Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If you are not already a member, you can try our monthly eNews free for 3 months as a taster: https://www.dulwichsociety.com/society/enewsletter-free-trial. To keep you informed of what's going on in Dulwich we publish a quarterly printed Journal, a monthly digital eNews and an annual ‘Dulwich Gardens open for Charity’ booklet. We maintain a website, three Twitter accounts and an Instagram account plus we offer talks, walks and tours. Just £10 per household per year, join here: http://dulwichsociety.com/membership
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/314723-join-the-dulwich-society/
Share on other sites

So you can campaign for road closures?


I don't think that's quite right. I believe that (pre LTNs and maybe pre-lockdown) the Society endorsed general moves to reduce road generated pollution (who wouldn't? - remember that the ULEZ expansion was theoretically directed at that as well) but without specifying or endorsing particular solutions - when the specific LTN proposals were actually made the Society still endorsed the claimed objective but did not endorse the particular solution - the Society seemed to recognise the very divisive impact potentially of the actual solutions proposed and realised its own membership would be very divided by them. I therefore believe that the Society as a whole has not taken any public position on local LTNs although individual members of the Society clearly may well have quite clear (and often conflicting with others) views of their own.


I therefore believe that the Society has never endorsed the actual 'LTN solutions' now in place - despite some claims made by 3rd parties - whilst still believing that reduction in traffic generated pollution (not its redistribution) in Dulwich is a good objective.


For that reason it would not be right to suppose that the Society has, or does 'campaign for road closures' as a general statement of policy. We all know of roads that have been closed or partially closed, some supported by the Society - those leading onto Peckham Rye for instance, or around schools at key periods - but these have tended to be for 'obvious' safety reasons.

So you can campaign for road closures?


I don't think that's quite right. I believe that (pre LTNs and maybe pre-lockdown) the Society endorsed general moves to reduce road generated pollution (who wouldn't? - remember that the ULEZ expansion was theoretically directed at that as well) but without specifying or endorsing particular solutions - when the specific LTN proposals were actually made the Society still endorsed the claimed objective but did not endorse the particular solution - the Society seemed to recognise the very divisive impact potentially of the actual solutions proposed and realised its own membership would be very divided by them. I therefore believe that the Society as a whole has not taken any public position on local LTNs although individual members of the Society clearly may well have quite clear (and often conflicting with others) views of their own.


I therefore believe that the Society has never endorsed the actual 'LTN solutions' now in place - despite some claims made by 3rd parties - whilst still believing that reduction in traffic generated pollution (not its redistribution) in Dulwich is a good objective.


For that reason it would not be right to suppose that the Society has, or does 'campaign for road closures' as a general statement of policy. We all know of roads that have been closed or partially closed, some supported by the Society - those leading onto Peckham Rye for instance, or around schools at key periods - but these have tended to be for 'obvious' safety reasons.

 

👍

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

    • As a result of the Horizon scandal it now seems very clear that the Post Office management are highly disingenuous and not be trusted!  There needs to be a campaign launched to challenge the threatened closure, unless the Post Office can demonstrate beyond doubt that the branch is loss making - and even then it could argued that better management could address this. I hope the local media take this up and our MP  and a few demonstrations outside wouldn’t do any harm. Bad publicity can be very effective!         
    • Unlikely. It would take a little more than a bit of Milton to alter the pH of eighty-odd thousand gallons of water.
    • It actually feels as though what I said is being analytically analysed word by word, almost letter by better. I really don't believe that I should have to explain myself to the level it seems someone wants me to. Clearly someones been watching way too much Big Brother. 
    • Sadly they don't do the full range of post office services
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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