Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[malumbu]

To put this into context the survey the Grauniad quotes was of three people in Hebden Bridge who were either hugging trees, wearing sandals or following lay lines.

To be serious good to hear broader views, albeit with a Grauniad rather than a Daily Hate perspective. The latter would be all about our freedoms, to be selfish.....

[legalalien]

Not really surprising from Peter Walker given he?s a cycle campaigner in Southwark and one of the people who urged Southwark to take its current approach: ?

He advocated reducing endless consultation and getting more changes done faster.? (is he part of the Tory conspiracy?). I love the fact that the other chap described the Waltham Forest programme as a ?scheme by scheme battle.

Edited to try and fix link: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=55835

Genuine question that occurs to me though: do those campaigning for LTNs believe that they only work if we have them everywhere, blocking out pretty much all traffic ie that it?s not possible

to compromise and have smaller scale

ones that have some beneficial effect without a massive downside for those on neighbouring main roads. If that is the case then the argument is more binary than I had hoped.

siousxiesue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/

> 2020/oct/22/despite-a-loud-opposing-minority-low-t

> raffic-neighbourhoods-are-increasingly-popular

>

> Interesting read, comments also

[Rockets]

It is an interesting read not least because the author, Peter Walker, has written a book called Bike Nation: How Cycling Can Save the World....so he obviously approached this article with a head cleared of any bias he might hold for bikes over cars! ;-)

I do think the comments section demonstrate how it actually is not a vocal minority (as much as the pro-closure lobby would like everyone to believe). I can't imagine the comments section of the Guardian is the normal hang-out spot for the Daily Mail reading petrolheads that the pro-closure lobby likes to try to pigeon-hole people who oppose these closure as.

It is obvious it is far more than a vocal minority - there is no way councils like Lewisham are forced to make changes without there being a significant amount of public support to do so - councils don't admit mistakes unless they absolutely have to.

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not really surprising from Peter Walker given he?s

> a cycle campaigner in Southwark and one of the

> people who urged Southwark to take its current

> approach: ?

>

> He advocated reducing endless consultation and

> getting more changes done faster.? (is he part of

> the Tory conspiracy?). I love the fact that the

> other chap described the Waltham Forest programme

> as a ?scheme by scheme battle?.

>

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=558

> 35

>

> Genuine question that occurs to me though: do

> those campaigning for LTNs believe that they only

> work if we have them everywhere, blocking out

> pretty much all traffic ie that it?s not possible

> to compromise and have smaller scale

> ones that have some beneficial effect without a

> massive downside for those on neighbouring main

> roads. If that is the case then the argument is

> more binary than I had hoped.

>

>

>

> siousxiesue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/

>

> >

> 2020/oct/22/despite-a-loud-opposing-minority-low-t

>

> > raffic-neighbourhoods-are-increasingly-popular

> >

> > Interesting read, comments also

One presumes given the platform that he has with Southwark that he is a member of Southwark Cyclists? ;-)

[legalalien]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> legalalien Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Just wanted to make sure everyone on this

> thread

> > is aware of the decision for an experimental

> > school street closure on Melbourne Grove

> >

> >

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetail

>

> > s.aspx?ID=7190

>

> There are some quite surprising changes going

> through on there.

>

> E.g 25 feet of new double yellow lines on Crystal

> Palace Road at the request of the homeowner

> because they can't always get their own car over

> the pavemement and onto their private car parking

> easily enough...

>

> Seems at odds with the councillors' aims of

> reducing private car ownership / use

Well: the strategy for getting to zero carbon/ reduced cars does include reducing available parking - so this probably is consistent with that?

[smooch]

the problem is that if there is an alternative to public transport right now, we are going to take it. There is no way I am getting on a bus/train if i can avoid it. unfortunatey this is why TFL are in dire straights right now - nothing to do with mismanagement but a period of little or zero income of people fearful of using public transport

[first mate]

Quite and this is why the zeal around imposition of current changes feels uncomfortable. It smacks of sacrifice your own health so I can achieve a pollution free and traffic free environment for me and my family now and longer term.

[Rockets]

Southwark is considering making it a commitment to reduce car use in the borough by 50% by 2025. So to get there they have to make using a car as painful as possible. In this context you can see why they are doing what they are doing.

If you ever challenge them on it they, and their supporters, will tell you that 40% of Southwark residents have access to a car, as if car ownership is something to be ashamed of. What they fail to recognise is that a lot of Southwark residents have much better access to public transportation than we do in Dulwich and, as a result, car ownership is much higher than the 40% Southwark average - of course, there are also the social economic factors as well and Dulwich is an area of greater overall prosperity compared to many other parts of the borough. TFLs own research acknowledges that the further outside central London you go car ownership increases due to a variety of factors, including lack of transport infrastructure.

In fact, we are closer to Bromley geographically than we are central Southwark and in Bromley car ownership is 70% which is probably more comparable to Dulwich.

Given those higher car ownership figures Southwark sees Dulwich as an area that is a "problem" and goes to war on car drivers in the area. In Bromley there is no such war as the council realises that the further you get out of London so people become more reliant on the car.

So Southwark needs to remove as many parking spaces as possible, close as many roads as possible, put in as much CPZ as possible, fine drivers at every opportunity with bus gates etc to try and make driving the most painful option of transportation.

It's why Southwark extended double-yellow lines a couple of years ago to the maximum permissible and it is why things like the attached are popping up flanking all streets around every school in the area. Ostensibly it is, of course, for social distancing but the trojan horse is it creates parking pressure elsewhere by removing significant numbers of parking spaces on residential roads.

[legalalien]

Does anyone else think it's odd for lobby groups to be providing guidance to council officers on how to manipulate / get buy in from councillors? See this from Living Streets, the London Cycling Campaign and a company called Rosehill Highways who make bollards, road barriers and cycling surfaces etc.

https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/media/3844/lcc021-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-detail-v9.pdf

" STAY STRONG AND GET POLITICAL BUY IN

Even small schemes can rapidly generate controversy in this social media age. Political engagement and will is vital. If councillors aren?t committed to these schemes, they will back down when faced

with any opposition, and schemes will fail. For that reason, everyone involved in the council hierarchy must buy into these schemes and early ? so it?s vital before schemes come under any re they not only understand why they?re proposed, and what they can deliver, but back them. Every scheme like this will generate some backlash ? but a few years down the line, the (hopefully few) residents who fought to keep the schemes out, will ght to keep them in if threatened. For this reason, plan schemes according to the political cycle, to avoid schemes derailing local elections, allowing them the time to bed in and become well-accepted and popular. This maximises political gain for the schemes and minimises risk that opposition politicians will try and get schemes removed ? costing the council extra money."

[Penguin68]

Once again (sorry) I make my point that the creation of a long thin north:south borough out of Southwark and Camberwell was a huge mistake - world view from flat and well served by public transport (including the tube!) Tooley St is very different from hilly Dulwich - a long(er) way away from the centre, infinitely far from a tube system and served by trains that are often out of service over weekends and by buses that consider East:West travel is something to be achieved only over hours. And everything isn't accessible easily and safely by bike for us, particularly given age, infirmity or the presence of children. And we are about to be hit by a congestion charge to pay for TFL services we hardly even can access - unlike the rest of the area covered between the North and South circulars.

'Our' (and I use that word quite wrongly) local politicians hate and despise us, lie to us, obfuscate and dissimulate. Their only god is the policy of the apparat - and their policy only makes sense in the old borough of Southwark.

[dulwichfolk]

Great work rockets...what is the attachment picture of?

I love the documents Southwark produces

This one here

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/11717/Southwark-JSNA-2019-Childhood-Obesity.pdf

Basically says children in dulwich village are significantly better off (weight wise) than the whole of the borough but yet the vocal minority I guess who go to the schools on dulwich village aided with the cycle lobby seem to lift the ward to the top of the list to promote active travel/council time irrespective of the consequences.

[FairTgirl]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So they're closing a road at school times that has

> already been closed - a double whammy!? Why do

> they need this - according to the pro-closure

> propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has now been

> fixed - reference the photos of children milling

> around the school. Or is it that the closure of

> the road has created a school drop-off cul-de-sac

> - as is happening at the end of Court Lane at the

> moment which looks like a car park?

>

> Have the traders been consulted as the council

> states that there is a "minor inconvenience" that

> no-one will be able to get access to the parking

> bays? This could be the final nail in the coffin

> for some businesses around Melbourne Grove.

>

> Are the residents in support as that prevents all

> access to their properties during those hours?

We brought this up months ago with Cllrs when first becaome aware of the proposal, and actually referenced it again to Cllrs today. It is pretty unnecessary given the road is already closed, Head of Charter admitted as much.

There is no issue with these timed restrictions for School Streets on it's own but the fact there is already a closure, removed parking bays, CPZ AND this will disrupt what little parking there is... yes probably final nail in coffin.

Depending on the barriers residents cars can usually get through - but not sure how that applies to business/delivieries etc - will they just be doing U-turns on EDG? Wondering how that will help the EDG congestion situation and safety of pupils.

[FairTgirl]

dulwichfolk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I heard they also get a council tax amnesty and

> chocolates and flowers delivered once a week...by

> bike obviously.

>

> Isn?t the main entrance to the school due to move

> to east dulwich grove? Or is that just for some

> years.

Next September it will be the main entrance. By which time it may as well be on MG as all businesses will be gone at this rate.

[Nigello]

Southwark is considering making it a commitment to reduce car use in the borough by 50% by 2025. So to get there they have to make using a car as painful as possible. In this context you can see why they are doing what they are doing.

👏

[legalalien]

FairTgirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> dulwichfolk Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I heard they also get a council tax amnesty and

> > chocolates and flowers delivered once a

> week...by

> > bike obviously.

> >

> > Isn?t the main entrance to the school due to

> move

> > to east dulwich grove? Or is that just for some

> > years.

>

> Next September it will be the main entrance. By

> which time it may as well be on MG as all

> businesses will be gone at this rate.

I think the plan is to turn EDG into a school street by then ...

[FairTgirl]

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> FairTgirl Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > dulwichfolk Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I heard they also get a council tax amnesty

> and

> > > chocolates and flowers delivered once a

> > week...by

> > > bike obviously.

> > >

> > > Isn?t the main entrance to the school due to

> > move

> > > to east dulwich grove? Or is that just for

> some

> > > years.

> >

> > Next September it will be the main entrance. By

> > which time it may as well be on MG as all

> > businesses will be gone at this rate.

>

>

> I think the plan is to turn EDG into a school

> street by then ...

Practically speaking were these current road closures to stay, what would happen to any traffic going down EDG when it was during a school streets timed closure? Assuming it was some kind of barrier rather than cameras. Would it just sit and wait, as only other options would be to do u-turns back? Even if it is camera/fining people may do that if they realise they will be fined. Genuinely wondering...

[first mate]

S?wark want to have their cake and eat it. They want to tick political boxes re car use, air quality and schools but they also want to maximise revenue opportunities, hence CPZ and other measures that can lead to penalty charges. If cars go I wonder which sector they?ll round on next?

FairTgirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > So they're closing a road at school times that

> has

> > already been closed - a double whammy!? Why do

> > they need this - according to the pro-closure

> > propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has now been

> > fixed - reference the photos of children

> milling

> > around the school. Or is it that the closure of

> > the road has created a school drop-off

> cul-de-sac

> > - as is happening at the end of Court Lane at

> the

> > moment which looks like a car park?

> >

> > Have the traders been consulted as the council

> > states that there is a "minor inconvenience"

> that

> > no-one will be able to get access to the

> parking

> > bays? This could be the final nail in the

> coffin

> > for some businesses around Melbourne Grove.

> >

> > Are the residents in support as that prevents

> all

> > access to their properties during those hours?

>

> We brought this up months ago with Cllrs when

> first becaome aware of the proposal, and actually

> referenced it again to Cllrs today. It is pretty

> unnecessary given the road is already closed, Head

> of Charter admitted as much.

>

> There is no issue with these timed restrictions

> for School Streets on it's own but the fact there

> is already a closure, removed parking bays, CPZ

> AND this will disrupt what little parking there

> is... yes probably final nail in coffin.

>

> Depending on the barriers residents cars can

> usually get through - but not sure how that

> applies to business/delivieries etc - will they

> just be doing U-turns on EDG? Wondering how that

> will help the EDG congestion situation and safety

> of pupils.

[pearl1]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's also wrong to say that just because a journey

> is less than 5km it should not be made by car.

> Just today someone on here has asked how to

> recycle a large volume of cardboard. They have

> three options - 1) go by car to the recelying

> centre 4km away 2) put what they can in their

> domestic recycling and burn the rest on a bonfire

> 3) pay the council ?16 to collect it.

>

> The least attractive is the most expensive but the

> council have put us in this position.

?25 now :(

[Rockets]

dulwichfolk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Great work rockets...what is the attachment

> picture of?

>

> I love the documents Southwark produces

>

> This one here

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/11717/S

> outhwark-JSNA-2019-Childhood-Obesity.pdf

>

> Basically says children in dulwich village are

> significantly better off (weight wise) than the

> whole of the borough but yet the vocal minority I

> guess who go to the schools on dulwich village

> aided with the cycle lobby seem to lift the ward

> to the top of the list to promote active

> travel/council time irrespective of the

> consequences.

It's Friern Road around the back of St Anthony's school. The entrance to the school is actually on Etherow Street (where the same amount of bollards have gone in - but that is School No Parking anyway) but there is a small entrance at the back behind the playgrounds which I think they are using in Covid times which is why they have put that in on Friend. There are more around Goodrich on Dunstans and Upland (which is why the delivery lorries to the school now have to block the road completely to make their deliveries or, as I saw a few days ago, park with part of their lorry sticking out over the Dunstans Road roundabout.

[Rockets]

FairTgirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > So they're closing a road at school times that

> has

> > already been closed - a double whammy!? Why do

> > they need this - according to the pro-closure

> > propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has now been

> > fixed - reference the photos of children

> milling

> > around the school. Or is it that the closure of

> > the road has created a school drop-off

> cul-de-sac

> > - as is happening at the end of Court Lane at

> the

> > moment which looks like a car park?

> >

> > Have the traders been consulted as the council

> > states that there is a "minor inconvenience"

> that

> > no-one will be able to get access to the

> parking

> > bays? This could be the final nail in the

> coffin

> > for some businesses around Melbourne Grove.

> >

> > Are the residents in support as that prevents

> all

> > access to their properties during those hours?

>

> We brought this up months ago with Cllrs when

> first becaome aware of the proposal, and actually

> referenced it again to Cllrs today. It is pretty

> unnecessary given the road is already closed, Head

> of Charter admitted as much.

>

> There is no issue with these timed restrictions

> for School Streets on it's own but the fact there

> is already a closure, removed parking bays, CPZ

> AND this will disrupt what little parking there

> is... yes probably final nail in coffin.

>

> Depending on the barriers residents cars can

> usually get through - but not sure how that

> applies to business/delivieries etc - will they

> just be doing U-turns on EDG? Wondering how that

> will help the EDG congestion situation and safety

> of pupils.

What I find amazing is the blinkered, tone-deaf approach of some of the pro-closure lobby groups. Was the pro-closure lady on the council meeting from EDSTN Healthy Streets group?

If so, they would have heard from Dougie and FairTGirl about the drastic reduction in footfall and sales being experienced by the shops on Melbourne Grove and the other streets and yet we see tweets like this the day after the council meeting....it's almost as if they are trying to convince themselves that everything is rosy.....

Does anyone know, is that cafe thriving, is the owner supportive of the closures?

What is interesting is that people are commenting and putting their views across.

[legalalien]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> FairTgirl Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Rockets Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > So they're closing a road at school times

> that

> > has

> > > already been closed - a double whammy!? Why

> do

> > > they need this - according to the pro-closure

> > > propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has now

> been

> > > fixed - reference the photos of children

> > milling

> > > around the school. Or is it that the closure

> of

> > > the road has created a school drop-off

> > cul-de-sac

> > > - as is happening at the end of Court Lane at

> > the

> > > moment which looks like a car park?

> > >

> > > Have the traders been consulted as the

> council

> > > states that there is a "minor inconvenience"

> > that

> > > no-one will be able to get access to the

> > parking

> > > bays? This could be the final nail in the

> > coffin

> > > for some businesses around Melbourne Grove.

> > >

> > > Are the residents in support as that prevents

> > all

> > > access to their properties during those

> hours?

> >

> > We brought this up months ago with Cllrs when

> > first becaome aware of the proposal, and

> actually

> > referenced it again to Cllrs today. It is

> pretty

> > unnecessary given the road is already closed,

> Head

> > of Charter admitted as much.

> >

> > There is no issue with these timed restrictions

> > for School Streets on it's own but the fact

> there

> > is already a closure, removed parking bays, CPZ

> > AND this will disrupt what little parking there

> > is... yes probably final nail in coffin.

> >

> > Depending on the barriers residents cars can

> > usually get through - but not sure how that

> > applies to business/delivieries etc - will they

> > just be doing U-turns on EDG? Wondering how

> that

> > will help the EDG congestion situation and

> safety

> > of pupils.

>

> What I find amazing is the blinkered, tone-deaf

> approach of some of the pro-closure lobby groups.

> Was the pro-closure lady on the council meeting

> from EDSTN Healthy Streets group?

>

> If so, they would have heard from Dougie and

> FairTGirl about the drastic reduction in footfall

> and sales being experienced by the shops on

> Melbourne Grove and the other streets and yet we

> see tweets like this the day after the council

> meeting....it's almost as if they are trying to

> convince themselves that everything is rosy.....

>

>

> Does anyone know, is that cafe thriving, is the

> owner supportive of the closures?

>

> https://twitter.com/EdstnStreets/status/1318829440

> 567214082?s=09

>

>

> What is interesting is that people are commenting

> and putting their views across.

I think it was a lady called Katy from Clean Air Dulwich. And from a quick google I do wonder if it?s Katy Savage, the same Katy Savage just appointed as the secretary of the Travel and Environment Committee of the Dulwich Society. If I have this wrong - apologies - if not- just goes to show it?s all very incestuous. BUT that?s maybe a function of people?s willingness to engage and put effort in?

[legalalien]

Deleted

[Abe_froeman]

That was the name on her screen during the call.

[northernmonkey]

Gosh - its like the 'gotcha' posted about James barber and his historic role on Southwark Cyclists. Newsflash moment - some people give focus to community roles and i'd imagine statistically they're more likely to participate in a number of things throughout the community. Its not a massive conspiracy!

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > FairTgirl Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Rockets Wrote:

> > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > So they're closing a road at school times

> > that

> > > has

> > > > already been closed - a double whammy!? Why

> > do

> > > > they need this - according to the

> pro-closure

> > > > propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has now

> > been

> > > > fixed - reference the photos of children

> > > milling

> > > > around the school. Or is it that the

> closure

> > of

> > > > the road has created a school drop-off

> > > cul-de-sac

> > > > - as is happening at the end of Court Lane

> at

> > > the

> > > > moment which looks like a car park?

> > > >

> > > > Have the traders been consulted as the

> > council

> > > > states that there is a "minor

> inconvenience"

> > > that

> > > > no-one will be able to get access to the

> > > parking

> > > > bays? This could be the final nail in the

> > > coffin

> > > > for some businesses around Melbourne Grove.

> > > >

> > > > Are the residents in support as that

> prevents

> > > all

> > > > access to their properties during those

> > hours?

> > >

> > > We brought this up months ago with Cllrs when

> > > first becaome aware of the proposal, and

> > actually

> > > referenced it again to Cllrs today. It is

> > pretty

> > > unnecessary given the road is already closed,

> > Head

> > > of Charter admitted as much.

> > >

> > > There is no issue with these timed

> restrictions

> > > for School Streets on it's own but the fact

> > there

> > > is already a closure, removed parking bays,

> CPZ

> > > AND this will disrupt what little parking

> there

> > > is... yes probably final nail in coffin.

> > >

> > > Depending on the barriers residents cars can

> > > usually get through - but not sure how that

> > > applies to business/delivieries etc - will

> they

> > > just be doing U-turns on EDG? Wondering how

> > that

> > > will help the EDG congestion situation and

> > safety

> > > of pupils.

> >

> > What I find amazing is the blinkered, tone-deaf

> > approach of some of the pro-closure lobby

> groups.

> > Was the pro-closure lady on the council meeting

> > from EDSTN Healthy Streets group?

> >

> > If so, they would have heard from Dougie and

> > FairTGirl about the drastic reduction in

> footfall

> > and sales being experienced by the shops on

> > Melbourne Grove and the other streets and yet

> we

> > see tweets like this the day after the council

> > meeting....it's almost as if they are trying to

> > convince themselves that everything is

> rosy.....

> >

> >

> > Does anyone know, is that cafe thriving, is the

> > owner supportive of the closures?

> >

> >

> https://twitter.com/EdstnStreets/status/1318829440

>

> > 567214082?s=09

> >

> >

> > What is interesting is that people are

> commenting

> > and putting their views across.

>

> I think it was a lady called Katy from Clean Air

> Dulwich. And from a quick google I do wonder if

> it?s Katy Savage, the same Katy Savage just

> appointed as the secretary of the Travel and

> Environment Committee of the Dulwich Society. If I

> have this wrong - apologies - if not- just goes to

> show it?s all very incestuous. BUT that?s maybe a

> function of people?s willingness to engage and put

> effort in?

[legalalien]

northernmonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Gosh - its like the 'gotcha' posted about James

> barber and his historic role on Southwark

> Cyclists. Newsflash moment - some people give

> focus to community roles and i'd imagine

> statistically they're more likely to participate

> in a number of things throughout the community.

> Its not a massive conspiracy!

Is that not exactly what I said? No, it?s not any kind of conspiracy, I agree. I don?t think any of this stuff is.

I do think that the way things have gone lately, it?s difficult for those who aren?t willing or able to put a lot of time and resource into tracking things to work out what is going on / get their voice heard.

>

>

>

> legalalien Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Rockets Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > FairTgirl Wrote:

> > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > Rockets Wrote:

> > > >

> > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > >

> > > > -----

> > > > > So they're closing a road at school times

> > > that

> > > > has

> > > > > already been closed - a double whammy!?

> Why

> > > do

> > > > > they need this - according to the

> > pro-closure

> > > > > propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has

> now

> > > been

> > > > > fixed - reference the photos of children

> > > > milling

> > > > > around the school. Or is it that the

> > closure

> > > of

> > > > > the road has created a school drop-off

> > > > cul-de-sac

> > > > > - as is happening at the end of Court

> Lane

> > at

> > > > the

> > > > > moment which looks like a car park?

> > > > >

> > > > > Have the traders been consulted as the

> > > council

> > > > > states that there is a "minor

> > inconvenience"

> > > > that

> > > > > no-one will be able to get access to the

> > > > parking

> > > > > bays? This could be the final nail in the

> > > > coffin

> > > > > for some businesses around Melbourne

> Grove.

> > > > >

> > > > > Are the residents in support as that

> > prevents

> > > > all

> > > > > access to their properties during those

> > > hours?

> > > >

> > > > We brought this up months ago with Cllrs

> when

> > > > first becaome aware of the proposal, and

> > > actually

> > > > referenced it again to Cllrs today. It is

> > > pretty

> > > > unnecessary given the road is already

> closed,

> > > Head

> > > > of Charter admitted as much.

> > > >

> > > > There is no issue with these timed

> > restrictions

> > > > for School Streets on it's own but the fact

> > > there

> > > > is already a closure, removed parking bays,

> > CPZ

> > > > AND this will disrupt what little parking

> > there

> > > > is... yes probably final nail in coffin.

> > > >

> > > > Depending on the barriers residents cars

> can

> > > > usually get through - but not sure how that

> > > > applies to business/delivieries etc - will

> > they

> > > > just be doing U-turns on EDG? Wondering how

> > > that

> > > > will help the EDG congestion situation and

> > > safety

> > > > of pupils.

> > >

> > > What I find amazing is the blinkered,

> tone-deaf

> > > approach of some of the pro-closure lobby

> > groups.

> > > Was the pro-closure lady on the council

> meeting

> > > from EDSTN Healthy Streets group?

> > >

> > > If so, they would have heard from Dougie and

> > > FairTGirl about the drastic reduction in

> > footfall

> > > and sales being experienced by the shops on

> > > Melbourne Grove and the other streets and yet

> > we

> > > see tweets like this the day after the

> council

> > > meeting....it's almost as if they are trying

> to

> > > convince themselves that everything is

> > rosy.....

> > >

> > >

> > > Does anyone know, is that cafe thriving, is

> the

> > > owner supportive of the closures?

> > >

> > >

> >

> https://twitter.com/EdstnStreets/status/1318829440

>

> >

> > > 567214082?s=09

> > >

> > >

> > > What is interesting is that people are

> > commenting

> > > and putting their views across.

> >

> > I think it was a lady called Katy from Clean

> Air

> > Dulwich. And from a quick google I do wonder if

> > it?s Katy Savage, the same Katy Savage just

> > appointed as the secretary of the Travel and

> > Environment Committee of the Dulwich Society. If

> I

> > have this wrong - apologies - if not- just goes

> to

> > show it?s all very incestuous. BUT that?s maybe

> a

> > function of people?s willingness to engage and

> put

> > effort in?