Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Let's just ground your comments on the weight of opposition to the Dulwich Square proposals - the council said they had 3234 comments left in the consultation and 82% of respondents identified as being from Dulwich. This is how the comments were ranked (in terms of do the changes meet the objectives). Pretty compelling and how did the council respond - "thanks for your interest we are proceeding with the plans regardless".

Eh? I thought this was about three schemes being proposed in Lambeth?

The road layout changes in Dulwich are over 4 years old - having trouble moving on?

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Agree 1

The Dulwich Phase 3 consultation results (which are an excellent example of how the council ignores the responses) were published in February of this year. I know you would love to pigeon-hole the Dulwich scheme as a done deal but you may, or may not, have noticed that the council has been changing the designs - hence the Phase 3 tag - and remember, they had proposed an £8m set of improvements for the latest round that were soundly laughed out of the room and then they came back with the works they are now, hurriedly, trying to complete.

So no, some of us haven't moved on as we are not happy to turn a blind-eye to council wastage - especially at a time when the council is claiming it has no money for anything - perhaps you are? Or maybe you're happy for them to waste tax-payers money time and time again on things you support? For anyone who spends much time around there it's becoming clear there are likely design-flaws in the works they are doing now - they seem to be creating a cycle pinch-point on the chicane part in front of Au Ciel - so I am sure they will come back and throw even more money at it in due course. That square will likely haunt the local councillors for the rest of their careers - from the way they installed it, the way they ignored the pleas of the emergency services to re-open it (I have never understood why any politician thinks that ignoring the input from emergency services is a wise move), the way they have botched consultation after consultation and the millions of tax-payer's money they have wasted on what is nothing more than an ideological vanity project.

No I am not - you were talking about consultations and I have given an example of a local consultation that Southwark Council have ignored the results from. 

I think you will find I am very much on the right thread and that's exactly why you're trying to deflect and distract....;-)

Yeh, but it's boring. You're pretending not to understand the difference between a consultation and a referendum and again going on about road changes in Dulwich - a subject you have droned on endlessly about for years and started multiple threads for already.

It would be good if the OP on this post would simply clarify what their objections are to which elements of the three proposals in Lambeth before asking for people's money.

  • Agree 2

Earl, no need to hang around if you are bored. A number of us are glad objections to local LTNs have and continue to be voiced. I am afraid that is not going to change, much as you may like it to.

I am also interested to find out from the OP if, unlike Southwark, LTNs in Lambeth are mandated.

  • Like 1
10 minutes ago, first mate said:

A number of us are glad objections to local LTNs have and continue to be voiced.

Sure - but that's your position whatever the merits of the West Dulwich proposals. This is a thread for talking about the West Dulwich changes specifically, and perhaps what OP would and would not like to see happen there.

Still here Earl? I thought you were bored of threads with this subject matter?

I am sure the OP will let us know, Perhaps pushing through non-mandated LTN and traffic measure changes is not jtst s Southwark Council thing.

 

  • Like 1

I'm bored of the LTN posts.  Not really discussions are they?  I expect the challenge to be unsuccessful, and that elsewhere the development of the Court Lane junction be a success.  Even more measures please, including schools taking rougher action.  I'm a fan of Lambeth and hope that my other local boroughs, Southwark and Lewisham do more.  Not so hopeful about Bromley and Croydon ...

"I am bored" seems to be the latest response from the pro LTN playlist, along with the laughing/ ridicule emoji and "this news is four years old, move on". Perhaps a list of responses is kept at LCC HQ, along with advisories on which LTN and CPZ consultations to input around the boroughs.

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
16 minutes ago, first mate said:

Perhaps a list of responses is kept at LCC HQ...

Most conspiracy theorists think they're being tormented by the Freemasons or Secret Lizard People. I suppose it's only appropriate that the puppetmasters in such a low octane conspiracy theory as this should be...the London Cycling Campaign.

🦎 🦎 🦎 

  • Haha 1

Oh well, that's a new one. Proof you are not one of the LCC posting cadre, DKH? 

But, edited out of respect to the OP. Any news on your efforts to object to LTNs imposed in Lambeth?

Edited by first mate
45 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I'm bored of the LTN posts. 

Do you find the boredom only washes over you when the discussion goes in a direction that you can't argue against........;-)

Maybe those who are bored of it should take heed of some sage advice from 80s TV classic kids programme Why Don't You:

 

 

Bit of an odd post from West Dulwich Action Group here (hoping the link works):

https://x.com/WDulwichAction/status/1838117258104545427

It claims to show a massive year on year increase in the volume of traffic along Rosendale Rd. It actually seems to show percentage splits of speeds of an unspecified volume of traffic along an unspecified road on an unspecified date. It's not terribly compelling...

  • Confused 1
On 08/09/2024 at 10:48, malumbu said:

Fortunately I expect that you are not typical of many drivers around here.  The residents opposing the LTN recognise we need to reduce car journeys.  It's views like yours that make this challenging and the reason we need road closures, traffic calming and speed cameras.

Rashmipat out of interest how do you and residents feel we should reduce car journeys?  

 

Thank you for your comment. I fully agree that reducing car journeys is an important objective, and I personally rely on my bike for most trips, using my car only when absolutely necessary. However, the concept of "traffic evaporation" that Lambeth Council promotes is highly misleading. Both their own data and TfL’s statistics show that what actually happens is traffic displacement. Instead of reducing overall traffic, it is simply diverted to boundary roads, resulting in increased congestion and pollution in those areas.

Lambeth’s traffic monitoring methods are also flawed. For example, their counters do not register vehicles traveling below 6mph, which distorts the data and skews the outcome in their favor. By the end of the trial, they will likely mark their own work and claim success, despite the on-the-ground realities reflecting a different story.

It seems this issue is being driven more by political motives than a genuine commitment to addressing pollution. Cllr Rosina Chowdhury has been pushing this agenda without proper resident engagement, similar to the poorly executed schemes in Streatham. It’s only after we initiated the Judicial Review that the council began to communicate with us—though this has been minimal and, frankly, begrudging. The lack of proper consultation and attention to local nuances has been frustrating.

In my opinion, Cllr Chowdhury’s drive to implement a one-size-fits-all LTN scheme appears to be more about her political ambitions within the Labour Party than about improving the local environment. The broader concern seems to be financial, not environmental. There seems to be little regard for the impact on boundary roads, where thousands of children, poorer communities, and the elderly are directly affected.

When it comes to reducing car journeys, I believe a collaborative approach is key. Rather than dividing communities, the council should engage with residents from all areas together and not insist on doing this seperatly so that we can  develop thoughtful, practical solutions. When we met with representatives from Dalmore, we proposed reasonable alternatives that could be trialed such as road closures at key times rather than a 24 hour LTN

Improving public transport, particularly in under-served areas like West Dulwich, could be a more effective solution. Expanding bus services or considering time-specific road closures might help, but any approach needs proper evaluation and resident involvement.

Ultimately, we need well-thought-out solutions that truly reduce pollution without simply shifting the problem elsewhere. Collaboration, not division, is what will make a difference in our community.

  • Like 2
On 09/09/2024 at 08:29, yogiandbubu said:

I have seen the flyer and I have to be honest, I don’t understand which one ( or all) of the proposals you are against to. 
There are data collected on local traffic through the years (official data monitoring published by the council) and we had so many consultations about these changes when everybody had the chance to reply to.

Now that they have finally decided to do a trial to see what works best and, as they say, are ready to modify them if necessary, I really don’t understand what this complain is about.

the traffic is already displaced to side roads where cars speed knowing there is no control . We’ve had so many car accidents in the area and some very serious. Crossing the road has become impossible.

I can’t believe you think that the current situation is fine.

 

https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tfl-impacts-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-feb-2024-acc.pdf

when has an LTN ever been a trial. My point is we have used the councils very own data and that provided by TFL and have shown them that their analysis is 100% wrong. In fact they know it's wrong. Their monitors don't even count traffic that's going less than 6mph - so any increased traffic as as a result of the LTN will potentially NOT be counted. I'ts disgusting. I want low pollution - who doesn't.  I rarely drive, and i am not an anti

LTN peron. i just want the TRUTH - if you fancy funding please do https://www.gofundme.com/f/legal-costs-to-force-a-reevaluation-of-the-west-dulwich-ltn

 

Edited by Rashmipat

Are Lambeth still using e flawed pneumatic counters? I thought councils were not using those anymore because of the issue of flawed counting or are some still happy to use them because it allows them to manipulate the process?

  • Haha 1
11 hours ago, Rashmipat said:

we have used the councils very own data and that provided by TFL and have shown them that their analysis is 100% wrong. 

If you're going to claim this, you should give full details with the underlying source of the data so that people can understand what specifically you're saying.

Your group's claim above seems a bit ropey and you haven't addressed it (or other questions on this thread): https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/350461-west-dulwich-ltn-action-group-needs-your-support/?do=findComment&comment=1680839

17 hours ago, Rockets said:

Are Lambeth still using e flawed pneumatic counters? I thought councils were not using those anymore because of the issue of flawed counting or are some still happy to use them because it allows them to manipulate the process?

This is nonsense. As previously discussed 

 

On 28/09/2024 at 15:04, Rashmipat said:

Thank you for your comment. I fully agree that reducing car journeys is an important objective, and I personally rely on my bike for most trips, using my car only when absolutely necessary. However, the concept of "traffic evaporation" that Lambeth Council promotes is highly misleading. Both their own data and TfL’s statistics show that what actually happens is traffic displacement. Instead of reducing overall traffic, it is simply diverted to boundary roads, resulting in increased congestion and pollution in those areas.

Lambeth’s traffic monitoring methods are also flawed. For example, their counters do not register vehicles traveling below 6mph, which distorts the data and skews the outcome in their favor. By the end of the trial, they will likely mark their own work and claim success, despite the on-the-ground realities reflecting a different story.

It seems this issue is being driven more by political motives than a genuine commitment to addressing pollution. Cllr Rosina Chowdhury has been pushing this agenda without proper resident engagement, similar to the poorly executed schemes in Streatham. It’s only after we initiated the Judicial Review that the council began to communicate with us—though this has been minimal and, frankly, begrudging. The lack of proper consultation and attention to local nuances has been frustrating.

In my opinion, Cllr Chowdhury’s drive to implement a one-size-fits-all LTN scheme appears to be more about her political ambitions within the Labour Party than about improving the local environment. The broader concern seems to be financial, not environmental. There seems to be little regard for the impact on boundary roads, where thousands of children, poorer communities, and the elderly are directly affected.

When it comes to reducing car journeys, I believe a collaborative approach is key. Rather than dividing communities, the council should engage with residents from all areas together and not insist on doing this seperatly so that we can  develop thoughtful, practical solutions. When we met with representatives from Dalmore, we proposed reasonable alternatives that could be trialed such as road closures at key times rather than a 24 hour LTN

Improving public transport, particularly in under-served areas like West Dulwich, could be a more effective solution. Expanding bus services or considering time-specific road closures might help, but any approach needs proper evaluation and resident involvement.

Ultimately, we need well-thought-out solutions that truly reduce pollution without simply shifting the problem elsewhere. Collaboration, not division, is what will make a difference in our community.

The West Dulwich ward is certainly not 'under served' for public transport. We have 3 train stations, between them serving London Bridge, St Pancras, Victoria and Clapham Junction routes within 15 mins walking distance and a plethora of bus routes within easy reach. 

Great to see so many young people and 'poorer communities' represented in your Telegraph group pic!

  • Agree 1
1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is nonsense. As previously discussed 

You might think it is nonsense but others do not and the weight of evidence suggests our position is a more reflection of reality than yours.

 

Let's look....

  • The manufacturer admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph) 
  • Southwark council stated they were phasing them out and replacing them with more accurate counters
  • Even our dear friend Ex-Dulwicher (who works in this sort of stuff) admitted that they are not accurate when used in heavy traffic conditions.

So combine all of the above with the fact that Southwark actively moved monitoring strips closer to choke points (to use their weaknesses to their advantage) then my statement is anything but nonsense.

I don't know where Lambeth have put the monitoring strips in West Dulwich but if they are in areas of slow moving traffic then the pneumatic strips will not be providing an accurate reflection of traffic levels - that is not nonsense, that is a fact.

 

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...