Andrew1011

Thanks for clarifying thst Jenny.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t quite see how 15% of vehicles going 25% > over the speed limit is not a significant amount > of speeding. Regardless of the fact that the limit > is 20mph not 25mph - would anyone use the > argument that because only 15% of people were > breaking the law it isn?t a problem, for any other > type of illegal behaviour? I doubt it's any different for any other through road in the area and most people, quite reasonably in my view, wouldn't want Melbourne Grove to become a precedent for others to call for their roads to be closed to traffic. > > Surely this is an issue for residents of Melbourne > Grove ? not Black Cab drivers from Stanwell that > the online petition is attracting. I'd hope the names addresses of signatories will be taken into account (e.g. checked against the electoral roll), as it rightly should be, by those receiving the latest petition. However, this is not just an issue for Melbourne Grove residents as it is bound to impact on the other roads and the local area. A key role of a local authority, or indeed a community council in Southwark, is to look at issues strategically in terms of the area it covers; not simply road by road.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There may be an impact on MG due to the new > schools, healthcentre and M&S but it's hardly > impending. The schools haven't been built and the > won't be fully operational at maximum capacity for > several (5+) years. As for the health centre well > they've not even broken ground yet so I won't hold > my breath for the impact of that one either. Clearly the speed at which modern developments take place has escaped you.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry to split hairs but the petition calls for a > traffic management study, no mention is made of > policy. Whats this study going to cost and how > would it differ to the one proposed by the other > group ? Who will be responsible for its remit ? > > Is there really a problem here at all ? I suspect > that some people will have signed the petition > because they don't want a barrier rather than > perceiving theres a problem that needs to be > solved that will use vital council resources. As a Melbourne Grove resident who is opposed to a barrier, I think people signing the petition accept that, with iminent changes afoot (two new shools, one at the end of MG and the other in the middle, plus a new polyclinc-like medical centre and access to the loading area of the new M&S on Chesterfield Grove) there will need to be some kind of traffic management study. My argument is that, if there is going to be a study - and there probably does need to be one - then it should be undertaken at the appropriate time and fully consider the impact of those significant developments on the wider area, as detailed in the second petition. I doubt you'll agree or be convinced but those, as far as I'm concerned, are the perfectly valid reasons.

ED_moots Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ed_pete the second petition is primarily a > rebuttal to the first, where a problem has been > concocted and presented to the DCC in order to > justify the effective closure of a well used road. > It set a worrying precedent when the DCC accepted > the initial deputation as a real problem and > diverted CGS funding to grease the wheels since > the council officers report confirmed there was no > speeding issue and MG would not be considered for > a barrier. > > The part about wanting a cohesive traffic policy > is just common sense in my opinion, every urban > community should have some sort of transport plan > in the interests of ALL road (and pavement) users; > and not least to prevent trumped up schemes being > given credence by the DCC. Hear hear; very well put.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mikeb Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This Ros Atkins? > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ros_Atkins > > I don't think it's helpful to pick on individual > residents or to personalise the debate. And yet he is apparently perfectly happy to personally write to people asking them to support a barrier and for his name, address, phone number and email address alone to be on that letter. He already appears to have somewhat personalised it himself.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OK James, so long as you stop slagging off Labour > at every opportunity and telling us how great the > Lib Dems are by comparison. Hear hear.

I got two more signatures on the paper petition last night. I'll drop it off to you shortly.

buddug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Call me a conspiracy theorist, but it's strange it > should be happening now, when the voting for > Labour leader is still open. Southwark is after > all Blairite New Labour and they are getting > desperate... Yes you're right, you are a conspiracy theorist.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > unlawful expenditure > > This is where the District Auditor comes in and > councillors get surcharged? > > John K Don't get too excited.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Andrew1011, > Every local promise I and my colleagues have made > to East Dulwich we deliver in each term after > being elected/re elected. Don't obfuscate, you know I am talking nationally - which was also what you were talking about. > And yes your right politically we should have > stuck to our guns over tuition fees and sacrificed > other policies we wanted - in my view. But we > wouldn't have had things like the pupil premium. > But Labour introduced the fees having promised in > manifesto's not and then increased them after > promising in manifestos not to and not having to > dilute and compromise due to coalitions. My point was not that you should have stuck to your guns over tuition fees at all and diversionary waffling about one or two other issues doesn't take away the fact that your party propped up the most right-wing government sine the war (except this one obvs). My point is that your fellow Orange Booker Liberals jumped into bed with the Tories at the first available opportunity. Your near electoral wipe-out was due to the chickens quite justifiably coming home to roost.

You can do that. However, I will be contacting the committee officer and recommending that others do as well. I'm assuming that an error was made at the meeting by accepting a petition not gathered or presented in line with procedure. If there was an error the committee officer will seek to have it put right. Obviously if that doesn't happen, and there is unlawful expenditure or a resulting probity issue, then I'd suggest contacting the monitoring officer at that point. Whether there has been any councillor misconduct in this process will likely come out in the wash.

richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have you ever seen Cllr Barber say he got it wrong > badly. Only look at how brilliant I am Very true that. I was reading his column in SE22 magazine over the weekend and it's full of his 'I'm really chuffed with myself' self-congratulation. He really does need to get his articles proofread though.

hopskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James Barber Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > A little premature given the evidence now coming > forward to show that some of the signatures used > for the first deputation did not sign up to > support a barrier. And the significant number who > are now objecting to it outright. The original > deputation request could be considered void. > > I think that the DCC would we wise to look at the > allocation of funding again and whether it was > justified in the first place. Rather than jumping > to 'terms of reference'. > I hope they will do that when evidence of the dodginess of the original petition accompanying the last deputation is presented. It's probably also important for several people to write to the council officer responsible for procedural matters at the DCC to alert them to the alleged irregularities in the previous petition in order to get it and the consequent decision reviewed before the DCC meeting.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Always worth reading the small print before voting in local > elections. Hi James As has already been pointed out, it's clearly not worth reading the small print in any Liberal Democrat manifesto, because once they sniffed the first chance of power in a 100 years it and their their so called 'principles' went out of the window. You can repeat the stupid mantra of 'we did it to give the country stable government' because that wasn't the reality at all. The country saw through what the duplicitous Liberal Democrats were up to with their 'Orange Bookers masquerading in social democrat clothing when it suits' stance. A local example of this, of course, was your now ex-Southwark MP claiming to his constituency residents to be opposed to the bedroom tax while voting in favour of it in the region of seven times. You can fool some of the people, etc. comes to mind.

hopskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Our Councillors should have provided the necessary > facts and viable options to avoid this issue > escalating and dividing the community. I quite agree with that and, as an non-parochial ED and Melbourne Grove resident, I have been lobbying as hard as I can to ensure things are dealt with properly and that the earlier apparent steamrollering stops.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi hopskip, > A fellow East Dulwich councillor suggested to them > several options including closing the road at the > northern end. As usual, this is utter disingenuous rubbish which, at worst, misrepresents what the other councillor said or, at best, completely and conveniently misses the wider context of what he did say, and how the broader possible options available for traffic calming were presented. Councillor Smith listed the possible options, of which a barrier was just one of the many availabe. The people who organised the deputation then, probably - and from what I've read on this forum and in the local press - encouraged by you have only pursued that one of all of the options. Indeed they are still pursuing that as the only option, given the printed letter I received on Saturday sent on behalf of the pro-barrier 'group' calling itself "Melbourne Grove Traffic Action". They must be pretty browned off with you, given your recent apparent Damascene conversion from their 'a barrier at all costs' cause and your previous publicly stated line of: "If I lived on Melbourne Grove I'd want it closed off".

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've always said it sounded like a good idea from > Cllr Charlie Smith. My understanding is that Cllr Charlie Smith gave a list of traffic calming possibilities of which a road closing barrier could be just one potential option. I also understand that when hearing of that possibility it was quickly taken up by those presenting the 'petition' as the only acceptable option, possibly encouraged in that by you. Hence you saying: 'If I lived on Melbourne Grove I'd want it to be closed off'. So it seems you may be selectively quoting Cllr Smith and possibly in a context that suits you. You've alleged that I've taken that quote from you out of context but you've so far failed to say what the full context is, especially for the benefit of those of your constituents who didn't see the original newspaper article, and how else you should have been additionally quoted to show the full and correct context. Over to you...

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The idea of closing that section of Melbourne > Grove is appealing and I'm keen to see what an > officer report says would be the consequences and > also other options and consequences. What was it you were quoted as saying in the press? Wasn't it 'if I lived on Melbourne Grove I'd want it to be closed off'? Or words to that effect. > You have me banged to rights for trying to help > people. Nice try, but we know you were seeking to pre-empt the feasibility study and, in doing so, get your picture on the front page of a local newspaper, on the misleading basis of only trying to 'help people'.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Andrew1011, > Are you speaking as resident of Melbourne Grove? > The police said they were amazed at how many > vehicles use the southern section of Melbourne > Grove each day. Looking at traffic stat for all > our local roads it clearly is experiencing much > more traffic than 90% of the other residential > roads in the area. > What else would I be speaking as in this case? There seems to be a lot of disagreement about what the statistics show about Melbourne Grove, and yours doesn't strike me as an accurate interpretation of them. Admit it James, you've shot your bolt on this one by jumping on a bandwagon and rushing to be quoted in the press as being in favour of what was only mentioned by one of your councillor colleagues as just one possible option of many, if any were required, to calm traffic. Closure has clearly been jumped on as the only acceptable option by those who organised the 'petition'; probably encouraged in that by you.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In Clapham similar problems with rat runs were > fixed with a combination of barriers and one way > streets. I know all of Melbourne Grove well and there isn't a problem with rat running, it's simply the self-justifying mantra that James Barber has chosen to run with. If it ain't broke (and statistics don't show that it is) don't fix it; especially before the impact of two new schools and a new medical facility - none, as yet, even built - are known and fully understood, as well as the effect of any consequent displacement likely to be caused by closure on surrounding roads.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Charles - Melbourne Grove is on the border of two > Wards so 6 out of the 9 DCC councillors are > directly involved. As for the other 3 I guess you > have to ask them. Of course one of the other three councillors who Cllr Barber would wish not to 'dictate to other wards' is also the Member of Parliament for our constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood. I certainly wouldn't expect her inevitably wider and more strategic views to be dictated by parochial thinking and the non-strategic views of one or two councillors.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, I'm finding that this forum is very > useful for residents to communicate with other > residents as there is really no other structure > for us to access information and share and analyse > it, whereas cllrs and council officers have an > inherent internal structure which I'm finding is > very difficult for residents to access. This is one of the main issues never really resolved by the Southwark Democracy Commission (2010) which was supposed to have dealt with and decoded the more or less impenetrable council - officer and political - structures which hinder wider involvement.

Charles Notice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Question. > > Do all ED Cllrs have to agree on a policy like > this> > > If 2 are against can the third still push for it > to happen? Decisions at Dulwich Community Council have to have a majority of the nine councillors in the three wards (East Dulwich, College and Village) which make up the devolved community council. So it's worth ensuring that all nine councillors are aware of other opinions on this matter. > Why do we never hear from the other 2 on this > matter. My understanding is that Councillor Barber is the official mouthpiece for ED (and Southwark) Liberal Democrats with tbe other Lib Dem councillor being not only practically invisible in East Dulwich generally but also invisible on EDF. Our other (Labour) councillor, having apparently only made a couple of not well received ventures onto this forum, appears to have given up on using social media. The key to this issue will be influencing the other seven councillors, as two - intentionally or otherwise - do appear to have made known their view on the issue of this barrier.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > We've all gone around and around this which seems > a bit premature at this point. Premature? I don't think so. Unless people act now, and we will, it will allow things like this to be slithered in by default or stealth ("Oh it's too late, you should have said/done something sooner"), and unopposed by those local councillors who seem to be broadly in favour of these ridiculous wasting of money measures anyway.