Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[jamesmcash]

Dear all,

Thanks for all your comments

Privatisation

I enjoyed reading this debate. Privatisation, by its nature, leads a service to be run according to the needs of the market. This can often mean making cuts if parts of the business are insufficiently profitable. Clearly I do not think that workers should be expected to endure unsafe conditions but the solution to inadequate building space does not need to be the total removal of the service!

Vaccinations

I do not have any further information but if anyone has any issues with accessing their vaccination point please let me know.

Proposed nursery

The application for this nursery promises it will be 'car free'. However, various objectors have suggested this might not be possible. We Goose Green councillors are liaising between objectors and the council. More details when I have them.

LL/EDG crossing

It's useful to hear about some of the past attempts to do this. I think the context has changed. Comparisons with the low traffic neighbourhoods are a bit like when young people are told to cut down on avocado to save up for a house: the costs of the two interventions are on different scales of magnitude.

Best wishes

James

[Earl Aelfheah]

jamesmcash Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dear all,

>

> Thanks for all your comments

>

> Privatisation

> I enjoyed reading this debate. Privatisation, by

> its nature, leads a service to be run according to

> the needs of the market. This can often mean

> making cuts if parts of the business are

> insufficiently profitable. Clearly I do not think

> that workers should be expected to endure unsafe

> conditions but the solution to inadequate building

> space does not need to be the total removal of the

> service!

Totally agree with this. How much money will be made by redevelopment of the site? Where has that gone and could it not have been used to fund a new, more appropriate location for the service?

Re. the junction with EDG x Lordship Lane - I really hope something can be done about this. It's so dangerous.

[Abe_froeman]

"How much money will be made by redevelopment of the site? Where has that gone and could it not have been used to fund a new, more appropriate location for the service?"

I think those are questions that were for the labour council to answer when they granted planning permission to this scheme.

I'm guessing they will have got something out of the post office under a s106 or similar, given the scale of the site? If so they must have weighed that in the balance against the inevitable consequences of closing the site.

[Jellybeanz]

Dear James,

The hospitals are at breaking point.

Why was and is North Cross Road Saturday market still allowed to open without further restrictions (people wearing masks to serve and buy food), distancing signs to enforce and remind about social distancing, and basically everyone keeping apart where possible and wearing masks even tho outside.

Seeing a busy market may be nice and normal but it carries risk.

Thanks

[Rockets]

Cllr McAsh,

Are you trying to tell us that a pedestrian crossing at the junction of LL and EDG is a different scale of magnitude in cost to the cumulative total all of the items of street furniture, cameras on Townley, Burbage, Turney etc, new road signage warning of no through route all over the area, new right-lane filter traffic lights for DV onto EDG, planters (and their subsequent removal and replacement with removable bollards in the Melbourne Grove area) and all the other sundries associated with the LTNs in Dulwich? Just how much does a pedestrian crossing cost - perhaps you're over-paying for your avocados and need to stop shopping in Waitrose? ;-)

[Serena2012]

Dear James

While I am aware that the junction of East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane is hazardous for pedestrians and that putting in place additional safety measures is warranted, I have significant reservations about the prudence of such drastic action being taken on (potentially) a shoestring budget without proper engagement from highways experts; the emergency services; TFL and the residents/ business owners of the stretch of EDG running between Lordship Lane and Melbourne Grove as well as the stretch of Lordship Lane between Ashbourne Grove and the Goose Green roundabout.

As this FOI (not my own, and found through the brilliance of Google) evidences, this issue has been examined previously. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/status_of_request_for_pedestrian?unfold=1#incoming-1454501

However, as a local resident I am acutely aware of the pressure that the Dulwich and East Dulwich LTNs have placed on the stretch of Lordship Lane leading up to the Goose Green roundabout; the stretch of East Dulwich Grove between Melbourne Grove and Lordship Lane and the stretch of East Dulwich Road running past Goose Green Park. Something that I never thought I would see, but which happened a lot between September and December 2020 following the implementation of Phase 2 of the East Dulwich LTN was the Goose Green roundabout at such a point of saturation that traffic attempting to get off the roundabout in order to travel onto Lordship Lane was unable to do so. This led to tailbacks in every direction.

It is imperative therefore that the design of any crossing must take into account likely future traffic flows (including what would happen if Matham Grove was closed as part of an extension of the East Dulwich LTN). Given that this is a key bus route as well as a key route for emergency service vehicles, the design must ensure that any risk of tailbacks stretching onto the Goose Green roundabout are factored into any crossing design and fully mitigated. Failure to do so may cause more risk in terms of danger to life than that currently posed by the crossing itself, not least given the importance of the Goose Green roundabout as an access route to and from King?s college hospital (a significance that is currently pronounced given that ambulances cannot currently access King?s via Melbourne Grove).

Moreover, as a community that is very poorly served by public transport, the last thing we would want is for this section of road to become so nightmarish as a result of a poorly designed crossing that TFL removes the 37 and 42 bus routes from East Dulwich Grove (a road on which over 3000 schoolchildren are educated), leading to even more reliance on private vehicles to transport pupils to and from school.

In view of the above, grateful if you would confirm that before any changes to this junction are implemented, there will be a proper consultation of local residents and businesses on any crossing design, as well as TFL, the emergency services and highways experts. Local residents and businesses are, after all, better placed than most to opine on the likely impact of these changes on the roads on which we live and work.

As an aside, I was left speechless earlier today when a consultation letter relating to the proposed installation of a bike hangar on Tintagel Crescent, complete with a free-post return envelope landed on my doormat from Southwark Council. I don?t quite understand how something as innocuous as a bike hangar merits letters through every door in the neighbourhood, complete with a detailed explanation and map, and yet changes such as LTNs and (potentially) road crossings can be implemented with far greater knock on impact in terms of safety; air quality; noise pollution and home enjoyment for those living and working in the immediate vicinity, and yet not warrant a single piece of correspondence.

[rch]

Thanks for posting this info, including the FOI, Serena. Ironically, I liaised closely with the amazing Highways engineer who conducted the scoping exercise cited in point 8 of the FOI. But, unfortunately, the proposals to finally address the Lordship Lane issues were eventually railroaded into a Healthy Streets consultation, which featured pocket parks in unsuitable locations, without addressing the general issues.

[geh]

I can't help but wonder if Southwark hadn't squandered the best part of a million quid on the Dulwich Village junction works, that now seem almost totally redundant, there might be some money to meaningfully research, review and resolve the EDG/LL junction that has been a source of potential accident and residents ire for at least the 20 years that I have lived here.

It could be a sensible and long-lasting legacy for any locally elected councillor to leave!

[Abe_froeman]

RCH, was that the same consultation that also included the grossly unwanted CPZ schemes?

[heartblock]

Serena is absolutely right, that junction is dangerous, but Southwark messed up the positioning of the pedestrian crossing just up from that junction and the Townley Rd/EDG junction caused an uplift in idling and polluting traffic as soon as it was put in. They need a new planner.

[Abe_froeman]

I think the Townley Rd /EDG lights have to be as they are to allow the advance cycle phase.

Which I think was meant to be part of the abortive Quietway 7 which allows cyclists to travel from Dulwich Village to the soon to be massive construction site that is Greendale playing fields

[rch]

Yeah, Abe, I think that consultation might have also included the CPZ that we objected to down at my end of Melbourne Grove. But the advance cycle lights at the Townley/EDG junction aren?t the actual problem... the whole design of that junction and the Dulwich Village junction are both completely dysfunctional.

And heartblock, you?re bang on... the signalled crossing just south of the EDG/Lordship junction is in the wrong place, which is causing traffic to back up around Goose Green roundabout. This is also why implementing a signalled ped crossing across EDG is going to be a problem, as the two crossings won?t be properly logistically synchronised. This is something that the highway engineer explained to me in 2017... almost everything on Lordship Lane needs to be taken out and readjusted, which will cost a fortune. There are so many knock on problems that tweaking anything will create a domino effect.

There?s no joined up thinking.

Sorry, James... we should take this discussion onto another thread. But I?m genuinely curious as to how your crossing is going to work, as I?m not sure that the new highways dept know the background.

[Abe_froeman]

Hello James

Happy New Year to you.

I wondered how you thought this was all going in Goose Green (obviously) and East Dulwich more widely (if you don't mind)?

Posted by jamesmcash 14 October, 2020 16:38

-----------

WHAT DOES SUCCESS LOOK LIKE?

In my view, we need to look at the effects across the whole area but also on individual streets.

The two key criteria are air pollution and traffic volume. Put simply, if these two measures are not reduced across the whole area then the scheme has failed. It is not enough to displace the traffic - we want to reduce it overall.

But even if air pollution and traffic volume decrease across the board, it matters how it is distributed. I want to see a social justice approach to the analysis. No matter what we do there will inevitably be some pollution and traffic. I want this to be shared equitably: protecting schools, nurseries and hospitals above all else; and not allowing the negative effects of air pollution to fall on those least able to bear them.

We have a new Leader of the Council, Cllr Kieron Williams, and this approach is already reflected in his leadership team. Instead of creating a post for ?Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?, he appointed Cllr Radha Burgess as Deputy Cabinet Member for ?Low Traffic Southwark?. The shift in emphasis is important: we want to reduce traffic across all of Southwark, not segregate ?low traffic? and ?high traffic? neighbourhoods. (To be clear, this is not the intention of LTN measures, but if they do not work properly this can be the outcome).

WHAT NEXT?

I have spoken to Cllr Rose and Cllr Burgess (the Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet members with responsibility for this area) to request that these measures be evaluated as soon as we can. I have further requested that the evaluation considers the following factors:

- Overall levels of pollution

- Overall levels of traffic

- The ?social justice? implications of how pollution and traffic are distributed (i.e. who lives on the more polluted streets?).

[bonaome]

Hello councillors. The recycling collection on Bawdale road was missed last Tuesday. It?s now been 3 weeks since the recycling was collected. I put in a missed collection report so mine was collected last week but the rest of the street still need a catch up collection. I can?t work out how to report this. Can you help?

[Abe_froeman]

Hello James

did you get a response to your questions below from October?

I am especially interested given what the High Court said about the Streetspace programme last week. Are the Goose Green councillors planning to make any changes to the local emergency covid changes given that judgment (or at least lobbying Councillors Rose and Burgess for the same)?

Posted by jamesmcash 14 October, 2020 16:38

-

WHAT NEXT?

I have spoken to Cllr Rose and Cllr Burgess (the Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet members with responsibility for this area) to request that these measures be evaluated as soon as we can. I have further requested that the evaluation considers the following factors:

- Overall levels of pollution

- Overall levels of traffic

- The ?social justice? implications of how pollution and traffic are distributed (i.e. who lives on the more polluted streets?)

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

I hope everyone is well during these difficult times.

Royal Mail sorting office

abe_froeman

"How much money will be made by redevelopment of the site? Where has that gone and could it not have been used to fund a new, more appropriate location for the service?"

I think those are questions that were for the labour council to answer when they granted planning permission to this scheme.

Sadly, planning law does not allow a council to reject planning permission on such grounds. It's really frustrating but so long as developers tick the right boxes they can do a wide range of things which are really unhelpful - or even damaging.

North Cross Road market

Council officers are now at the market regularly to assist with social distancing. The police also attend.

Lordship Lane / East Dulwich Road crossing

I'm afraid that we are still at very early stages of this. It may not happen at all and if it does it will take some time. All of the points raised in this thread will need to be fully considered. This process will definitely include a public consultation.

Evaluation of LTNs

We are due an announcement on the evaluation process in the next few weeks. The good news is that it looks like it will match up with the commitments I made to you back in October.

Recycling

I'm sorry to hear you've had issues bonaome. Staff capacity continues to be a major issue in the waste collection service. If you have a similar issue again please drop me an email.

Best wishes

James

[Abe_froeman]

Fantastic news on the LTNs, can't wait for them to be removed so that traffic is dispersed equally rather than being shunted onto a few targeted residential roads

[Nigello]

Please could you, Cllr, turn some of your attention to unattractive/vandalised shop fronts, etc. such as those on Lordhship Lane (empty chemist at the corner of Shawbury, for example, whose estate agents I have called) and EDG (the nail shop on the corner which has been closed for a while) etc. Thanks

[pearsonville]

Ho James et al,

I don't know if this has been covered or not (I did look...) But given the remarks on here regarding the Northcroft Rd Market, and the fact that the (cough) NHS App keeps reminding me that 'SE22 area risk level is HIGH' has anyone implemented such a simple this as has been done in California? i.e. Street signage in visible warning colours just to make people more constantly aware of the situation, e.g. like the one below?

[malumbu]

Re: commitments on LTNs, councillor, please stick with them.

I have time working from home to watch the garden birds knowing that in ten years time if things don?t change the flora and fauna will be different as nature struggles to deal with climate change. We all need to act both as individuals, communities and nations. Just go to many of the recent Attenborough programmes if you are sceptical on climate change. Government talks the talk, but doesn?t always walk the walk when it comes to reducing car use, one of the main contributors to climate change, yet successive governments are still scared of demonising motorists. We are not going to get mass behaviour change so it seems to have been delegated to local authorities to make some of the tough, and often unpopular, decisions. I hope you continue with schemes to encourage less driving, and promote active transport, whatever you come up with will always have unintended consequences but please stick with it. Others can think what they may tell their kids and grandkids, about what they did when the world was burning. It may sound dramatic but we need to take dramatic action now before it is too late.

PS a lovely and safe ride to the Tessa Jowell Centre today enjoying traffic calmed Melbourne Grove. Hope more of you will join me in appreciating this as a quick and effective way of getting around.

[Abe_froeman]

Hi Malumbu as I understand you don't live in Goose Green nor even in Southwark?

[jamesmcash]

Hi all,

Helen Hayes has written this useful blog about Royal Mail deliveries. It might be useful or interesting to some of you https://www.helenhayes.org.uk/royal_mail_0221

Best wishes

James

[Abe_froeman]

Hello James

Is it true that Goose Green Residents who live east of Lordship Lane are going to be excluded from the council's next consultation on the road closures in our area?

It has also been a few weeks since you said "We are due an announcement on the evaluation process in the next few weeks. The good news is that it looks like it will match up with the commitments I made to you back in October."

Is there any update on this please?

.

[jamesmcash]

Hello

No, that's not true. It's the first I've heard of this in fact.

I share your frustration on the delay - I had a useful conversation with fellow councillors and the Cabinet members this weekend and it's clear that progress is being made but plans are as of yet incomplete. It's possible that they'll be published this month but I suspect it could be next month now.

Best wishes

James

[Nigello]

James, please could you let me know (via PM if you like) what your thoughts are re improving the appearance of retail areas, namely by offering Southwark's services to business owners to clean up their shutters, walls, etc. Is the council still offering it? If so, could you let the businesses know as part of your councillor duties? Thanks