first mate

It may be useful to remember that Conway and S'wark are so close that I am told Conway actually have an office within S'wark. Perhaps this incident may provide a way to shine a light on what appears to be a slipshod approach to work throughout ED. I am also very sorry for those concerned and so glad a truly serious accident was narrowly avoided.

James, Think we need to stop calling the deputation request a petition. It has been demonstrated that in terms of the Council's own process the list of signatures you refer do does not constitute a petition. As of now, can you as our representative at least call the deputation request by its proper name, just to keep the record straight, please. Huge thanks to EDAus, RCH and others for organising the anti Melbourne block campaign. It would be great if this campaign could be widened to other aspects of ED traffic and road management and that somehow we can begin to get proper scrutiny and oversight of planning and decisions.

There probably needs to be some kind of investigation as to how frequently Conway contracts for Southwark overrun on the quoted schedule for completion. I wonder if there are penalties? How does this affect budgets? We should also consider the knock on effects for residents and whether a monetary value can be placed on that. There will be great interest as to whether Conway hit the advertised date of 31st August for completion of Townley works. Last time I spoke to guys on the ground they said no way. It does show pretty shoddy and chaotic planning and perhaps a sense of things being done on the hoof, to begin work without orders and essential materials well in place.

James, Yes, The Order was made 8th of May 2014, as you say BUT The consultation which the officer states included you, was 10th April 2014, so that must be the date you need to hunt out. It is all there in the document posted earlier. I'd really like to know the rationale for needing to add new lengths of double yellows onto Chesterfield.

Not only that, it is also a matter of whether the inconvenience is worth the changes at all.

James, I've posted this question a number of times now, so hoping you will see it this time? You asked which DCC I was referring to re double yellows on Chesterfield. Please see below, posted by you, where it states you were consulted on the Order that covers those double yellows. I want to know if when consulted you gave a yes or a no? If yes, for what reason and why for new lengths of double yellows to be installed on Chestefield? You were consulted on 10 April 2014. When first asked about the prospect of more double yellows on the forum this year you emailed the council and posted their response, along with this below " Thus is the email I've received and I've responded asking for a guarantee no additional lining of any kind or double yellow lines etc will be added as a consequence. " Southwark Council - Member enquiry Our Reference: 551054 ________________________________________ Dear Councillor Barber Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th August 2015, in which you requested information regarding yellow lines in the East Dulwich ward. I believe you are referring to the recent making and publication of a 'consolidation order'. The traffic order which has been advertised is known as a 'consolidation order' which is exactly this -a consolidation of existing traffic orders to ensure these remain manageable and easy to follow. This London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2015(1) ('the 2015 Order') consolidates the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012(2) ('the 2012 Order') together with the 60 subsequent amendment orders amending the provisions of the 2012 Order. It is deemed best practice (e.g. in guidelines issued by the British Parking Association) for local authorities undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement to regularly consolidate and maintain the traffic orders forming a basis for that enforcement. This follows the Consolidation Order process laid out in Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489). There are no new restrictions being introduced by way of this consolidation order. The yellow lines you have specifically queried at Ashbourne and Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove were originally included in an order made on 8 May 2014 as part of the Lordship Lane area traffic order and sign decluttering review . The name of the Order was the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. 32) Order 2014(3) ('the 2014 Order'). As part of our review process, surveys on street were undertaken by an officer to check that the road markings in existence matched the traffic orders. In the case of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove the traffic order waiting and loading definitions would have been amended to reflect more closely the markings as existed on street. Chesterfield Road had new lengths of restrictions installed at this time. Statutory stakeholders and ward members including yourself were consulted in the process of making the 2014 Order, on 10 April 2014. I trust this addresses your concerns but if you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me. " -------------------- Regards [email protected] 07900 227366 Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward Skype cllrjamesbarber [www.jamesbarber.org.uk] [twitter.com] Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was august 15, 06:33am by first mate. Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was today, 09:23am by first mate.

James, I've posted this question a number of times now, so hoping you will see it this time? You asked which DCC I was referring to re double yellows on Chesterfield. Please see below, posted by you, where it states you were consulted on the Order that covers those double yellows. I want to know if when consulted you gave a yes or a no? If yes, for what reason and why for new lengths of double yellows to be installed on Chestefield? You were consulted on 10 April 2014. When first asked about double yellows you emailed the council and posted their response, along with this below " Thus is the email I've received and I've responded asking for a guarantee no additional lining of any kind or double yellow lines etc will be added as a consequence. " Southwark Council - Member enquiry Our Reference: 551054 ________________________________________ Dear Councillor Barber Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th August 2015, in which you requested information regarding yellow lines in the East Dulwich ward. I believe you are referring to the recent making and publication of a 'consolidation order'. The traffic order which has been advertised is known as a 'consolidation order' which is exactly this -a consolidation of existing traffic orders to ensure these remain manageable and easy to follow. This London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2015(1) ('the 2015 Order') consolidates the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012(2) ('the 2012 Order') together with the 60 subsequent amendment orders amending the provisions of the 2012 Order. It is deemed best practice (e.g. in guidelines issued by the British Parking Association) for local authorities undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement to regularly consolidate and maintain the traffic orders forming a basis for that enforcement. This follows the Consolidation Order process laid out in Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489). There are no new restrictions being introduced by way of this consolidation order. The yellow lines you have specifically queried at Ashbourne and Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove were originally included in an order made on 8 May 2014 as part of the Lordship Lane area traffic order and sign decluttering review . The name of the Order was the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. 32) Order 2014(3) ('the 2014 Order'). As part of our review process, surveys on street were undertaken by an officer to check that the road markings in existence matched the traffic orders. In the case of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove the traffic order waiting and loading definitions would have been amended to reflect more closely the markings as existed on street. Chesterfield Road had new lengths of restrictions installed at this time. Statutory stakeholders and ward members including yourself were consulted in the process of making the 2014 Order, on 10 April 2014. I trust this addresses your concerns but if you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me. " -------------------- Regards [email protected] 07900 227366 Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward Skype cllrjamesbarber [www.jamesbarber.org.uk] [twitter.com] Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was august 15, 06:33am by first mate.

James, You asked which DCC I was referring to re double yellows on Chesterfield. Please see below, posted by you, where it states you were consulted on the Order that covers those double yellows. I want to know if when consulted you gave a yes or a no? If yes, for what reason and why for new lengths of double yellows to be installed on Chestefield? You were consulted on 10 April 2014. " Thus is the email I've received and I've responded asking for a guarantee no additional lining of any kind or double yellow lines etc will be added as a consequence. " Southwark Council - Member enquiry Our Reference: 551054 ________________________________________ Dear Councillor Barber Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th August 2015, in which you requested information regarding yellow lines in the East Dulwich ward. I believe you are referring to the recent making and publication of a 'consolidation order'. The traffic order which has been advertised is known as a 'consolidation order' which is exactly this -a consolidation of existing traffic orders to ensure these remain manageable and easy to follow. This London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2015(1) ('the 2015 Order') consolidates the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012(2) ('the 2012 Order') together with the 60 subsequent amendment orders amending the provisions of the 2012 Order. It is deemed best practice (e.g. in guidelines issued by the British Parking Association) for local authorities undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement to regularly consolidate and maintain the traffic orders forming a basis for that enforcement. This follows the Consolidation Order process laid out in Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489). There are no new restrictions being introduced by way of this consolidation order. The yellow lines you have specifically queried at Ashbourne and Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove were originally included in an order made on 8 May 2014 as part of the Lordship Lane area traffic order and sign decluttering review . The name of the Order was the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. 32) Order 2014(3) ('the 2014 Order'). As part of our review process, surveys on street were undertaken by an officer to check that the road markings in existence matched the traffic orders. In the case of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove the traffic order waiting and loading definitions would have been amended to reflect more closely the markings as existed on street. Chesterfield Road had new lengths of restrictions installed at this time. Statutory stakeholders and ward members including yourself were consulted in the process of making the 2014 Order, on 10 April 2014. I trust this addresses your concerns but if you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me. " -------------------- Regards [email protected] 07900 227366 Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward Skype cllrjamesbarber [www.jamesbarber.org.uk] [twitter.com]

James, You asked which DCC I was referring to re double yellows on Chesterfield. Please see below, posted by you where it states you were consulted on the Order that covers those double yellows. I want to know if when consulted you gave a yes or a no. If yes, for what reason and why for longer double yellows on Chestefield? " Thus is the email I've received and I've responded asking for a guarantee no additional lining of any kind or double yellow lines etc will be added as a consequence. " Southwark Council - Member enquiry Our Reference: 551054 ________________________________________ Dear Councillor Barber Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th August 2015, in which you requested information regarding yellow lines in the East Dulwich ward. I believe you are referring to the recent making and publication of a 'consolidation order'. The traffic order which has been advertised is known as a 'consolidation order' which is exactly this -a consolidation of existing traffic orders to ensure these remain manageable and easy to follow. This London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2015(1) ('the 2015 Order') consolidates the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012(2) ('the 2012 Order') together with the 60 subsequent amendment orders amending the provisions of the 2012 Order. It is deemed best practice (e.g. in guidelines issued by the British Parking Association) for local authorities undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement to regularly consolidate and maintain the traffic orders forming a basis for that enforcement. This follows the Consolidation Order process laid out in Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489). There are no new restrictions being introduced by way of this consolidation order. The yellow lines you have specifically queried at Ashbourne and Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove were originally included in an order made on 8 May 2014 as part of the Lordship Lane area traffic order and sign decluttering review . The name of the Order was the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. 32) Order 2014(3) ('the 2014 Order'). As part of our review process, surveys on street were undertaken by an officer to check that the road markings in existence matched the traffic orders. In the case of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove the traffic order waiting and loading definitions would have been amended to reflect more closely the markings as existed on street. Chesterfield Road had new lengths of restrictions installed at this time. Statutory stakeholders and ward members including yourself were consulted in the process of making the 2014 Order, on 10 April 2014. I trust this addresses your concerns but if you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me. " -------------------- Regards [email protected] 07900 227366 Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward Skype cllrjamesbarber [www.jamesbarber.org.uk] [twitter.com]

I thought it was worth posting the bulk of the newspaper article "Cllr James Barber said: ?The deputation was particularly impressive. They had six speakers and a group of around fifteen to 20 supporters. They had put together a marvellous information pack. ?While there may be some anticipated issues including knock-on effects for neighbouring roads, it is definitely worth investigating. If I lived on Melbourne Grove, I would want it closed.? A resident who lives on nearby Tell Grove, who preferred not be named, said: ?With two new schools coming I think it is worth looking into. My kids and I cycle down Melbourne Grove and cars absolutely race by. It?s not so bad on major roads where cars and cyclists expect each other, but on smaller roads it?s a nightmare and a real danger. ?However, I don?t know if I?m for or against the proposal. If it merely displaced traffic onto other roads then it clearly wouldn?t be the best idea. However, it is certainly something that should be studied.?

rahrahrah and ed_pete, yes okay perhaps I am being excessive but it is just so frustrating to discover that there really does not seem to be an overview of traffic and parking management for the area. I find it hard to believe that elected officials have not given this consideration, especially considering the fairly significant developments that are imminent. My interest is also in the community, I am not affiliated to any political organisation.

rch, no it was me and I too dislike politics..I just think the way this and similar issues are being handled stinks.

Penguin68, Thank you for articulating rather better than I the reality of councillor tactics. Do they really think most of us cannot see through them? It is the paternalistic zealotry that really gets my goat and I agree, how ironic that it's the socialists and libdems creating and driving division to ensure their aim of CPZ wins through.

Some time ago, when these works were first challenged Cllr Barber said the works were being done for safety reasons. many pointed out that the number of accidents on this road was exceeded by some way by other roads in ED. Cllr Barber then shifted his position and stated the following "The NXR/LL has a number of pedestrian movements but primarily these works are to make this junction more pleasant and a better experience." So there you go an expensive and deeply obstructive measure for a somewhat wishy washy reason. Cllr Braber has more recently stated that he is sure it will all be worth it in the end. Okay.

This is why I cannot understand why some Councillors are in support of the barrier. They really need to say that it is part of a broader vision to seriously reduce car ownership; a deliberately oblique means to place as much pressure on ED car owners as possible. Consider what Chesterfield already contends with- the car wash and major impending development of M&S (with stepped up daily lorry deliveries). Councillors have already admitted that they expect M&S to increase parking pressure on surrounding streets, and we must not forget the extra 8-10 flats also to be built on that site. Then Harris and Charter will just be down the road.Are all those children coming in on bikes and buses? I simply cannot believe that Councillors are unaare of these factors or that this is not a deliberate tactic on their part to force through CPZ. Come on guys, if you are so convinced you are right then at least be honest with the local electorate about what you are up to.

One of the things I am interested to know is how blocking off Melbourne would impact on traffic flow on Ldship and other main access roads, given that traffic is likely to increase once the new Harris, the new Charter and M&S are all up and running. Have any projections been done given these considerations? To me it sounds like Ldship Lane could become a place of bumper to bumper traffic misery in the not too distant future; I don't see everyone suddenly jumping onto bicycles, especially in the dark winter months.

Can James Barber please confirm that Nx rd is not to be closed off at the Ldship end? To paraphrase Councillor Barber, the stated aim of these works is to make that area a nicer experience for pedestrians. James has also stated that the new configuration will not in any way affect traffic flow.

James, You have not answered my question about the special lengths of double yellows on Chesterfield, as described in the new consolidation doc. Again Did you approve these when you were informed about them by s'wark officers back in 2014? Can you say for what reason Chesterfield merited longer yellow lines than other streets like Melbourne and Ashbourne?

Yes, reckon that concrete must have dried by now?

Could James ( as the councillor that is a regualr voice on the forum) please comment on rch's points?

rch, my concern is that 'cockup' is a very convenient fig leaf that allows get outs all round. We experienced it with the M&S fiasco when it was claimed, more or less, that officers and councillors had not fully understood the process. So the apparent 'double bind' officrs and councillors may have got themselves into on this occasion leaves me thinking how convenient.

James, hear you about "no new parking restrictions" but can we also say no reduction in areas on which to park? Two slightly different things. Still confused about how and why Chesterfield came to be singled out for special increased lengths of double yellows in the 2014 Order that appears in the consolidation doc . Did you approve this measure when you were informed or was your approval not necessary to that process?

ED_Moots, Quite right and zealots have a way of justifying all kinds of stinky routes and methods if they think it will help achieve their vision.

James, think you should amend your first statement to "some Melbourne Grove residents" and it is not at all clear that "some" in any way represents the majority view on that road. We also know, from back in the day of the old CPZ debate, that highlighting the needs of one street is not a great way to go, since restrictive changes to one tend to impact those around it, usually for the worse. We need an overview of the whole of ED and surrounding areas to try to figure out the best way forward.

James, hear you about "no new parking restrictions" but can we also say no reduction in areas on which to park? Two slightly different things. Still confused about how and why Chesterfield came to be singled out for special increased lengths of double yellows in the 2014 Order that appears in the consolidation doc . Did you approve this measure when you were informed or was your approval not necessary to that process?