first mate

James, Thanks for this. Do you recall being informed? It is a shame that, to the best of my knowledge, residents on Chesterfield were not made aware of the "new lengths of restrictions" to be installed at the time. Why did the officer pick out this street for special treatment? Do we know where the impetus for these changes came from? Is it anything to do with impending M&S development? This is what I mean by lack of transparency and a creeping agenda being done slowly, bit by bit.

RCH, Thanks again for your input. Think the problem with the process is that it does not feel transparent and so there is a sense that stuff is being slid through; if councillors are not made aware in good time of various changes then what hope the rest of us? Anyhow, agree some proper speed monitoring might help get objective data though even that is of limited use unless compared with many other streets in the area whrre residents could make similar claims. It does not seem to me that barriers will do more than push the problem elsewhere and that is why I am somewhat cynical about any apparent political support for this proposal.I think unless enough people are caught speeding and hit in their purses, there is little that will stop them doing it again. It is human nature. Blocking off roads as a solution is simply barmy.

Post removed because misunderstood above. W, James seems not to have been aware of these plans so hoping he will now get to grips with this and report back, as he says he will, on implications and how to fight it most effectively if it does seem that large slices of parking are to go.

Hi James, Thanks for that and you are welcome. Unless I have missed them elsewhere on the forum, could you let us know what your comments are and whether you are in favour/ supporting these proposals, that is new yellow lines as indicated. It would be good to know what your colleagues think, though understand that you cannot make them tell us.

Hi James, hope you had a good break. Please see the threads on Melbourne Grove and Townley, where there appear to be some new developments. A number of us would be grateful if you, Rosie and Charlie could explain the ramifications and to what extent any of you knew about the proposals?

Nonetheless, I would hope that our locally elected rep would at least come on and give his take on this most recent revelation and explain how he sees this impacting the streets in question, not to mention the wider area. We have to keep thinking of the whole, the sum effects of all these changes, not just street by street.

I really don't think the aim is to reduce speed. The real issue is reducing parking and then cars, this is a more oblique way of doing it. Our local Councillor campaigned long and hard for CPZ so I cannot see that he would object to or stand in the way of anything that achieves a similar result. After all, if parking is sufficiently reduced there will be some that clamour for CPZ. Parking is being reduced by one method or another all over ED and Dulwich, this suits the purposes of the Southwark administration and, I fear, our own Councillor, though I very much hope he comes on here to say I am wrong.

Yes, it looks sneaky. Lots of TMOS with lots of new yellow lines reducing lots of parking spaces, all misleadingly lumped under the title of "consolidation", while we've all been been kept busy focussing on the barrier issue. Well done Woodwarde for spotting this one and rch please do reveal the full extent of the "agenda" when you have had a chance to look. Can I also ask James to comment on the above?

rch, Do the changes you mention about waiting and yellow lines on Melbourne appear in the new Waiting and Loading restrictions Consolidation Order- see below Public notice Consolidation of waiting and loading restrictions The London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 30th July 2015 As you will have seen on the Townley thread some of us are wondering if the above is just consolidation of what already exists or a means to sneak in new restrictions? Sorry if I am taking things of thread, do not mean to just want to understand the above. Further reducing parking on Melbourne and surrounding streets seems madness of the highest order and CPZ by stealth, but I am not surprised at the divide and rule tactics that seem to be going on.

James (Barber) Can you allay our fears?

Again, could one of our local Councillors shed some light on this and whether there are new restrictions or anything new at all, or is it only consolidation of what already exists and has been formally passed?

I will have to check more closely but to me it looked as though new restrictions were being introduced on the road I checked out. Could James Barber explain these TMOs and what impact, if any, they will have?

So could our councillors kindly explain when, how and why this lot was decided? It seems to affect many streets and limits parking even further. Am I mistaken in this?

To get back on thread, what does James propose to do about, as former councillor and colleague RCH calls it " the madness of the barrier" on Melbourne Grove?

If issues like traffic are only dealt with on a ward by ward basis it is easy to see how bad decisions will arise. An overview and sense of the big picture is vital. I cannot see that James should feel limited in any way (limits of human energy aside) in getting "stuck in" on our behalf. Go James go.

RCH, Yes, you have a point in theory but common sense dictates that major changes on traffic flow impacts all the areas not just the individual ward and so eAch ward expects their local councillor to represent them as vigorously as possible. There is a sense that, for whatever reason, this is not happening. But yes, ward boundaries are a useful excuse, when expedient.

ZT hear hear.

People tend to adhere to rules they know will be enforced and ignore those that are not...not condoning this in this case, but it is human nature. 20mph was imposed on the basis drivers would self regulate. As one might expect, some drivers self regulate the majority seem not to bother. If speed cameras are to now be used then there needs to be some warning that self regulation is to be replaced with enforcement by speed camera; I think that is fair and reasonable, especially if the stated aim is to make roads safer rather than generate income.

Again, perhaps our local councillors can tell us?

Well done Jenny, please keep us updated. Amongst the five who signed the deputation request is their a councillor name attached?

I think we should pay close attention to developments in our area and how many are manipulating the system, successfully it would seem, to avoid inclusion of social housing. The further poorly paid staff have to travel in each day, because they cannot afford to live more centrally, whether renting or owning, the worse their performance is likely to be. Public transport is also increasingly stressful. they are unlikely to cycle. Poorly paid staff include low grade care and hospital workers. Do we really want them to feel stretched and resentful, as many do? Until this directly affects you or your family, you will not figure the knock on effects of the way developers and this govt are skewing the housing market. The 'we need more housing' mantra is empty as housing is being created for the wrong sector.

Good point Spider,seems reasonable to tell locals about significant changes in their locale. This is a local imposition, 20 mph is not city wide. Could James let us know if enforcement by camera is imminent?

If there are to be new enforcement cameras I hope that Councillors give fair warning. It currently takes a tremendous effort of will and nerves of steel to stick to 20mph when many behind you are revving and trying to force you to go faster. Sometimes it feels safer to go faster simply to avoid to avoid frequent and reckless overtaking that goes on. There is also some pretty dangerous power cycling going down, cutting across cars at full throttle with no signalling, being just one example.

I think it is all the empty and manipulative rhetoric about how enhancing this development will be for the local area, providing a great backdrop to the park and adding value for all - really vomit inducing.

Jeremy, yes it is, it is there in the detail. ITATM, agree with all you say and also noticed the selective description trotted out for existing businesses. An oversized, incongruous development, happy to bulldoze existing, flourishing businesses literally off the premises.