@Woodwarde

Looking for a little help! Has anyone used one of the ground anchors available under the East Dulwich crime prevention fund and if so, do you recommend? If not - are there any other recommended makes for ground anchors and accompanying chains. Also any suppliers locally or best to order online. thanks for any pointers.

Spider69 Exactly the same wording for all the Quietways. One just happening now for Calton Avenue and Turney Road. See separate thread. Leading questions with huge potential for the answers to be interpreted to suit. Hence importance of understanding Southwark?s process.

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "According to a friendly workman, TfL has said > that a cycle lane with barrier would make Townley > Road too narrow > for traffic and this is why it has been refused." > > Well it's too narrow now.. but only after they've > gone and made the pavement about 6ft wider. > Massive fail. > > The one bright spot is that tightening everything > up seems to have reduced the right-hook hazard for > southbound cyclists (Green Dale on to Townley) > considerably - and even more so if/when the cycle > traffic lights get the early start we were > promised. Much better visibility between > northbound and southbound queues. > > If there's no cycle lane or barrier, what on earth > was the point of digging up the planted area at > the top of Calton? I see that the cycle lanes are not mandatory ones - which is what the scheme proposed. They are broken lines rather than solid lines. Does this make much difference for cyclists generally? The pavement area still seems to be shared pedestrian/cyclist use which I thought was to end with the new cycle lane.

Leaflets (badged TfL/Sustrans/Southwark) have been delivered in the post to addresses in Turney, Calton, Woodwarde and Court Lane. Not sure where else. The route determined by Southwark is the Calton/Turney route via Dulwich Village Junction. You can complete online with CLOSING date of 17th SEPT at: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/quietway-in-dulwich/consultation/confirm_submit Contact Sustrans 020 7954 3031 [email protected] Key Dates Status: Open Runs from 29 Aug 2015 to 17 Sep 2015 Calton Ave/Townley Rd Junction - walkabouts you can join at peak times Walkabout 1 08.00hrs Thu 17 Sep 2015 Walkabout 2 15.00hrs Thu 17 Sep 2015 Walkabout 3 17.30 hrs Thu 17 Sep 2015 First workshops: intial discussions of possible interventions Wed 23 Sep 2015 18.30-20.30 Southwark Community Sports Trust Pavillion Turney Rd First workshops: Initial discussions of possible interventions Sat 26 Sep 2015 11.00-13.00 St Barnabas Parish Hall, entrance Gilkes Place SE21 Concept Design workshop: Narrowing down the options Sat 3 Oct 2015 1pm-3pm St Barnabas Church, 40 Calton Ave

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But surely S'wark and even the DCC would have > known what would and would not be allowed by TFL > before any works went ahead? You will see from the report for the Statutory Consultation (issued 1st Sept and link posted above on this thread yesterday) does not show objections from the Police, Fire, Ambulance, Haulage and Freight Associations (ie the statutory consultees). It indicates that the segregated cycling lanes and gates will proceed. So the 'technical and legislative' issues referred to by Matt Hill in his letter (posted earlier on this thread) have emerged during build. Possibly the result of safety check and audits; possibly late responses to the consultation. It is unclear why these challenges should emerge so late in the day and whether this situation could have been managed better or avoided. I understand that Matt Hill will attend the DCC meeting next Weds 9th Sept at St Barnabas Church and can shed some light.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50007706&Opt=0 Here is the link to the report from the Statutory consultation phase. During the statutory consultation period, I am aware that a number of residents continued to query the design as reported earlier on this thread. Southwark planners responded that the design was frozen, although different to the design approved at the June DCC meeting by Councillors. This TMO (published on the website 1st Sept) includes the following: 16. A fully segregated cycle lane is proposed between Calton Avenue and Townley Road in order to segregate cyclists from pedestrians and allowing cyclists to bypass the Calton Avenue / Townley Road junction (providing safe, direct access to Townley Road where the segregated cycle lane joins a proposed mandatory cycle lane leading up to the advance cycle waiting area at the junction of East Dulwich Grove). This segregated cycle lane allows the existing shared use footway along the western side of Townley Road to be changed for pedestrian use only, thereby removing potential conflict between cyclists and pedestrians at this location. 17. The mandatory cycle lanes on Townley Road and Green Dale are to ensure cyclists have unobstructed access to the proposed signalised cycle gates. Currently in peak traffic flow periods, motorists indiscriminately form two informal lanes of traffic (especially on Townley Road), which obstructs access to the junction for cyclists that have to either use the footway to access the existing ASL or weave between waiting vehicles. Installing the mandatory cycle lanes will rationalise the lane discipline for general traffic, as well as providing a minimum carriageway width of 1.5m adjacent to the kerb to provide unobstructed access to the junction. 18. The proposed upgrade in kerbside parking restrictions is to remove the potential for indiscriminate parking on the carriageway that would block sightlines to pedestrian crossing points and obstruct mandatory sections of cycle lanes. Therefore these measures are required to improve the safety of vulnerable road users. The proposal will be extending the hours of operation of the existing waiting restrictions in certain areas, and formalising the Order to match existing marked double yellow line restrictions in other areas. There is no extension to the physical length of restrictions and therefore no unrestricted all-day parking spaces will be lost. 26. In relation to point (a) in the table above, the concern is in relation to the loss of ?2 stage right turns? and ?cycle waiting bays?. The two stage right turn proposals have been dropped from the final design, as, since this is a new feature for London, following discussion with Transport for London, the intention is to trial them first at a signalised junction on the Transport for London road network rather than at this site. Assuming such trials are successful, they will be further considered for future implementation at the Townley Road junction. The design as currently proposed for implementation will not prevent such a feature being ?retro-fitted? in future. Cyclists will therefore turn right into either Townley Road or Green Dale from East Dulwich Grove as they do under the current layout. The cycle gate and early start cycle facilities have been retained in Townley Road and Green Dale. The two waiting bays that were proposed have been removed from the final design, as they are now considered unnecessary given the number of cyclists that are expected to be waiting in the cycle lane during any one cycle of the traffic signals. 27. In relation to point (b) in the table above, the width of the buildout has been cut back in the final design to further assist left turning vehicles ? a key concern raised by Dulwich Community Council. Tracking results indicate that vehicles can turn left without conflict. The design has been fully road safety audited. But this TMO does not reflect what has now been built and as we know again from the letter issued by Southwark last week and posted earlier on this thread, the scheme has not passed the safety audits. Plenty of questions to raise at the DCC next week: Venue: St Barnabas Church (church hall) Calton Avenue, London SE21 7DG Contact: Beverley Olamijulo, Constitutional Officer on 020 7525 7234 email [email protected] Documents here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=176&MId=5157

Ignore this inappropriate lobbying by a Cllr? The agenda for the next Dulwich community meeting on Weds 9th Sept at 7pm is at the following venue and link: Venue: St Barnabas Church (church hall) Calton Avenue, London SE21 7DG Contact: Beverley Olamijulo, Constitutional Officer on 020 7525 7234 email [email protected] Agenda: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=176&MId=5157&Ver=4 The agenda also has a link to the draft minute of the June meeting which anyone can comment on if this record is not accurate. Here is the draft relating to the Melbourne pro-barrier petition (item 6) and you will see that there is no element that refers to a Cllr or group pre-determining the terms of reference for any study. Anyone who attended the June meeting may also want to comment on this minute and its reflection of what was said and agreed. Now is the time to make your voice heard. 6. DEPUTATION /PETITIONS The community council received a deputation from Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group. Ros Atkins, spokesperson for the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action group addressed the meeting and presented data and provided information on a local survey which suggested that the traffic situation in Melbourne Grove was a major concern for residents that lived on Melbourne Grove, some of whom were present at the meeting. The main concerns that were expressed at the meeting were speeding motorists, citing that this road was being used as a rat run and that this was causing safety concerns particularly for children and older people. The spokesperson stated following a local consultation which was undertaken by residents, the information gathered showed that 90% of respondents in the neighbouring streets were in favour of traffic calming measures (potentially a barrier) on Melbourne Grove. The deputation also presented a petition that contained 138 signatures from local residents. It was outlined that in signing the petition, residents of Melbourne Grove, south of East Dulwich Grove requested that the council place a barrier across their street at a 3 Dulwich Community Council - Wednesday 24 June 2015 point between the junctions with Tell Grove and Ashbourne Grove. The deputation outlined that there should be better speed limit signage and other speed calming measures available to the council to consider as alternatives. The deputation referred to police data, which outlined that 76% of vehicles were speeding along Melbourne Grove. In addition the spokesperson stated that there were two new schools which would be located in the area ? causing more traffic congestion on the roads. It was suggested by the deputation that having a barrier would be the quickest, cheapest and most effective way to resolve this problem. During questions a local resident referred to previous traffic surveys that were conducted on Melbourne Grove and those surveys outlined that there were no major traffic implications that needed addressing at the time. Members of the community council mentioned that any proposals for a barrier on Melbourne Grove could cause some displacement for the neighbouring streets like Townley Road. Members felt it was important to explore all options ? e.g. better signage, introduction of a 20 mph zone and that if a barrier was considered, that it would be on a trial basis. At this point members further debated on the issue and proposed that the following motion below: RESOLVED: That the community council agreed that the council should undertake a traffic study (allocation of ?10k from the cleaner greener safer funding for a study) in order to evaluate the correct option for Melbourne Grove taking into account neighbouring roads ? Townley Road, Ashbourne Grove and Chesterfield Road.

Latest update. Not running to schedule and it seems from this that the cycling components have yet to receive legislative approval? From: Hill, Matthew [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 August 2015 16:14 To: ????????? Cc: Merrill, Darren Subject: Townley Road junction improvements - update Dear all Please find attached an update letter regarding the construction works at Townley Road/East Dulwich Grove junction. Apologies to anyone who feels too remote but I wanted to ensure as many as possible who may be affected are aware. Please feel free to cascade this information via your networks as you see fit particularly for the directly affected schools. Kind regards Matt. Public Realm Projects Direct Dial ? 0330 337 1001 28th August 2015 To whom it may concern Dear Sir / Madam Notification of changes to delivery dates at the Townley Road /East Dulwich Grove junction improvement scheme Due to a number of unforeseen circumstances we are unfortunately unable to fully complete the works at this junction before the school term starts on Thursday 3rd September. However please be assured that the junction will be operating safely and our staff and supervisors will be paying particularly close attention to site safety once the school term commences. All areas of the upgraded footways around the junction will be open in full with the exception of the footway located on the south-west (ie Dulwich Village) side of Townley Road. However we will maintain sufficient safe access along this route to allow students and others to pass in a safe and secure manner. We will continue with the footway works on Townley Road between 08:00 hours and 17:00 hours (Monday to Saturday), weather permitting. The footway works will be completed in full by 30th September 2015. During this period pedestrian access will be available continuously and the works area will be segregated with barriers. The carriageway of Townley Road will be re-opened to all traffic by Wednesday 2nd September with permanent traffic signals and street lighting operational. Unfortunately, due to some technical and legislative complications, the full cycle facilities are not able to be implemented at this time. I anticipate the full cycle facilities being completed later in the autumn but this is subject to TfL, the authority responsible for traffic signals, completing trials at a different location and DfT authorisation being agreed. We are very conscious that these works may cause some disruption to you and your students; however we will endeavour to keep this to a minimum during the remainder of the works. Should you have any queries regarding the execution of the works, or you have any specific access requirements, please do not hesitate to contact Mick Hurley, contracts supervisor at Conway Aecom call centre on 0330 337 1001 where we will do our best to assist you. Please quote the borough and site location on calling, or contact us via email, [email protected]. If you have any questions relating to the future implementation of the cycle facilities, please contact the client team directly at [email protected]. We apologise for any inconvenience caused. We hope you appreciate that the short term inconvenience will be worthwhile given the long term benefits to the community of the planned improvements. Yours faithfully, CONWAY AECOM

Interesting to see this order appear for Play Streets on Melbourne Grove. These usually take place on a Sunday when it is better for all surrounding streets. Hopefully all affected have been notified adequately. Anyone know more about play streets and the process for applying? The Council of the London Borough of Southwark PUBLIC NOTICE: ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984 ? SECTION 16A THE (RESTRICTION OF TRAFFIC) SPECIAL EVENTS ORDER 2015 Road Melbourne Grove (ps) Extent: Ashbourne Grove ? Tell Grove Days: Saturday 5th September Saturday 3rd October Saturday 7th November Prohibited Hours: 12pm ? 2pm 6. For information regarding this notice, please contact Parking & Road Network Management on 0207 525 2014. Dated this 27th August 2015 Nicky Costin Road Network & Parking Business Manager

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi All > > I thought I'd post the full Southwark Council > officer's report about Melbourne Grove traffic to > help the debate. > ............ Jenny1 Very helpful. I have not seen many of these Southwark officer briefings for the DCC Councillors as they do not seem to make it to the DCC report pack. Good to see this one. It gives a clear steer, echoes the April police traffic survey findings that the speeds are contained within expected limits and states that MG is not a problem or priority area in the broader set of priorities for Southwark. And so on the back of this briefing, Ward Councillors agreed a ?10k CSG funding allocation. This does not appear to be an appropriate use of public money.

Would it not have needed to be part of the LPA process too if it was a change to restrictions, not simply road resurfacing?

How can this be? This is a Consolidation document and anything in it should have been through the TMO process. This is what the Local Parking Amendments (LPA) prcess is about, with its forward plan and approval process: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/2766/local_parking_amendments/3

rch In the vein of Southwark following its formal process and correct me please if I am wrong.... This is a consolidation document and anything in it should have been agreed and have been through the TMO process before appearing in here. So is the Tell Grove proposal jumping the gun? If so, perhaps other changes have also slipped through the net.

First Mate I think 2 consultations re parking might affect Melbourne and associated roads. 1. One-hour parking for shops consulation and outcome I have not kept track of the final outcome but this would possibly affect the LLane end of Tell, Asbourne etc and Lordship Lane itself. I can ask Councillors about this. 2. Yellow lines for Melbourne at side street junctions (Tell, Ashbourne and beyond). I understand that these are on the Council radar now, alongside the barrier/speeding debate. No idea if any of these have jumped the gun and made it into the Consolidation document referenced earlier in this thread. Hopefully someone who lives on Melbourne can check that. It is probably unlikely but worth a check. Will be interesting to see what Cllrs are able to advise.

James do these changes come as local parking amendments - LPAs: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/2766/local_parking_amendments And if so, is this the process and are we in the Quarter 2 phase for changes to happen in December 2015? http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/2766/local_parking_amendments/2 Programme, as follows. 2015/16 We have a quarterly programme of works during 2015/16 as follows: Quarter 1 (for items received during March and May 2015) ?Site investigations - March to May 2015 ?Reports to community council - June to July 2015 ?Traffic orders - July to August 2015 ?Implementation - September to October 2015 Quarter 2 (for items received between June and August 2015) ?Site investigations - June to August 2015 ?Reports to community council - September to October 2015 ?Traffic orders - October to November 2015 ?Implementation - December 2015 to January 2016 Quarter 3 (for items received between September and December 2015) ?Site investigations - September and December 2015 ?Reports to community council - January to February 2016 ?Traffic orders - March to April 2016 ?Implementation - May to June 2016 Quarter 4 (for items received between January and March 2016) ?Site investigations - January and March 2016 ?Reports to community council - April 2016 ?Traffic orders - May to June 2016 ?Implementation - July to August 2016

More at the link below on TMO. Yellow lines are notified to the police and so our local police reps should have been party to the consultation if the detail of the process below has been followed. If these yellow lines on Melbourne are new then we can ask the police what they think?. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200083/roadworks_and_highway_improvements/1957/traffic_management_orders Traffic management orders The traffic management order process and statutory consultation This page provides information about traffic management orders and notices for permanent and experimental schemes generated from within the council. Information regarding temporary traffic orders - e.g. for road closures to enable streetworks or construction, is available here. Traffic management orders (TMOs) are documents which provide the legal backing for the enforcement of road, traffic or parking schemes under the relevant national legislation. Follow traffic order consultations to view statutory consultation documents for current road, traffic or parking schemes. A form for responding to these consultations is provided here. A selection of frequently requested traffic orders are also available. Permanent orders Permanent orders give rise to the majority of signs and lines that are placed on streets. Examples of these are: Single/double yellow lines Parking places Prohibited and compulsory turns One-way traffic working Speed limits Please note, not all on street restrictions require an order, bus stop clearways and box junctions being two examples. Experimental orders Experimental orders are used to enable the council to monitor the effect and vary as necessary. The duration of an experimental order lasts no more than eighteen months before they are either: allowed to lapse, amended or made permanent. Road humps and pedestrian crossings TMOs are not required for road humps or pedestrian crossings but similar procedures with regards to Public Notices and objections apply. TMO Procedures By law, the council is required to publish notices in a local newspaper which advertise the proposal and effects of TMOs. In some cases the notices are also published in the London Gazette. You can view our traffic order consultations to view notices and statutory consultation documents for current road, traffic or parking schemes. If the council feels additional publicity is needed for a TMO they can choose to erect notices on lamp columns in the street to which any TMO proposal relates. In the case of permanent and experimental orders the council must consult statutory bodies such as the Police, Ambulance, Fire Brigade, Bus Operators, Road Haulage Association and Freight Transport Association. Also, other stakeholders such as cycling and disability groups will be contacted if any TMOs affect them. How to object to or make a representation in respect of a proposed TMO The way in which you can object to or make a representation in respect of a proposed TMO is outlined in the Public Notice and a deadline by which any such objections or representations should be received given. The council is legally obliged to consider every objection that is sent, and will reply in due course to acknowledge that objection, and to inform you of the appropriate decision maker's determination of that objection. A form for responding to TMO consultations is available here. After the making of a TMO, if the public feel the council has not followed the correct procedures in making the order they can appeal to the High Court within six weeks of the TMO being made. More about Traffic management orders

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2558/traffic_orders the Traffic Management Orders are at this link The Cabinet decisions are at this link Decisions http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDelegatedDecisions.aspx?DS=0&bcr=1 Neither of these seem to cover the Melbourne Grove parking (yellow line) changes back to Nov 2014. I understand (but may be wrong) that changes to yellow lines are the subject of TMOs and should be consulted beforehand even if an informal consulation has taken place beforehand. Southwark website says: For further assistance please contact the constitutional team on 020 7525 7055 or [email protected] Although the people to ask seems to be: Nicky Costin Road network and parking business unit manager Public Realm or Matt Hill Public Realm so worth you asking if some of the changes on Melbourne Grove are new and have not been the subject of TMO. You would need to live there to know.

Here's what it says. Has this been through consultation? 658. MELBOURNE GROVE (a) both sides, between the southern kerb-line of Grove Vale and a point 10 metres south of that kerb-line; At any time SCHEDULE 1 -WAITING RESTRICTIONS LBS_2015_082.docx Page 272 of 470 Item No. (1) Street or length of street (2) Prescribed hours (3) (b) the east, south-east and north-east side (i) between a point 1.5 metres north-east of the common boundary of Nos. 7 and 9 Melbourne Grove and the common boundary of Nos. 13-15 and 17 Melbourne Grove; At any time (ii) between a point 11.5 metres north-west of the north-western kerb-line of East Dulwich Grove and a point 13 metres southeast of the south-eastern kerb-line of East Dulwich Grove; At any time (iii) between a point 5.3 metres north of the northern kerb-line of Ashbourne Grove and a point 5 metres south of the southern kerb-line of Ashbourne Grove; At any time (iv) between the southern kerb-line of Chesterfield Grove and a point 7.8 metres south of that kerb-line; At any time (v) between the north-western kerb-line build-out of Lordship Lane and a point 12 metres north-west of that kerb-line; At any time © the west and south-west side (i) between a point 10 metres south of the southern kerb-line of Grove Vale a point 3 metres north-east of the south-western wall of Nos. 5/6 Melbourne Terrace, Melbourne Grove; 8.30 am to 6.30 pm Monday to Saturday (ii) between a point 1.5 metres north-east of the south-western wall of No. 2 Melbourne Grove and a point 5.5 metres northwest of the common boundary of Nos. 4 and 6 Melbourne Grove; At any time (iii) between a point 4 metres north-west of the north-western kerb-line of Jarvis Road and a point 4 metres south-east of the south-eastern kerb-line of Jarvis Road; At any time (iv) between a point 11.5 metres north-west of the north-western kerb-line of East Dulwich Grove and a point 13.5 metres south-east of the south-eastern kerb-line build-out of East Dulwich Grove; At any time (v) between the north-western kerb-line of Lordship Lane and a point 9.8 metres north-west of that kerb-line. At any time

James Barber Wrote: > Hi Woodwarde, > Melbourne Grove doesn't have 1200 properties. > The study will go through all this and quite > possibly will invove and orginigation and > destination element to inform us. I am misquoted. I referred to the property count across Melbourne and connected roads. Some such as Playfield have to exit onto Melbourne. The traffic count includes any movements by local residents of which there would be outbound and return journeys. Some idea of house counts here as a starting point: southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/3022/r14_neighbourhood_area_lordship_lane Can be refined by seeing which are divided into flats rather than single properties. I will ask the local estate agents and check with the Council unless a helpful Councillor wants to offer this data for each road.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- ................... > Mockingbird, you're a genius! Supporters of the > barrier have been quoting 2000 vehicles per day, > citing this as extreme for a residential road, but > of course the total figure should be divided by > 14, not 7... duh! I reckon that there are roughly > 175-200 vehicles along here owned by residents > themselves, which means that up to half of the > 1000 movements a day could simply Melbourne > residents going about their normal daily business, > not even including the residents of the side > streets. > > Penguin, I completely agree with you. Furthermore, > any HGV issues could be dealt with by implementing > build outs at the Chesterfield junction, which > would also act as speed calming measures if they > are designed properly. Or maybe something as > simple as a pedestrian island there would work. > But it's really not that bad around here, so I can > understand why the council hasn't wanted to spend > the money. RCH, you are probably correct. At an average of 1000 vehicles per day, are there some 1200 plus properties on Melbourne and immediate connected roads? If so, then say at a low end assumption of 20% of those vehicles moving in the day, that could mean 240 vehicles moving (so 480 (240x2) vehicle movements registered per day) which would reduce this vehicle count by 50% to approx 500 vehicles.

ZT - thank you. Got it. LBS 2012/116 This is the number of the previous version and I can't find a copy online. It would have been simple to compare the new version with the old (by street) to see what had changed since 2012. If you 'google': LBS 2012/116 southwark, you can see some individual TMOs during 2015 but it is not a comprehensive list before that. It does not include the very extensive consultation on One-Hour parking restriction changes for Shops across Southwark - if you recall the debate about Lordship Lane and Dulwich changes on EDF some time back. Not sure what was approved from that consultation but no doubt any changes from it are in this 2015 consolidation.

ZT Consolidation order - how should these work and be interpreted? If I understand what you are indicating, they are not Consultation documents but an update of a main document that summaries all the parking and waiting restictions for the area. The document would therefore incorporate any changes that had been the subject and passed through a separate TMO process. So we should be able to identify an earlier TMO that consulted on specific changes. A consolidation with no highlighting of changes from the previous version does not make this very useful

Quietway cycling route in Champion Hill - part of EC to Crystal Palace proposed route. Consultation open at this link until 23rd Aug. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/quietway-cycling-route-in-chamption-hill/consult_view Key Dates Consultation is Open; Runs from 27 Jul 2015 to 23 Aug 2015 Feedback expected 30 September 2015 Quietway drop-in event #1 Mon 3 Aug 2015 Quietway drop-in event #2 Thu 6 Aug 2015 Quietway drop-in event #3 Mon 10 Aug 2015 Quietway drop-in event #4 Wed 12 Aug 2015 Not many questions but note: 7 Do you think a road closure on Champion Hill at the junction with Dog Kennel Hill is a good idea? Yes No Not sure 8 Do you think a one-way system (two way for cyclists) for southbound vehicle traffic between Denmark Hill and the raised junction on Champion Hill is a good idea? Yes No Not sure The Format will be the same for the Calton & Turney route no doubt.

Any news on the Townley Statutory consultation TMO yet - is the report available for example? Also, a new TMO up. Waiting and loading restrictions across a very large number of roads in Southwark but includes Townley, East Dulwich Grove and many roads off Lordship Lane. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2558/traffic_orders ? Consolidation of waiting and loading restrictions - public notice dated 30 July 2013 (3.36 MB PDF) EXTRACT: Easier to see on the document but identifies road, area and road restriction to be applied. Example: Item Number 994. TOWNLEY ROAD (a) the north and north-east side (i) between the western kerb-line of Lordship Lane and a point 13.5 metres west of that kerb-line; At any time (ii) between a point 13 metres south-east of the south-eastern kerb-line of the south-easternmost vehicular access to Alleyn?s School and a point 8 metres north-west of the northwesternmost kerb-line of the south-easternmost vehicular access to Alleyn?s School; At any time (iii) between a point 29 metres north-west of the north-western kerb-line of the south-easternmost vehicular access to Alleyn?s School and the south-eastern kerb-line of the northwesternmost vehicular access to Alleyn?s School; At any time (iv) between the south-eastern kerb-line of the northwesternmost vehicular access to Alleyn?s School and a point 44.5 metres south-east of the south-eastern kerb-line of East Dulwich Grove; 8 am to 10 am 3 pm to 5 pm Monday to Friday (v) between the south-eastern kerb-line of East Dulwich Grove and a point 44.5 metres south-east of that kerb-line; At any time (b) the south and south-west side (i) between the western kerb-line of Lordship Lane and a point 11.9 metres west of that kerb-line; At any time (ii) between a point 6 metres east of the north-eastern kerb-line of Beauval Road and a point 1.5 metres west of the southwestern kerb-line of Beauval Road; At any time (iii) between a point 3.5 metres south-east of the south-eastern kerb-line of Dovercourt Road and a point 3 metres northwest of the north-western kerb-line of Dovercourt Road; At any time (iv) between a point 1.5 metres south-east of the north-western boundary of No. 24 Townley Road and a point 67 metres south-east of a point opposite the south-eastern kerb-line of the south-easternmost vehicular access to Alleyn?s School; 8 am to 10 am 3 pm to 5 pm Monday to Friday (v) between a point 7 metres south-east of a point opposite the south-eastern kerb-line of the south-easternmost vehicular access to Alleyn?s School and a point 38.5 metres south-east of the south-eastern kerb-line of East Dulwich Grove; 8 am to 10 am 3 pm to 5 pm Monday to Friday (vi) between the south-eastern kerb-line of East Dulwich Grove and a point 38.5 metres south-east of that kerb-line. At any time

FYI; One of our Cllrs has received this from Southwark and has shared it. Very helpful - although I guess the police could change their stance. ..... The camera in question is a replacement red light camera that has been installed by Transport for London (TfL) as part of their camera upgrade programme. All such cameras are managed by TfL and operated by the police. It is expected that this camera will become operational within the next couple of weeks once the Police have completed their testing. This camera will be enforcing cars that jump the red lights. Although it also has the capability of enforcing the 20mph speed limit, in this instance, the police will not use this option for safety reasons due to the bend in the road.