march46

It's hardly shocking news that One Dulwich grossly overestimate figures. More like 250-300 people from what I saw. Will they be cleaning the graffiti off the signs or is the council going to have to do that?

See the offensive 'All Streets Matter' posters by Dulwich Alliance are still being used. Graffiti on the road signs too, classy.

Not sure where you are getting your facts from Metallic. If you look at the council?s consultation report it shows 67% of Calton Ave respondents and 53% of Court Lane respondents wish to RETAIN it as it is / RETAIN the measure but modify/enhance with other features. Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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.

Also an account on this forum facilitated it - seems to be quite an unsavoury character.

One Dulwich clearly were involved in putting the signs up. Their email account facilitated it. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > March - let us be clear One Dulwich have not put > any signs up. People who believe the council needs > to "Stop the Road Closures" put the signs up.

Why didn't One Dulwich put up a sign to garner support for timed restrictions? Instead of a blanket 'Stop the Road Closures'.

So the 'Stop the Road Closures' signs just relate to Dulwich Square? And One Dulwich support timed restrictions on Townley Road, Dulwich Village, Turney and Burbage Road? It would be helpful to be clearer on which scheme/s "Reopen Our Roads" applies to. What is their position on roads which were filtered pre-pandemic? There are many around the Dulwich area eg Frank Dixon Way, Milo Rd, Oakhurst Grove etc...do they propose a 'Reopening of All Roads' or just some?

?Stop the Road Closures? signs were available before the consultation started, so any claim One Dulwich make that the council?s consultation process ?left them with no choice but to recommend a return to the existing state? is untrue. DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > You are deliberately conflating One Dulwich's > > timed restrictions lobbying versus the only > > reasonable option they were presented by the > > council in their flawed review process. > > There was an option to select 'modify existing > measures' and a box to fill in suggestions for > modifications. But One Dulwich told their > supporters to select 'remove all measures' because > they're prepared to jeopardise the whole scheme > just to get what they want.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you're confusing the issue a bit. The OD > website says that they are pushing for timed > restrictions, details to be determined by a fair > and transparent consultation process. So yes, I'd > say they have a mandate to push for timed > restrictions, and a fair and transparent > consultation process. No, they don't have a > mandate to enter into some backroom deal with the > council on the details of the closures on the > basis of some dubious claim that their supporters > support residents' permits. If there's evidence > that OD are doing this, I'd be interested to see > it. Given their biggest gripe seems to be the > council's refusal to engage and lack of > transparency, that would seem to be conspiracy > theory territory. > > (Also, surely the council have no truck with > groups seeking to lobby behind closed doors. Or > maybe they do.) SlartiB confirmed above that the Dulwich Village RA (part of the infamous 'Dulwich Alliance') submitted a proposal to the council during the consultation which One Dulwich supports. This includes keeping the current timed restrictions and changing Dulwich Square. See option 5 https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101520/Appendix%20F2%20-%20Options%20review%20Report.pdf. The assessment and low score given compared to other options can't be easy reading for those who support. This answers your question as to why timed restrictions aren't a realistic alternative for Dulwich Square @Rockets. I repeat my point - if One Dulwich support timed restrictions why are they calling for all roads to be 're-opened'?

Legalalien says they don?t have a mandate, Rockets says they do... it?s all very confusing. It sounds as though what they say they want (?reopen the roads?) is very different to what they actually want (timed restrictions). Perhaps they think they can get more public support for the former whilst behind closed doors lobbying the council for the latter? Clever if it works.

Instead of turning my question around please can you simply answer my question? Do One Dulwich support the current timed restrictions on Townley Road, Dulwich Village, Turney and Burbage Road? It seems likely that they do given their overall aims, even more so now the hours of operation will be reducing.

There was room in the consultation for alternatives to be proposed, it's not true to say there was no option other than 'remove it all'. See Option C - install a different kind of measure (with a comments box to explain) Instead they seem to have chosen divisive and disingenuous campaigning, and are continuing down this path rather than seeking common ground.

But Rockets several of the schemes are timed restrictions (Townley Rd, Dulwich Village, Burbage Road and Turney Rd). Do One Dulwich support these? I assume so but don't seem to be able to find an answer anywhere. Their blanket call to 'reopen the roads' seems disingenuous and confused if that is not what they really want, it's also unhelpful in terms of moving the debate forward / finding common ground. Their slogan is "timed restriction, not permanent closures"

Artemis you mention common ground, does anyone know why One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance isn't supporting the timed restrictions being reduced? It seems like a good compromise.

It's a bit much to refer to them as 'members' - that would infer they have meetings with minutes, a committee, votes, a constitution etc... The truth is it's simply a mailing list with zero transparency. Many of those on their mailing list are likely to not even be 'supporters' but signed up initially just to understand their point of view. I'm still trying - they say they want "timed restrictions, not permanent closures" but also call for all the schemes to be scrapped despite many of them being timed restrictions. Confused?!

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do the road closures increase bike use?

Interesting piece in the Times on Lambeth?s low traffic neighbourhoods today https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/results-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-speak-for-themselves-pjdtnkvtd

Love seeing the positive images put out by Clean Air Dulwich. So many people are benefitting from the roads being safer.

They weren't all on the pavement. As with the last One Dulwich protest, they tried to get car drivers to honk their support whilst at the same time disingenuously feign concern about air pollution. https://imgur.com/a/OYKf48s (edited to add photo)

Amazing to see this

They are open, it?s a nice shop - very welcoming and helpful. Great addition to the community.

Not sure why it should be linked to the other side of the road. There used to be parked cars there - the space for moving traffic is no narrower than it was before.

Sorry I may have missed it but have bus journey times been published somewhere? Bus journey times along Lordship Lane could be improved significantly by freeing the bus lane of parked cars.

So their alternative is effectively a return to the past, unsurprising. If anyone needs a reminder of how that was see Re ANPR timed restrictions not being listed as an option in the review, suspect it's because it isn't a practical or safe option - as was discussed during OHS consultation. Interesting that only 9% of Court Lane residents want to see the junction re-opened to cars. Suspect if the survey had removed the unfeasible option of timed restrictions there would be significantly more wanting to see the current scheme made permanent.

There's a link to the recent council newsletter about the changes here in case anyone missed it. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-review/supporting_documents/Dulwich%202nd%20Newsletter.pdf