressive in intention, the reality is that the road closures (and no doubt the knock-on ones to try to rectify issues created by it) end up becoming deeply socially regressive in so far as they push traffic and fumes away from a very affluent and relatively low pollution part of Southwark to surrounding areas which are already more disadvantaged on both these scores. These road closures also make the lives of those who have no choice but to drive (e.g. delivery vans, utilities, careworkers, the elderly etc.) much more difficult, especially when many of them are already leading vulnerable, low income lives. All of which suggests a classic instance of a well-intentioned Council enacting decisions that inadvertently pervert their own ideals and principles. The problem, of course, is that all of us hate acknowledging that we might have miscalculated. And, instead of re-thinking, we usually double-down. I am hopeful that One Dulwich can help broker an exit path for the Council that will allow them to undertake a positive re-think. So if you haven't done so already, please sign up and register your support at https://www.onedulwich.uk/get-involved

I've just seen a heatmap of Dulwich House Prices (thanks to the mapping tools available on Zoopla). It brought a wry smile to my face, in the context of all the discussions about where the traffic displaced by the Dulwich Village road closures will end up. Unsurprisingly, the boundaries of the "Our Healthy Streets" initiative correspond - almost precisely - to the boundaries of the most expensive residential cluster in Dulwich. We're being encouraged by the Council to "reimagine" this expensive cluster of streets. Reimagine it how? As an even more privileged bubble than it is already (with all the traffic pushed to the less affluent areas outside the bubble)? As I have noted previously, I am happy to accept that change has to start somewhere...and that "somewhere" usually means the more affluent and gentrified zones. But I do think it would lead to more equitable outcomes if we could all be a bit more honest about exactly who benefits (and who doesn't) from the Council's decisions. The Council can't be expected to please all the people all the time. But it can, at least, treat its constituents as adults; instead of infantilising us with the suggestion that the proposed road closures are socially progressive.

Dear Slartib, The question you?ve asked is an excellent one and, in many ways, gets to the heart of the matter. The truth is that road closures always have two effects. They result in: ? Outcome A: an absolute reduction in traffic (as people switch to other modes of transport); and ? Outcome B: a displacement of traffic from the closed roads to other roads. In an ideal world, the relative weight of the two effects would tip towards Outcome A. But that usually only happens if the government commits to a concomitant (and significant) investment in public transport. And, however much we might wish that there was zero displacement, in practice that is always displacement. Let?s leave to one side the adverse impact of road closures on the mobility of our elderly neighbours and our shopkeepers. And let?s focus purely on the "fairness" trade-offs as between Outcome A and Outcome B. My personal view is that an absolute reduction in traffic (which we hope the road closures will achieve) can offset (I hesitate to use the word ?justify?) the unfairness of displacing traffic from my road onto other roads. And, indeed, I don?t see how we can move to a healthier, low-carbon, future without having to make these uncomfortable trade-offs. It would, of course, be fairer if the traffic displacement was from poorer, more densely packed areas to richer, greener, areas. Instead ? in the case of the Dulwich Village Junction closure ? the displacement effect goes the other way round. Not a good look. But I am enough of a realist to know that most sustainability/healthier living initiatives usually start in middle class areas before they spread to less privileged areas. And that?s why I can support the timed road closures proposed by onedulwich.uk. They will, unquestionably, result in some displacement (regrettable and inequitable) but, hopefully, they will also result in an overall reduction in traffic, from which everybody will, ultimately, benefit. That?s why it?s so important to ensure that the majority of the most directly affected residents are carried along and don?t feel alienated by a decision making process that must ? inevitably ? result in asymmetric outcomes for different constituents. You can?t please all the people all the time. But you can, at least, desist from rushing into blunderbuss decisions that don?t command broad community support.

As the person who revived this discussion thread, I thought maybe I should reiterate what I stated a couple of days ago, namely the need for all of us - as a community - to consider both: A) The things that are in our narrow personal interest; and B) The things that are in the interests of our neighbours (especially when there is a divergence between the two). As I mentioned earlier: the closure of Dulwich Village Junction is something that my family would personally benefit from. We live on Woodwarde Road. Our children cycle and walk to school. We rarely use our car. And the closure of Dulwich Village Junction will make our environment quieter and nicer...for us. But we can't ignore the fact that what benefits us may have a really damaging impact for the following: 1) Our elderly neighbours for whom this blanket restriction in access is something which is a major source of distress and a reduction in mobility and independence; 2) Our local shopkeepers, many of whom have already been battered by reductions in trade caused by Covid19 and feel that the council have not listened to their concerns; and 3) The less affluent communities onto whom we risk displacing the traffic that otherwise flows through our streets. As I read through the comments on this thread, my guess is that - in reality - there is probably far more that unites us than divides us. I suspect that we all want to find a way to make our streets healthier and safer. But surely this needs to be done in a way that is genuinely consensual. For example, I like the "Research" page on the One Dulwich website (onedulwich.uk) which contains links to BOTH the research done by Southwark Council and the results of the surveys done by individual residents associations. Let's try to listen to one another. There are so many pointless "culture wars" going on in Britain at the moment. And it would be tragic if a discussion about healthier streets ended up dividing young against old; or vocal against less vocal. We are all caught somewhere in the middle.

A couple of days ago we received an email from "One Dulwich" informing us that Southwark Council has now approved the temporary closure of Dulwich Village junction under an ?experimental traffic order?. Apparently, the order will come into effect next week, on 25th June 2020, and will be in place until 29th December 2021 i.e. for 18 months. The email also notes that the Council has stated that it does not need to listen to any of the concerns of residents because "the proposal is experimental" and "there is no requirement for advanced consultation and there is no power of objection?. For more detail, see www.onedulwich.uk As a family (living on Woodwarde Road) with young children that hardly ever use a car, my wife and I know that we personally will benefit from the road closure. Our family has also made a commitment to become fully carbon neutral by the end of this year (admittedly via a modern form of indulgences). But we can't just vote for road closures that benefit us personally. We are part of a wider community; and what hurts other members of our community detracts from our health and the health of our children. In that context, we are deeply conscious of the extremely negative impact that the junction closure will have on the physical and psychological health of our elderly neighbours. These neighbours, up and down our street, are extremely distressed by the Council's decision to close the junction. And all the more so during a time when they are already stressed by the restrictions of Covid-19 and its aftermath. It's for this reason that we are supporting the work of One Dulwich which aims to achieve healthier and cleaner streets in a fairer, more inclusive, fashion. Their suggestions (including timed restrictions to through traffic at peak hours rather than permanent closures) seem eminently sensible but have been completely ignored by the Council. One Dulwich now has hundreds of supporters across areas A, B and C (i.e the areas most affected by the closure of Dulwich Village Junction) and their website contains a very helpful map showing the distribution of support across the area. However, as one of the organisers told me last night, they urgently need more people to sign up to support their campaign. The Council will, eventually, listen to the views of its constituents. But only if we channel these quickly and effectively. To that end, can I urge you all to please read the One Dulwich mission statement and, if you agree with it, register your support at onedulwich.uk/get-involved Thank you

It was inevitable. We had just installed a new kitchen when the roof started leaking. Our neighhours recommended Danny Denton on 07943 673482. He came. He assessed. He got the scaffolding put up in double time. And he fixed the problem. And he did it all with courtesy and professionalism. Can't ask for more than that.