The Society responded both to Steer Davies Gleave’s original presentation at the Dulwich Community Council on 1 November 2017 and to their subsequent Dulwich Traffic Management Study where consultation closed on 24th January.

The Society has not been able to poll its membership on the proposals but has relied on its Traffic and Transport group to put its response together Subject to this, our comments on original presentation and the detailed proposals are as follows:


  1. Measures to reduce rat running traffic:  Rat running through wholly residential streets like Ruskin Walk and Hollingbourne Road, both in Village Ward, SE24 (between Herne Hill and Half Moon Lane) has been exacerbated by widespread use of GPS-enabled software platforms used by delivery vans and taxi services.   These roads are also being used by HGVs and large builder merchant and skip vehicles which are unsuitable for these roads and has led to a surge in residents’ vehicles being damaged and increased danger to children.   Measures are needed to stop these inappropriate vehicles from using such roads.  The use of these roads has been caused by traffic queues at the traffic signals at Herne Hill junction.
    Rat running through side roads generally at peak times is particularly bad near schools. Measures might include road closures, except for access, during peak hours, or even more extensively. This has been done successfully in Edinburgh without, we understand, physical measures.
  2. Measures to reduce through commuter traffic: Dulwich Village, Lordship Lane and other roads in the study area bear much commuter traffic, which could be reduced by imposing a Workplace Parking Levy in the commuter destination areas. This has been done successfully in Nottingham. As part of traffic reduction strategies, the Mayor of London proposes in his draft Transport Strategy to work with boroughs to develop and implement a workplace parking scheme (Proposal 21 of the MTS). 
  3. Car parking:    In commenting on Southwark’s draft Kerbside Strategy we stressed the particular implications arising from much higher car ownership in Dulwich than elsewhere in the borough. mainly because Dulwich has many more of older residents than elsewhere in the borough.   
    There needs to be a holistic, strategic view of parking, considering the needs of traders who rely on customers being able to park.  The Council committed in 2014 to a policy of free parking in local shopping parades. Lack of parking puts off visitors to local amenities – shops, park, church and library - at a time when these are under threat from online shopping and, ironically, council funding cuts. This is illustrated by the impact on trade of current road works in Dulwich Village.  
    Elderly residents need to park near their homes in order to get out, especially after dark. Those hampered by poorer mobility are more at risk of tripping and slipping. Parents have difficulties carrying babies and supervising toddlers when unable to park near home.   
    To help people to reduce their car usage requires a comparable and efficient level of public transport. The PTAL levels in parts of the study area are low, with long walks to stations and bus routes. Alternative options to enhance public transport e.g. shuttle buses to stations and shopping parades and cross-Dulwich buses should be considered with TfL Buses. Kingswood Estate residents are particularly badly served.   
    To reduce parking stress a vigorous promotion of car clubs is needed. Although each car club bay reduces parking space, experience demonstrates the substantial net reduction in car parking needed as people substitute use of car club cars for individually owned cars.
  4. Cycling: Your presentation showed the higher levels of cycling in the study area, especially in Village Ward, compared with the borough as a whole. A project to provide hands-on support for cycling to school in 2013-14 was successful in promoting a shift from car travel to responsible and safer cycling. We suggest that this should be reintroduced, with an emphasis on fair and safe sharing of the roads, including vehicle/cycle conflict and perceived danger to pedestrians from cyclists on footways. 
  5. Walking: Your presentation showed that almost two thirds of trips within Dulwich are on foot. We suggest that this share could be further increased by means of improvements to the public realm throughout the study area – including the project to create a walking route to school behind the Herne Hill Velodrome. The Council commissioned a topographical survey in 2014, and are now considering a feasibility study.
  6. Rail: Many people find the rail services to and from West Dulwich and North Dulwich difficult to access. Ramps are needed at the former and lifts at the latter.


  1. General broader objectives: The study should include plans to analyse the impact of different sources of traffic in the area, which need to be addressed in different ways: Through traffic and commuters; Employees working in Dulwich; Students; Shoppers; Residents; and Other users e.g. spectators at sports events, visitors to the parks, local cinema, picture gallery, etc.
  2. The proposals should address the relationship with the New Southwark Plan and the Mayor of London’s Healthy Streets approach, with emphasis on alternatives to car use to reduce air pollution and encourage active lifestyles.
  3. The study should also address the important issue of road safety, including analysis of where road collisions and crashes occur and what might eliminate them.
  4. School travel: The Society agrees with the proposals for school travel, including safety reviews of behaviour by motorists dropping off and picking up pupils and pedestrian and cycle routes to school.
  5. 20 mph enforcement: We would support the Metropolitan Police’s enforcement of the Council’s 20 mph policy and encourage our members to volunteer for Community Speed Watch.
  6. Rat running: We support proposals to reduce rat running, which has increased because of the growth of deliveries by Amazon, etc and use of Satnavs. Of the possible measures which you list, we favour filtered permeability, since one-way restrictions speed up traffic and increase noise.
  7. Weight restrictions: We support weight restrictions on residential roads, e.g. Burbage Road. These may be more required because of diversions of vehicles resulting from the new cycling facilities.
  8. ‘No Idling’: We support plans for ‘no-idling’ regulations. The new cycle routes are squeezing traffic and will continue to do so, resulting in more pollution from the increased delays to traffic.
  9. CPZ implementation: We support a review of extending CPZ south of Half Moon Lane, while acknowledging that this could be controversial and would contribute to further shifts of parking demand to uncontrolled areas.
  10. Electric Charging Points: We recognise some need for Electric Vehicle charging points, though the actual number needs careful consultation because of the impact on residents’ parking and the arrangements made for payments for electricity.
  11. Public transport improvements: We support calls for review of bus services in the southern part of the study area, especially for access to hospitals. We also support calls for step-free access to and from railway platforms, especially at West and North stations.
Go to top