mockingbird

The 'Melbourne' deputation was made and claims to have contacted everyone 4 or 5 times. Disputed from the floor. Seems that some of the Dulwich Community Councillors are supportive, some not and others concerned of knock-on effects to Calton and Townley. The deputation leader expressed concerns that Southwark planners themselves are not in favour and the Village Labour Councillor explained that Southwark have formalities to go through. College Ward Councillor noted the summer Townley Road developments and that nothing should be done before Sept. The deputation also said that it refused to have speed checks done, even though these were on offer. What was a surprise is that (blink) the DCC agreed to put ?5-10k budget to a trial for this - whatever that trial consists of. Many deputations will prick up ears at this.... Is it really that easy to secure funding without any formality?

BobbyP makes the clear point that any changes are not isolated ones and would have serious knock on effects. Melbourne Grove was highlighted by residents objecting to the Townley NRHT proposal, as a road that would encounter a serious and unacceptable traffic re-routing. No doubt the reverse is true and so it's pretty obvious that these proposals for change can not be viewed in isolation.

If JB is sympathetic - what does this mean? Forget the politics of labour vs others. This is supposed to be an Oversight committee to ensure transparency and due process. So will JB pursue? Has Southwark Council stopped legitimate investigations happening? How can this Scrutiny committee be Labour chaired given the nature of its remit? Are we looking at a serious and deliberate constitutional flaw that inhibits scrutiny.

For those who did not attend the DCC meeting Tues 17th March ? you can guess how it ran. 8a seems to march on for fear of losing TfL funding. There was a deputation from a women representing Dulwich SafeRoutes to School. A predictable pitch consistent with the emails DSRS send out to portray a scene of carnage at the junction. Who the speech was intended for is hard to guess. Certainly not for the normal, intelligent and reasonable people trying to seek compromise and a solution that works for all. People with common sense who take the need for safety as a given and don?t need patronising. One person asked about congestion and whether DSRS advocated congestion, at which point it became clear that the deputation was all about getting something done (at any cost)and not losing the funding. Lots of reasoned and reasonable input pointing to solutions that would work but falling on deaf ears. Matt Hill ? the Southwark planner- made a jaw dropping statement about Calton. The new option 8a extends the cycle lane to Calton ? and guess what ? no modelling done to consider impacts on that road. His words. Our 9 councillors crumbled under the pressure of 8a or losing the funding. No cojones. But take a look at the consultation response from within the consultation area. The majority DO NOT support 8a. Why should this be pushed through when this is evident? If you have a view ? express it quickly to Southwark Council leader ? Peter John ? and ask what can be done. (peter.john@southwark.gov.uk). And consider how you exercise your vote.............

Georgina007 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > - a right hand lane > on EDG westbound (and for traffic turning right > into GD) is not in my opinion. without seeing > traffic flows my educated guess is that very few > vehicles are turning into the dead end street > (maybe 5-6 an hour) - this should not obstruct > straight ahead traffic including buses! Residents of the Dutch Estate who turn into Green Dale to Delft Way, where they live and where their parking is, may think differently. They were very vocal about this at the public meeting during the first round of consultation. But yes, the full LinSig signal modelling needs to be out in the open. It was provided during the first consultation but not this time round. I wonder why. 10A with softer build outs or perhaps 10B, offer the best all round benefits for all users of the junction. Did anyone get any output from the Southwark drop in meeting on the 28th Feb, out of interest? Or was it just a way to push on through and pretend queries have been addressed?

I am objecting to the latest proposal for the junction. Following the meeting last Saturday, there has been no attempt by Southwark to communicate. For the record, no addresses were taken nor was there any mechanism for Southwark to get back in touch regarding any queries. It is quite clear that there is no intention to follow up on issues raised. So if you have not had a satisfactory answer then you need to restate your query as part of the comments in response to the Consultation. And of course ? we have not had any response to the broader issues raised during the first round of consultation. That is being neatly ducked. I asked specific questions about the modelling for 8a versus 10a and 10b as the results just do not make sense. It seems that the timings have been optimised for 8a and not for the other options. It is obvious that there is scope to balance traffic flows across the arms of the junction better on the other options - they have been made to look worse than they can perform. Unlike the first consultation, we are not being given the detailed LinSig results and they need to be out in the open. I also received a leaflet through the door today, so I can see that local residents are voicing concerns and their dissatisfaction. There is concern about Townley and EDG east being reduced to a single lane and causing traffic chaos. This will cause a real problem for the 37 bus and for traffic wanting to turn right into Green Dale. The design is experimental and Chris Mascord said as much at the meeting. He said that TfL are all over the junction as they want it to be connected to the cycle route which is to run down Calton. If the design causes gridlock, who will pay to put it right? We know Southwark will not. The pavement build-out on the corner of Townley Road is so sharp it forces coaches to swing out into the path of pedestrians and cyclists. There are no road markings to show that vehicles turning right from Townley Road are crossing a cycle path Removing the traffic island from East Dulwich Grove makes the junction less safe for pedestrians. In summary: ? This latest proposal is being rushed through without proper thought ? The figures in the feasibility study are surprising and should be checked ? Southwark is not listening to the concerns of the local community And that is why I will OBJECT.

John is a traffic engineer, transport planner and urban designer with 29 years? professional experience that spans from strategic transport planning to concept design. Well known as a champion of better town and city streets, he was Director being responsible for Urban Initiatives? Movement + Streets portfolio before founding Urban Movement. John is an urban realm design advisor to several UK local authorities, including the City of Edinburgh, the London Borough of Ealing and Southend Borough Council, as well as a Design Review Panellist for Transport for London and Urban Design London. He is a Trustee of LIVING STREETS, was a contributing author to Manual for Streets 2, and is a former Board member of the Transport Planning Society. http://www.urbanmovement.co.uk/uploads/1/4/1/9/14194615/john_dales.pdf

>>Wulfhound said >>I can't imagine any of it is entirely untested - they wouldn't be allowed to put it in if it were, think of the >>lawsuits. It is unclear what design approaches are being used (they are not LCDS, we have been old that) - but some clues appear in the 'newly added' background and FAQ on the Southwark website. Clearly a design can't be 'non-compliant' unless specifically an approved exception or permitted that way, but that still leaves plenty scope. And Southwark are all for scope creep. As the new FAQ tells us : "Two-stage right turns. This is a new and relatively un-tested concept in the UK and it is proposed to trial it at this junction following further discussion with TfL." It looks increasingly like Southwark is most interested in creating a design that costs ?200k. This original bid was to create safety for pedestrians and cyclists and is being distorted out of all proportion. Why has such a complicated junction proposal, at this time limited part of the consultation, introduced such new features.

http://www.southwarklabour.co.uk/upload/docs/Southwark%20Labour%202014%20Manifesto.pdf the Southwark Labour Manifesto See slide 6 Southwark Labour: Delivering a fairer future for all?? by building a strong local economy Southwark is a borough of growth and opportunity: a great place to do business, and to work. We will support 5,000 local people into jobs and create 2,000 new apprenticeships over the next 4 years. We want to make sure that Southwark residents are at the front of the queue to get them. We will make sure that our young people are ready for work; we will guarantee that every school leaver has something to do whether training, education or a job. Small shopping parades rely on local and passing trade. We will provide an hour?s free parking in our shopping parades to help you shop locally. This is the manifesto promise. Pretty open ended on parking so how does this translate? Bringing parking to those shopping areas that do not have parking? Bringing all shopping parking to an hour (what if it was 1/2 hour or 2 hours before)? Reducing the number of existing parade parking spaces? clearly not - the promise is to protect. Making residential parking more shopping parking? clearly not So now we can see just how Southwark are using a vague and undefined piece of manifesto propaganda to justify specific and loosely consulted sweeping changes. Remember 45 locations - all with very different starting conditions. I smell a poorly performing Council trying to justify its manifesto achievements in time for an election. But I could be understating things....

Remember you are in the Southwark game of Consultation Cluedo, Tessmo. Will it be Cllr Barber, with the yellow box of promises, in the Forum or will it be East Dulwich Postman, with blood pressure raising Southwark leaflet, down Townley Road or maybe aspiring Labour Parliamentary Candidate and Agent, in red flush of embarrassment, in the Cabinet Member's ear. Who knows? Roll on Monday.....

in reply to bawdy-nan Agree, Dulwich Safe Routes presented. But they were the organiser of the meeting. Notifications were emailed to the DSR email list as far as I am aware but perhaps 2 or 3 turned up. Local residents turned up in great numbers having been notified by other parties, not DSR. DSR make their views clear anyway - they state these clearly on their website. I was waiting to hear what parents working with DSR had to say about the proposal. Agree with your recall that DSR said they did not know that the RHT ban was part of the bid (Tim says the same) but actually the DSR website does say they support it. Tim says of himself that he has been working in the area for just over a year and although originally funded by TfL, this year his role is funded by Southwark. He also works with local residents, PTA?s and the Safe Routes to School group. I presume that Southwark pay Sustrans, who in turn pay Tim as the Southwark Bike-It officer. Some of the ?285k funding win was allocated to this.

17th Jan Dulwich Safe Routes meeting to talk about the benefits of the current proposal for the Townley junction was well attended. Noticeable by their absence, were the missing supporters of the Safer Routes to School group and also the Chair of DSR, which was a surprise. In fact there would have been almost no-one at the meeting unless it had been drawn to the attention of residents. Residents from roads all around the junction did turn up on force. Tim Warins was woefully exposed by his inexperience of handling such an event and DSR should reflect on their decision to put him in such a position. He had come armed with a pointless Powerpoint presentation which did not deal with the issue of the proposal and how it had come to include the RHT ban. He is clearly used to talking to an audience of school children and out of his depth beyond that. His Sustrans colleague sat quietly. As Sustrans are the appointed delivery partner for the Quietways and Cycling Superhighways perhaps he will be advocating from now on that communities have complex dynamics and need to be involved in plans that affect them? Pigs may fly. Cllr Andy Simmons somehow ended up chairing this event and did a good job as it would have been shambolic otherwise. He too did not want to be pressed on the question about how the RHT ban had come to be introduced. In the end he said that he understood that it came down to the act of a single Southwark official ? but said no more than that. The question does need to be answered. Alastair Hanton, the Chair of the Transport subcommittee for the Dulwich Society said not a single word. So the ?voice? of the Dulwich Society, who have been a consultee according to Southwark, failed to speak. He did of course manage to network with the Councillors afterwards but that?s no surprise. Helen Hayes made a composed summary and stated that this consultation had been managed poorly. In her statements, she seemed to be advocating the changes and she introduced the suggestion of a ?pilot?. This fell on deaf ears and a rumble echoed around the room. Helen may not be showing herself to be a great listener. Perhaps she too is trying to push this right hand turn ban, as she talked about the funding being carried over to 2015/16 (which means April 2015-Mar 2016 in government funding terms). Helen and Andy made promises about the visibility of future consultations and making them meaningful, including anything further on Townley and also the Quietways. Andy wrapped up by positioning the 28th Jan Dulwich Community Council meeting as one where Southwark Council will show that it now understands the lack of support for the RHT ban and the need for credible consultations. Has this consultation created a tsunami of discontent that Southwark have not yet spotted is heading their way and about to engulf them?

Lovely lady bothered to come to speak to the residents of the Dutch Estate and hear concerns. Residents here are very concerned about u-turns in Green Dale if the right hand turn ban goes ahead. The new JAGS plans to relocate their car park here where the Scout Hut is make this even worse. Councillors are coming next week to hear why the junction changes should not go ahead and the new school parking plans need to be evaluated.