hopskip

https://www.change.org/p/lambeth-council-reverse-the-loughborough-junction-road-closures-now?recruiter=9143844&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-xs-share_petition-no_msg Note this petition - the closure of Loughborough Junction is adding to local congestion at Red Post Hill and Herne Hill. See separate thread. P4 seriously affected

Signed............

It would be helpful to have the Adys Rd back here. Same as Loughborough Junction knock on effects and very connected to the Quietway debates. Anything on local development is helpful and raises awareness of the interconnecting issues that are emerging across Dulwich and neighbouring areas.

Copied from the Townley thread but central to this thread. Note the meeting this coming Saturday - to focus on a preferred option. Whose preferred option one may ask..... Tessmo: Hello, Richard Tudor. The second Sustrans workshop on Saturday was a general introductory one again - the same as the first one - and people were invited to put symbols on maps to show where they'd like pedestrian crossings, etc. The four TfL designs for the junction of Court Lane/Dulwich Village were presented again - all giving priority to Calton Avenue, and two making Court Lane one way. It was stressed that these TfL designs were only the first stage, to help discussion - but how four designs that were essentially the same was supposed to help discussion I'm not sure. The 'concept design workshop' which looks at everything people have said so far, and tries to narrow down the options, is this Saturday 3 October from 1pm to 3pm at St Barnabas CHURCH (not parish hall) in Calton Avenue, SE21 7DG. As far as I'm aware, you can still turn up and object to the whole process if you want to. As someone at Saturday's meeting said, the Court Lane/Dulwich Village junction is key. If, for example, Calton Avenue is given the priority, so it becomes a much more attractive short cut for cars, fiddling about with pedestrian crossings is all a waste of time.

Tessmo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello, Richard Tudor. The second Sustrans workshop > on Saturday was a general introductory one again > - the same as the first one - and people were > invited to put symbols on maps to show where > they'd like pedestrian crossings, etc. The four > TfL designs for the junction of Court Lane/Dulwich > Village were presented again - all giving > priority to Calton Avenue, and two making Court > Lane one way. It was stressed that these TfL > designs were only the first stage, to help > discussion - but how four designs that were > essentially the same was supposed to help > discussion I'm not sure. > > The 'concept design workshop' which looks at > everything people have said so far, and tries to > narrow down the options, is this Saturday 3 > October from 1pm to 3pm at St Barnabas CHURCH (not > parish hall) in Calton Avenue, SE21 7DG. As far as > I'm aware, you can still turn up and object to the > whole process if you want to. As someone at > Saturday's meeting said, the Court Lane/Dulwich > Village junction is key. If, for example, Calton > Avenue is given the priority, so it becomes a much > more attractive short cut for cars, fiddling about > with pedestrian crossings is all a waste of time. Tessmo. Very helpful. I am going to post this to the Quietway thread too. thanks for the summary and reminder for next Sat.

@Woodwarde Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your last chance to comment on the Sustrans led > consultation for interventions on the Quietway is > this coming Saturday. > > Sat 26 Sep 2015 11.00-13.00 St Barnabas Parish > Hall, entrance Gilkes Place SE21 > See here for 4 pre-designed options that were > provided at the meeting for discussion. These are > clearly positioned as not being fixed ideas but > they may indicate the direction of thought on the > scale of the challenge: > http://turneyandburbage.org.uk/2015/09/24/dulwich- > village-junction-possible-redesigns-photos-of-draw > ings-for-discussion/ > You will see some radical change suggested, for > example for Court Lane to become one way. Well worth going then - one way streets would have a dramatic knowck on effect. Dulwich is what it is, with the limited street plan available. Perhaps rethink the Quietway route......... 11am it is then to join the workshop discussions today

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi James > > Thank you for your appreciation of our efforts. > > You asked if we - as a group - would like to > suggest Terms of Reference. We don't seek to go > beyond the wording of our petition. Our main > concern is that a process be undertaken that is > led by traffic engineers, consults fully with all > affected residents and does not start with any > preconceptions. Hence the wording we asked people > to sign up to. > > I'm no expert on how such a thing would be carried > out and I'm sure Southwark engineers could advise > on the best approach. But it's not hard to imagine > an information gathering exercise led by the > highways department inviting input from concerned > residents. > > I would like to emphasise something which I said a > while ago on this thread. I don't believe there's > any great 'real' conflict in this situation. I > would imagine we all sympathise fully with the > aims of the Melbourne Traffic Action group in > wishing to improve traffic conditions on Melbourne > Grove. It just felt necessary to go through a > process to confirm that this would be done in a > way that was led by highway engineers, informed by > the facts and which took into account the needs of > all affected residents. Good post, well said and seems to reflect the voice of many posting here who wish for something that supports the full range of issues. I hope that many of the Councillors read it, understand it and help create the springboard for it. Good post....

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Indeed. I wonder if they just haven't got the > additional legislative things through to > de-designate the pavement for cycling & designate > the cycle lane as mandatory, which would then > perhaps allow for the installation of the > armadillos per the original. If the TMO was Sep > 1st, they couldn't (at least, shouldn't) start > construction on that lot until after it was signed > off. Don't think so. The week before Matt Hill issued a letter to to the schools referencing technical and legislative challenges. This combined with a TMO for 'mandatory' cycle lanes sounds very muddled. Certainly not clear how Southark can sign this junction off as approved by the Statutory consultees as safe. Southwark's explanation at the DCC this Weds evening should be well worth hearing and should be questioned carefully. No doubt it will be indicative of issues yet to happen over the Quietways.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Melbourne Grove residents who > want a barrier shouldn't be the ones proposing the > ToR after funding for that study has already been > approved. Surely that should all have happened > and been considered in a way that allowed other > views to be heard, before funding was even > allocated? Absolutely. This needs to be proposed by a broader group representing all interests. All Councillors inclusing Cllr Barber should understand why.

Summary of observations from various residents yesterday: Only the northbound carriageway of Townley was open yesterday. Work continues on the southbound carriageway. ?Road Closed? signs continue at the south end of Calton Avenue. The right filter light governing traffic heading East along EDG and waiting to turn into Townley is not working. The result is direct conflict and angry verbal exchanges taking place between traffic turning right into Townley while northbound traffic from Townley has a green light. And of particular concern is the danger to cyclists heading north in this scenario. Also cars turning right from Townley are cutting straight across cyclists coming straight ahead. The diagonal desire line appears not to be where it has been installed but the pattern of use seems to be from JAGS junior school to outside Allenys on Townley Road. Children seen crossing on all arms when the green man went red. There are no markings on the road to show cars where to go. 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. Nothing back from Southwark to explain the loss of cycling facilities and what the legislative and technical issues were. The one coach seen in the morning turning left from Townley into East Dulwich Grove had to go into the TR right hand lane in order to get the correct circle to turn left. This last point we should note as this has been said to the Southwark planners many times. We should not let Southwark's errors and intransigence to be used as a way to bring back the right hand turn ban idea.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We've now got 84 signatures on the No Barrier > online petition and roughly the same amount again > on the paper version of the petition. There's been > a surprising amount of support for the No Barrier > campaign, several residents who signed the first > petition have now signed ours. > > I don't think we're going to have enough time to > visit every door before the September 9th DCC > meeting, so if you would prefer to see public > funding spent on an open assessment of possible > traffic measures in the area, and not limited to a > study of the barrier option, then please sign the > online petition here:- > > https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-no-barr > ier-for-melbourne-grove Brought to the front so not overlooked by Cllr speak.

Just did. And left a post.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Plenty of evidence that GENERALLY creating new > roads generates more traffic. M25 classic example. > Closing roads leads to traffic evaporation. People > constantly make decisions about whether they can > be bothered. Make it easier then they are and vice > versa. > > It sounds like davidk is suggesting trial > experimental closure - for whatever reasons - > resulted in traffic evaporation. This doesn't mean > it isn't a pain in the proverbial for some. > > The closure of Townley Road hasn't led to dire > traffic levels along Lordship Lane/Melbourne Grove > as far as I'm aware. > > People are amazingly smart and adaptable. Remarkable misuse of facts. But why? This statement is misleading and should be ignored. As everyone knows and as the consultation showed, term time am and pm are the problem traffic times at Townley due to 4 private schools directly at the junction and the associated car and coach traffic. Which is precisely why Southwark and all our Cllrs knew the work had to take place over the summer months. And now the works are overrunning then we don't have to take anyone's view. It will be self evident. No doubt we might see a Cllr on Melbourne Grove counting the traffic. Or perhaps the Cllrs will just evaporate.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The proposed feasibility report of up to ?10,000 > will have its terms of reference discussed at the > next Dulwich Community Council 9 September 7-10pm > Christchurch Hall, 263 Barry Road. 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'. That looks like an outright misjudgement right now? Councillors. Have you an open mind to that? Someone could ask for its cancellation by way of an advance question. Or a further alternative deputation. Or both.....

Andrew1011 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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". Our Councillors should have provided the necessary facts and viable options to avoid this issue escalating and dividing the community. FACT: The April police traffic survey is clear that on its normal measures and recent study of Melbourne Grove that the road operates within normal measures at the 85th percentile across all vehicle groups. FACT: Southwark Council officers provided a briefing (shown in full earlier on this thread) to Councillors in time for them to relay facts to the June DCC public meeting. They did not refer to this document during the debate following the Deputation. Southwark Council state in this briefing that they do not support barriers as an intervention. FACT: The Deputation for the barrier focused on a single solution. Why they did so is not clear. The 138 signatures attached to the deputation were not in the prescribed format to ensure all signing were aware that they were supporting a single option for a barrier rather than support for an appropriate traffic calming measure. These 138 signatories represent a smaller number of households as there are multiple signatures per household. SUPPOSITION: The 138 signatories would not all have known what they were signing for as the signatures were gathered before the deputation statement was finalised and submitted and it did not appear on the sheet that they signed. FACT: Other Melbourne residents, residents on adjoining roads, local shop keepers and residents on potentially impacted roads are now aware of the proposal to close Melbourne Grove and are not supportive of that particular measure for traffic calming but would support other options. FACT: There was some agreement for a feasibility study and an award of ?10k CSG funding stated at the June DCC but no minutes yet available as an official record and confirmation of next steps. The issue will come up again at the DCC on 9th Sept. SUPPOSITION: Councillors will be reconsidering their views and examining the costs of a variety of potential solutions. They will look for a solution that is proportionate to the locality.

1921 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks, I have signed the petition, nobody has > knocked on my door as yet! I will keep you posted, > it is all a bit cloak and dagger! Not cloak and dagger but the original deputation pushed for a single option. Because our Cllrs did not immediately suggest that there could be better and alternative solutions, we have a divided community. That should be stopped. Well done to the original deputation for the motivation but you have been misled by focusing on a barrier and not calming measures that achieve a better result for all. I have signed the petition because it is a more balanced position than that put forward by the deputation for a barrier. I was also concerned with the proposed no right hand turn ban for Townley Road and we certainly considered our fellow residents on Melbourne during that consultation as MG would have been heavily impacted if that had gone ahead. Well done to those of you now taking the initiative to seek a solution for all and advancing this alternative petition.

This is the Sustrans flyer. There is a link from the consultation document but you can go to the URL below. This link allows you to give feedback to Sustrans directly if you cannot make it to their pop-ups........ https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/quietway-cycling-route-in-chamption-hill/supporting_documents/Champion%20HIll%20Engagement%20flyer%20v006.pdf Note the statement: Feedback from this process will inform the options to conduct a four to six month trial before formal consultation in Spring/Summer 2016 I think we can read that as a decision already taken to experiment with one way at the end of this year? What a nightmare.

James 138 Melbourne signatures. Are these individual households or does it include multiple signatures from the same household? Does this make any difference?

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200348/democracy_in_southwark/354/taking_a_deputation This is how deputations are supposed to run. How many people in the Melbourne deputation? How long did this run for. Was this issue debated by councillors without the intervention of the deputation. If you were there - you know how this was conducted. So there is a policy but it can be ignored and ?5-10K allocated on the spot. Really?

So how has work started already on Greendale? This is before the 4th July start date mentioned in the thread above. If these steps have not actually taken place, and are required legally and procedurally, it makes me wonder just how many other schemes go ahead and bypass the statutory formalities.

http://www.hacaneast.org.uk/category/flight-path-changes/ read this thread. We should work out (quickly) how to start a petition for Dulwich; to ask the Dulwich Community Council and Dulwich Society to campaign for Dulwich? The Dulwich Society has a Transport Committee to take up such concerns. Its AGM is the 27th April and this could be raised as a question.

here it is - Nov 2014 Dulwich Society e-newsletter Dulwich Society eNews No. 13 ?November 2014 London City Airport and proposed controversial flight path changes: The London Assembly has called on London City Airport to re-consult on its plans to concentrate its flight paths. The LCA is planning to concentrate its flights paths in and out of the airport but has refused to leaflet or hold public meetings in the areas affected, it has simply put technical information on its website. Dulwich is amongst the areas that will be affected by the likely increase in flight frequency and consequent noise.

How do airports choose and get approval for their routing. Agree of course they need to fly somewhere. On what basis are these routes authorised. I did see some passing statement in a Dulwich Society email that City Airport's routing had recently changed without any announcements and that this was to be investigated. Not seen anything since tho.

The overview and scrutiny committee can review decisions made by or on behalf of the cabinet. This is known as 'calling in' the decision. The key rules around calling-in decisions are ? Decisions may only be called-in in certain instances, for instance where it is believed that there was inadequate consultation or that the decision breaches human rights ? The chair or vice chair and 3 other members of overview and scrutiny committee must all agree that the decision should be called-in ? The call-in must be requested within five working days of the decision being published. The decision will then be reviewed by overview and scrutiny committee, normally within two weeks from the date of the call-in request. The overview and scrutiny committee can recommend that the decision is reconsidered by the original decision-taker. So, it seems that the core members of the OSC are responsible for any decisions. OSC Reserve members (includes Barber and Hartley) don't have call-in rights as such. If a core member is not able to attend a meeting the reserve member would be asked to attend in their place. Details of the OSC are here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=308 ? Councillor Gavin Edwards (Chair) ? Councillor Rosie Shimell (Vice-Chair) Note: sits on Dulwich CC ? Councillor Anood Al-Samerai ? Councillor Jasmine Ali ? Councillor Catherine Dale ? Councillor Karl Eastham ? Councillor Tom Flynn ? Councillor Rebecca Lury ? Councillor Adele Morris ? Councillor Johnson Situ ? Councillor Evelyn Akoto (Reserve) ? Councillor Maisie Anderson (Reserve) ? Councillor James Barber (Reserve) Note: sits on Dulwich CC ? Councillor Dan Garfield (Reserve) ? Councillor Jon Hartley (Reserve) Note: sits on Dulwich CC ? Councillor Hamish McCallum (Reserve) ? Councillor David Noakes (Reserve) ? Councillor Martin Seaton (Reserve) ? Councillor Bill Williams (Reserve) ? Councillor Kieron Williams (Reserve) Support officer: Shelley Burke. Phone: 020 7525 7344 E mail: shelley.burke@southwark.gov.uk

I have caught sight of this email sent today from Mark Williams to local residents stating that the development has been approved by him and is open for 5 days for 'call-in'. The link gives some details but no idea when the 5 days ends, given there are now 2 bank holidays ahead of us. Clever bit of timing - or just the cynic in me? Dear Thank you for your representations on the Townley Rd/East Dulwich Grove junction scheme. In answer to the questions that have been asked about the decision making process, I can confirm that all representations made, either directly to me or to officers, have been seen and considered by me. I understand that some people still have some concerns with the proposals as set out in the report which I considered. After reviewing the report again, in conjunction with the representations received, I have decided to proceed with the recommendations set out in the report with two further recommendations. The first is that there will be pre and post implementation monitoring of air quality/pollution on Townley Road, this is so that we can assess whether there has been any impact on air quality as a result of the scheme being delivered. If the post implementation monitoring does show an increase in air pollution then we will of course identify funding and take mitigating measures accordingly. Secondly, as the detailed design work is being undertaken I have instructed officers to consider further minor amendments to the scheme to alleviate queuing on Townley Road. Concerns were also raised about waiting 18 months before a report was brought back to Dulwich Community Council (DCC) with a review of the scheme?s impact. DCC requested this be done after 6 months, after discussing this with officers they confirmed that 12 months of data is required to make an accurate assessment of the impact of the scheme, this will then have to be analysed and reported back to the next scheduled DCC. However, I would like to assure you that the impacts of the scheme will be monitored as soon as it is implemented, and should there be any problems caused by the scheme we will review them before the full 12 months of data has been collected. With the two additional recommendations set out above, this decision now proceeds to the five day Overview and Scrutiny Committee call-in period. The decision has now been published online, see : http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDecisionDetails.aspx?IId=50006298&Opt=1 this includes an appendix that summarises all of the representations received along with a response. As we discussed at cabinet there will be a Dulwich-wide consultation on the future of transport in the area, with a focus on how we can increase walking and cycling, where these routes can go and how they fit in with existing demands on the road network. There are a number of schemes coming forward, including the Southwark Spine and the Mayor?s Quietway. This wider consultation will allow us to hear the views of residents and businesses and to consider all of the schemes together. Details of this wider engagement will be published alongside the council?s cycling strategy in June. If you have any suggestions for how we can reach as many people as possible please send these on. If you have any further questions on the Townley Rd decision or process do let me know. Best wishes, Mark