Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thanks for sharing. Signed and shared the petition. The only consultation I am aware of was done with those residents living on the streets themselves. The wider residential population I strongly believe do not support these roads being closed to vehicles. It pleases the few not the many and causes huge problems for public transport trying to use already congested main roads. It does not discourage drivers, that is the point I would try to get across to those who are able to cycle or walk everywhere and perhaps do not have to work to the same schedule as the rest of us.

esme Wrote:

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

> Thanks for sharing. Signed and shared the

> petition. The only consultation I am aware of was

> done with those residents living on the streets

> themselves. The wider residential population I

> strongly believe do not support these roads being

> closed to vehicles. It pleases the few not the

> many and causes huge problems for public transport

> trying to use already congested main roads. It

> does not discourage drivers, that is the point I

> would try to get across to those who are able to

> cycle or walk everywhere and perhaps do not have

> to work to the same schedule as the rest of us.


Well said Esme

I dont believe the closures benefit pedestrians at all. I dont drive and live on one of the main roads. It's been really unpleasant walking along Lordship Lane up to the Harvester with idling traffic belching out fumes since the planters were installed.

For those that live or pass through "Bellenden Village" be advised that Lyndhurst Way has now/being narrowed to 1 lane entry from Chadwick Road.


A large permanent concrete construction has allocated yet another cycle lane into the mix.


Others boroughs are taking out temporary barriers Southwark build expensive permanent lanes to make passage for the car more difficult.


The one way system was put into place into 1989 and has worked without any problems even when Camberwell Grove was shut down on the bridge. Why the change now?


How many people knew about this and have been informed or is this yet another lets slip in into place under Covid.


Just how much has this cost?

macutd Wrote:

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

> why don't they

> make public transport free

> legalize electric scooters

> increase the number of busses

> extend the underground into the area

>

> Instead of just closing roads without giving a real alternative


Surprisingly, the main factor of public transport usage is not cost, it's reliability. That said, at the moment people are just avoiding public transport because of Covid and on top of that there's not really much to go and do - not like people are out at all hours in pubs and clubs, at concerts, visiting attractions etc and commuting is way down on normal so usage is down due to that rather than cost. Besides, the money to run it has to come from somewhere so free public transit, while workable on small schemes (like Park & Ride or little CityHopper type buses) just means increased taxes/costs elsewhere.


Agree on electric scooters, they're a definite part of micro-mobility.


More buses takes us back to the cost aspect - who is going to fund all of that? You also end up with the buses themselves causing congestion which was why the bus routes into central London got revised a few years ago because there were simply too many buses going to places like Oxford Street, Regent Street etc and it was just clogging everything up.


It takes 10-20 years to get a new Tube line plus a few billion ??. Camberwell has been talked about since the days of Ken as London Mayor and it's still no closer to actually happening. Old Kent Road is (probably) going ahead although it's on a much less certain timeframe now. Even that has been in the "planning" stages for about the last 10 years and it'll be 2030 at the earliest before it's in place (if at all) so Camberwell (and by extension, Dulwich) won't see a Tube until 2040 at the absolute earliest. Frankly I want a jetpack by then, I was definitely promised a jetpack as a kid watching Tomorrow's World.

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/planning-for-the-future/bakerloo-line-extension


Unfortunately, change on a short timescale is not really related to public transport, it's much more about forcing change locally via traffic management options. Besides, there's funding for LTNs and pop-up cycle lanes so that's what the council is limited to.

Agree. I walked down LL towards GG yesterday - always been busy but ever since these ridiculous road closures were introduced it's been a complete nightmare.



devs Wrote:

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

> I dont believe the closures benefit pedestrians at

> all. I dont drive and live on one of the main

> roads. It's been really unpleasant walking along

> Lordship Lane up to the Harvester with idling

> traffic belching out fumes since the planters were

> installed.

rupert james Wrote:

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

> The one way system was put into place into 1989

> and has worked without any problems even when

> Camberwell Grove was shut down on the bridge. Why

> the change now?


What nonsense. The traffic problems around Bellenden and Lyndhurst have been being raised for decades. Just prior to lockdown there was a meeting at the Belham where two long term residents resumed an argument with each other about solutions to traffic problems that they?d been having since the 90s!


Bellenden frequently gridlocks outside the shops due to volume of traffic, at least a couple of times a month an HGV or coach gets stuck on a bollard and the it?s only a matter of time before a child is hit by a car outside one of the schools due to poor crossings, terrible sight lines and inattentive drivers of large vehicles. It seems that this route is heavily used as a rat run from Peckham High St down to the South Circular to avoid going all the way round to Consort Rd. A proper LTN is well overdue for Bellenden and the surrounding roads.

It always amuses me that 'belching out pollution' is always an argument about anything that dare's to challenge the masses right to drive. Go back in a time machine 20 years and you would see pollution belching out of black cabs, London buses, vans and the like. And then before that sulphur dioxide and lead emissions from fuel. Our air has become progressively cleaner. The modern engine is the cleanest its been for years with the move to fuel injection from carbs, three way catalysts on petrol engines, particulate filters and catalysts on diesel cars. You'll see the odd diesel spewing out fumes, either because it is old, the filter damaged or worse still removed. Sad that it would be straight forward for a copper to stop them and issue a ticket to get it sorted to MOT standard, simply due to visible smoke. But even this simple act is not a priority for policing any more.


That said the ULEZ will get rid of most of the polluting vehicles, and then we will just have the residual of the diesels produced before VW gate lead to tightening of the standards. Nitrogen dioxide will remain a decreasing problem, but you can't see it or smell it so it is not 'belching out'. I'd worry more about bonfires and wood burners.


Glad to see some more measured posts. If you don't want pollution from cars then don't drive unless you need to. I wont go on about driving standards, beyond racing to the speed bump, banging on your brakes, repeat repeat, increases particulates from engine, road, brake and tyre wear (some will be large and fairly inert, you will cough or blow them up in your hankies), and nitrogen dioxide. Sorry I find some of the more alarmist posts hypocritical. Thanks to some of the more measured/enlightened ones. (this is a rather brief argument about pollution and carbon emissions - there is a much bigger picture of logistics, energy production etc etc but the point is less driving = less emissions. More cycling and walking = less emissions).

It is weird to hear people who want to make it easier to drive (which any way you cut it, results in more cars/ car journeys), using pollution as a justification for this position. If you just built more and more roads and made them bigger and bigger, so cars can travel faster - pollution would drop... Yeah right.

"What nonsense. The traffic problems around Bellenden and Lyndhurst have been being raised for decades. Just prior to lockdown there was a meeting at the Belham where two long term residents resumed an argument with each other about solutions to traffic problems that they?d been having since the 90s!


Bellenden frequently gridlocks outside the shops due to volume of traffic, at least a couple of times a month an HGV or coach gets stuck on a bollard and the it?s only a matter of time before a child is hit by a car outside one of the schools due to poor crossings, terrible sight lines and inattentive drivers of large vehicles. It seems that this route is heavily used as a rat run from Peckham High St down to the South Circular to avoid going all the way round to Consort Rd. A proper LTN is well overdue for Bellenden and the surrounding roads."


What you do not seem to have addressed is that these alterations have been put in with no consultation or plans to comment on. They were just started.


As regards your mention of the Belham meeting, the one the Jasmine Ali attended, minutes of the meeting were asked from her but nothing was ever produced nor did any other attendee produce such minutes. What was discussed and agreed on? Again a few people deciding what the rest of we residents want and Southwark listen to those few who shout loudest.


I am all for safety change but I would like to be consulted on how it is effected.


This comes from a someone who has been in the area for almost 74 years.


As regards gridlock outside the shops this comes mainly from people not being sensible, you stop not me.Ok we will just sit here and shout. Me Me Me.


Traffic is worse now because of Southwark's ill thought out road plans. People who have lived and give their long term history of the area are in the main ignored in favour of views from new residents.


If one consults properly and listen to the majority view you would be surprised at what can be achieved.

Traffic has got worse now because of road changes.


Traffic before always flowed easy in fact when rush hours eased the Bellenden.Lynhurst roads were mainly empty.


That is why the original poster mentioned the one way system worked 100% even though traffic has increased as you would expect in that time.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> It is weird to hear people who want to make it easier to drive (which any way you cut it, results in more cars/ car journeys), using pollution as a justification for this position. If you just built more and more roads and made them bigger and bigger, so cars can travel faster - pollution would drop... Yeah right.

In deed.


Remember driving in the states for the first time - wide roads, often little traffic. The we hit Queens on a Sunday night and experienced grid lock on the way to the airport. Hmmm. The last time we were driving from New York to Connecticut up the I-95 in rush hour, with signs up saying 'hold ups for the next 95 miles' - a motorway sized road with junctions every two miles so people would use it to commute. Only in America I expect where car is king. We don't have the space, roads or low population density.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> "It seems that this route is heavily used as a rat

> run from Peckham High St down to the South

> Circular to avoid going all the way round to

> Consort Rd."

>

> Did someone really write this?


In what way is it incorrect? The number of coaches, HGVs, tipper trucks ubers and taxis driving down Maxted Road are not coming from local streets, they're cutting through the area. In fact a month ago I chatted to an HGV driver who got stuck on the corner of Maxted and Nutbrook as he waited for the police to guide him out, he said his company's route planning software recommended this route of residential streets as a southbound route.

Charles Notice Wrote:

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

>

> What you do not seem to have addressed is that

> these alterations have been put in with no

> consultation or plans to comment on. They were

> just started.


I think those pavement extensions were proposed as part of the quietway plans which was consulted on ages ago. In my opinion the consultation was flawed and ignored 99% of the feedback the community gave, but there was a consultation.


> As regards your mention of the Belham meeting, the

> one the Jasmine Ali attended, minutes of the

> meeting were asked from her but nothing was ever

> produced nor did any other attendee produce such

> minutes. What was discussed and agreed on? Again a

> few people deciding what the rest of we residents

> want and Southwark listen to those few who shout

> loudest.


Cllr Ali was only there for a few minutes at the begining, she didn't say much and left before any of the discussion got going. I never saw minutes either, although it wasn't a formal meeting. I recall there were requests for more information and there was supposed to be some follow up by email for those of us that signed up. I haven't seen anything though. What I would observe is there was a broad range of residents there and seemed a) to want something done and b) had no faith that the council would listen to them. It's sad that the Rye Lane councillors don't seem able to get much done in terms of the traffic.


> I am all for safety change but I would like to be

> consulted on how it is effected.


There must have been half a dozen consultations in the last 5-years about Bellenden Rd and the surrounding areas. The problem is the council don't listen to the feedback. The quietway is a prime example, all that's happened is we've lost a load of parking spaces and the roads are just as unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians as they ever were.


> As regards gridlock outside the shops this comes

> mainly from people not being sensible, you stop

> not me.Ok we will just sit here and shout. Me Me

> Me.


I think that's partially true, but it's also weight of traffic and the fact that that section of road cannot take two-way traffic (especially not HGVs) as it is currently set up. With the Maxted Rd junction so close too, it's almost inevitatble that traffic will lock up.


> Traffic is worse now because of Southwark's ill

> thought out road plans. People who have lived and

> give their long term history of the area are in

> the main ignored in favour of views from new

> residents.


One of my neighbours has a box of files going back 30 years complaining about this particular rat run and her ideas are pretty closely aligned with mine I think. Without systemic diversion of through traffic away from Bellenden/Lyndhurst and the surrounding residential streets, you'll just push problems to other roads (like happended with Ogglander and Ondine). What would you suggest is the right approach?


> If one consults properly and listen to the

> majority view you would be surprised at what can

> be achieved.


I wont hold my breath for the council consulting properly or even addressing the issue seriously.

alex_b Wrote:

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

> Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "It seems that this route is heavily used as a

> rat

> > run from Peckham High St down to the South

> > Circular to avoid going all the way round to

> > Consort Rd."

> >

> > Did someone really write this?

>

> In what way is it incorrect? The number of

> coaches, HGVs, tipper trucks ubers and taxis

> driving down Maxted Road are not coming from local

> streets, they're cutting through the area. In fact

> a month ago I chatted to an HGV driver who got

> stuck on the corner of Maxted and Nutbrook as he

> waited for the police to guide him out, he said

> his company's route planning software recommended

> this route of residential streets as a southbound

> route.



This is not a new situation. Why has Southwark not addressed this before. Like most things relating to traffic Southwark have their own plan regardless of what people tell them. You would have thought that if you have an ongoing problem,. i.e bollards being uprooted,roads unable to carry large vehicles you would fix it.


As Cllr Ali is a very local Cllr you would have thought she would have pursued it with more energy.

Surely it's quicker to the south circular to go via consort rd / e dulwich rd / Peckham rye / Barry rd / lordship lane than any possible route via Bellenden


And even if it isn't, Consort Rd is a residential road with a park on it. Bellenden is a commercial road with numerous car yards, industrial estates, railway siding and other commercial outlets that is more appropriate for commercial traffic.

alex_b Wrote:

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

> Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "It seems that this route is heavily used as a

> rat

> > run from Peckham High St down to the South

> > Circular to avoid going all the way round to

> > Consort Rd."

> >

> > Did someone really write this?

>

> In what way is it incorrect? The number of

> coaches, HGVs, tipper trucks ubers and taxis

> driving down Maxted Road are not coming from local

> streets, they're cutting through the area. In fact

> a month ago I chatted to an HGV driver who got

> stuck on the corner of Maxted and Nutbrook as he

> waited for the police to guide him out, he said

> his company's route planning software recommended

> this route of residential streets as a southbound

> route.


Need proper fines for this kind of HGV nonsense, there are proper routeplanners for HGVs and irregular loads, the AA do one for a start ... they just cost money to use that's all

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Surely it's quicker to the south circular to go

> via consort rd / e dulwich rd / Peckham rye /

> Barry rd / lordship lane than any possible route

> via Bellenden

>

> And even if it isn't, Consort Rd is a residential

> road with a park on it. Bellenden is a commercial

> road with numerous car yards, industrial estates,

> railway siding and other commercial outlets that

> is more appropriate for commercial traffic.


Well they coaches and HGVs are definitely coming/going somewhere and weirdly seem to be in higher volume South rather than North. It certainly a regular run for ubers and taxis too. Where do you think it?s coming from/going to.

  • 1 month later...

The time has come and wish to object, to legally object to the East Dulwich Road Closures, Traffic Road Order TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich


(Road closures on Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Melbourne Grove and Tintagel Crescent); and TMO2021-EXP02_LSP Dulwich?and?TMO2021-EXP16_LSP Dulwich 2?(Melbourne Grove South, and closures in Dulwich Village)


Deadline to do so is 19 Feb 2021.


You need to write to: [email protected]@southwark.gov.uk, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],


Additional recommended emails to cc in are listed below.



State in Subject line: Official Objection to TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich



*Please add your name and address of your home or business to your email.



This is the official objection that Cabinet Member for Roads, Cllr Catherine Rose must legally take into account as part of the review process of these closures.



Grounds for objections may include:


- Blocking 4 well-used and vital access to routes to Kings? College hospital - very worrying emails from London Ambulance Service to Southwark Council emerged yesterday, showing they were appealing to Southwark Council to re-open or amend these closures since September as they, and resultant congestion were risking lives. These emails were ignored. They had been appealing to Southwark Council around other local closures since July 2020.


- Increased congestion and pollution on surrounding boundary roads users, residents, businesses and schools, heavy pedestrian routes which many use for passage to school, bus stops, stations


- Impacts of increased pollution and loss of access and parking to local businesses


- Social injustice and discrimination of funnelling all local traffic onto roads with most social housing and BAME residents and lowest car ownership


- Increased environmental damage resulting from idling congested traffic, travelling more vehicle miles


- Public health risk associated with increased pollution, linked to Covid deaths, during a pandemic


- the lack of traffic and air pollution monitoring prior to and during the implementation, the absence of any conscientious assessment of the risk and extent of adverse impacts on those in protected groups, and the flawed implementation of existing Southwark policy.??


An expanded list of objections are here: https://www.onedulwich.uk/dv-objections


Feel free to copy these objections into your email.

Below are more officers, councillors and MPs you may which to send you objections to who have an interest.


[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]


But do send an email if you have any objections.

You can also use this link https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp quoting reference ?TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich?.

Or write a letter here: Traffic Order consultations, Highways, Southwark Council, Environment and Leisure, P.O. Box 64529, London SE1P 5L

As someone who is geographically just as aligned to East Dulwich and Dulwich Village, it is very important to support all the traders suffering under these road closures. Nowhere to park if you arrive by car from anywhere, and anyone can see the traffic build up on East Dulwich Grove, which was never so bad during the day. We and all the schoolchildren have to walk through this to get to our destinations - no air quality monitoring - of course!


I know this isn't very charitable or humane, but I bet you anything the pro-closure residents of the closed roads may well change their minds if they needed an ambulance or fire engine and they were delayed by having to pass through extra traffic or drive the long way round. I heard in my road of an ambulance actually leaving it and turning the wrong way and having to do a three point turn.


It is really for all of us to support the people fighting to get the closed roads re-opened. If the councillors were shop owners or lived in areas affected by the closures, you would probably see a different reaction to this 100%, for a system that is doing nothing but harm all round.


And just imagine when the schools go back by the way and Charter ED is finished. Thousands of pairs of young lungs walking along the road taking displaced traffic from the four closed roads, idyllic Calton Avenue and Court Lane. It just isn't right.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...