Abe_froeman

The policy seems especially surprising when funds are appropriated from the greener cleaner safer project whilst there are parts of Southwark that are dirty, polluted and unsafe. I would think residents in some parts of Southwark where there is near squalor must be appalled that the council can find money to reduce car use in streets of privately owned houses costing a million pounds or more.

That's very interesting, thanks Jenny. A segregation barrier seems completely out of kilter with the nature of other cleaner greener safer projects that received funding. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/cleanergreenersafer I do also wonder how the application for funds for this feasibility study was processed so quickly.

It's supposed to be a consolidation order so there shouldn't really be any changes to existing restrictions.

Thank you for replying James. Is there any way to access the details of the stuides you mention (including Melbourne Grove)? Is a freedom of information request the best route?

A school on the busiest part of Lordship Lane that will no doubt get even busier if the segregation barrier is installed. James, you seem to have some detail now of the scope or extent of the feasibility study. Woukd you mind sharing where the public may access these details if at all please? Many thanks in advance

How can a petition call for a study to be widened if the scope or terms of reference of the study aren't published? And how does this "Why are you asking for a study you've pre determined the outcome" fit with this "If I lived on Melbourne Grove, I would want it closed."?

There was a Southwark "Asset Management" van there when I walked past this morning so perhaps someone has been asked to pull some fingers out.

Nothing going on there again today.

Presumably once a few lorries and coaches have caused severe delays or kncocked into something doing a three point turn they'll make it a 'no left turn' which is nearly as good as the no right turn they originally wanted.

Call me cynic but presumably in this instance they'll choose to start the study after summer holidays but before Townley Road reopens!

Maybe you could encourage them to undertake the traffic study now?!

James, will those documents be made available to the public, alongide the terms of reference or scope of the feasibility study? Many thanks

Hi James, is there a section of the Southwark website that has details of what the "council officer report" will be based on? I am particularly keen to understand the scope or terms of reference of the feasiblity study. Many thanks

That doesn't necessarily help if councillors themselves use the local media to express support for a scheme before any sort of formal proceedings have been instigated.

It would save a lot of people (including councillors) a lot of time if all of these consultations and outcomes could be published on southwarks website. I'm particularly keen to see the terms and extent of the so-called "feasibility" study on the Melbourne Grove separation barrier.

Are the terms of reference for the feasibility study available to the public anywhere?

A knock on consequence of that could be rat running down other roads joining or running parallel to LL, leading to more deputations, more barriers and more expenditure. All down to the apparent rubber stamping of a solution to a problem for which there is no publicly available evidence of its existence.

It does seem rather extravagant. But if there's tax payers money sitting around waiting to be spent...

Hmm, so more parking restrictions me as faster traffic, and presumably at a higher volume as members of the MGTAG drive around in circles trying to find a parking spot?!

I'm not confident any due process will be followed with this campaign. Southwark's own website sets out the rules for this deputation: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s54983/Deputation%20report.pdf "8. The deputation shall consist of no more than six persons, including the spokesperson 9. Only one member of the deputation shall be allowed to address the meeting, her or his speech being limited to five minutes." This report of the meeting seems completely inconsistent with those rules: "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.?" http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/10k-boost-for-road-safety-campaigners-in-dulwich/

It does seem rather odd for a decision maker in this process to argue on such partisan terms before the evidence and consultation have even been collected.