Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[Abe_froeman]

Thank you James.

Hard agree with rockets and Alex's posts above.

[Serena2012]

James - Just to add in the context of your social justice analysis, the attached list of the most expensive streets in each borough makes it clear that three of the five most expensive streets in Southwark (Court Lane Gardens; Burbage Road and Dulwich Village) will ultimately stand to benefit once Phase 3 is implemented in Dulwich Village. Of these, only one (Dulwich Village) houses a school, hospital or nursery, yet many of the roads bearing the brunt of these schemes (including EDG, Half Moon Lane, Grove Vale and Lordship Lane) house schools (and in the case of EDG, a nursery and health centre to boot). https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mylondon.news/news/property/london-house-prices-full-list-19067236.amp

[seenbeen]

Serena2012 Wrote:

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

> James - Just to add in the context of your social

> justice analysis, the attached list of the most

> expensive streets in each borough makes it clear

> that three of the five most expensive streets in

> Southwark (Court Lane Gardens; Burbage Road and

> Dulwich Village) will ultimately stand to benefit

> once Phase 3 is implemented in Dulwich Village. Of

> these, only one (Dulwich Village) houses a school,

> hospital or nursery, yet many of the roads bearing

> the brunt of these schemes (including EDG, Half

> Moon Lane, Grove Vale and Lordship Lane) house

> schools (and in the case of EDG, a nursery and

> health centre to boot).

> https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mylondon.news/n

> ews/property/london-house-prices-full-list-1906723

> 6.amp

Yes- the whole thing is a joke- and Winter is coming!

There is a noticeable increase in traffic in Crystal Palace Road now as well-which is supposed to be a cycling quiet way or some such scheme

[Rockets]

James,

Some follow-up questions from your post. Whilst it was good on words, there seems to be less on actions and it all seems a little open ended with little in the way of solid commitment to do anything other than review the data.

So:

- When will the council be reviewing the data - data collection went in some time after the closures so what is the timeline for the review?

- We kept being told by the council that pollution monitoring was too expense so how are you able to do that now and what baseline will you be using?

- Are we expected to live with the negative impact for the next 6 months whilst the council collects the data?

- Will the next phases of the closures be put on hold or does the council still plan on implementing them?

- Your comment regarding Matham Grove etc worries me as you seem to be focussed on putting measures in place to deal with the displacement rather than focussing on the source of the displacement. This would suggest to me that you think action to remedy the problem may not be forthcoming or a long way off. Is the council commitment to resolving the source of the problem? We do not need a sticking plaster approach to this.

- Given your admission of not consulting with shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove (and your subsequent apology) will you be forced to remove those immediately as this is in direct contravention of the powers given to you by the government to put these in place?

[Siduhe]

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?).

We will learn more from this evaluation process but here are my initial thoughts:

- Local businesses on Melbourne Grove, Grove Vale, Lordship Lane and elsewhere need support from the council: there should be a joined-up approach between councillors, the highways team and the local economy team.

- Matham Grove and Zenoria/Oxonian Street are clearly experiencing problems which can and should be remedied, probably fairly cheaply.

- The junction between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane has long been a problem, and this has only got worse.

- Nurseries, schools and hospitals should be considered ?vulnerable hubs? which we prioritise for protection from pollution.

James, appreciate the post - I would also be grateful for a bit more detail as to how this broader focus will be implemented in practice, as it still seems to be very geographically limited to the streets directly next to the existing closures.

I've posted elsewhere about this but streets like Crystal Palace Road, Underhill, Overhill, Melford and Wood Vale are now experiencing significant traffic at peak times as people try to avoid the Court Lane closure. I rarely drive and I commute by cycle but my route home (down what used to be comparatively quiet side streets) now feels significantly less safe than it did (and is significantly more polluted). Like EDG, these are bus routes so can't be made into LTNs. I'm hoping that it will settle over time but what it feels like, is that the Council has made my life and the life of some of my neighbours worse to benefit the residents of leafy Court Lane - who already have massive gardens but can now extol the virtues of playing out in the street while the rest of us breathe in displaced traffic fumes.

I appreciate it's a lot more complicated than that but it has the same sort of adverse social impacts that you mention, and there's no plan at all from the Council (I understand from our councillors) to even monitor in our area. The irony that it's most adversely affecting the people who have already made the changes you are trying to encourage across our area isn't lost on me either.

[Serena2012]

James - I have a question for you. In the modelling/ impact planning that Southwark undertook before deciding to close some of the significant East - West routes through the area, to what extent was there consideration of what would happen if, (as has happened three times in the past 6 weeks already), one of the area?s A roads is shut? This has now happened to Denmark Hill, Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common and the knock on impact on surrounding roads, including EDG has been utterly horrific. When I picked up my daughter from nursery this evening (on foot), Calton Avenue was gridlocked all the way to the junction with Woodwarde and beyond; Dulwich Village was at a standstill; Burbage and Turney were ridiculously busy; Townley was gridlocked and EDG had queues going Southbound stretching from the junction with Townley beyond Charter ED. This will only get worse as more and more local roads are closed. On a day like today, having Melbourne South and Court Lane open would have relieved a significant amount of pressure on other roads, many of which are also ?residential?.

If this has not been looked at, I urge the council to start modelling, as in practice, it is unusual for a month to go by and for every A road in the area to stay open 24/7 during that period. Indeed, in the 8 years I?ve lived here, there have been significant roadworks on all of the area?s A roads, on average at least once a year, reducing the traffic (as a minimum) to single lane. The heavier the usage of these roads, the more frequent the upkeep will need to become. What contingency is there in place for these occurrences?

The air pollution outside the schools on EDG this evening was horrific and in all likelihood will be tomorrow as well, as from what I gather, Dulwich Common could be shut for a while. Of the hundreds of vehicles I walked past in queuing traffic this evening, none of which were moving, I could count on one hand the number that had their engines turned off. In circumstances where idling traffic generates double the pollution caused by free flowing traffic, this is completely unacceptable. Causing gridlock is not the answer, but it seems that to date, the Streetspace initiative is excelling at doing just that.

[heartblock]

Serena, absolutely agree. Maybe it is time for EDG residents to form a campaign group to lobby the Council? I would love to see a cycle lane, better pavements and more thought about pedestrians, residents, cyclists, patients, school children and staff working at the health centre, schools and nurseries in EDG. The actual road is a mess with cracks, noisy drain covers, useless pollution causing speed humps.

Now residents are paying to park in their own street as unlike the gated communities very few have the choice of parking on their own property. People on EDG are the forgotten residents in East Dulwich, including the 4-5 large ?posh? houses near the Village junction, where the traffic must be awful for longer every day, to the LL end where there is a dangerous junction and the mid section with high density flats, narrow badly maintained pavements covered in wheelie bins.

The council needs to think about changes that encourage walking and cycling and polluting roads used by cyclists and pedestrians is not the way. The council has caused more pollution by more traffic being at a standstill. EDG is now dangerous for cyclists and horrible for pedestrians.

[Abe_froeman]

Hi James

I wondered if the council might support active travel by doing something about all of the leaves, dog waste and rainwater lakes that hide the pavements of East Dulwich?

I took a stroll along the new LTN today and tried to come back via Grove Vale but the route was so precarious and obstacle ridden, and I lacked the foresight to wear a pair of waders, such that I have come home with a lightly sprained big toe and very, very wet cold feet.

How much would it cost the council to level out the reservoirs and sweep the paths every so often?

[heartblock]

I walk as a preference, the amount of leaves, dog 💩, rubbish, uncollected Southwark bags, wheelie bins, poor paving makes walking a little more difficult. It is about time Southwark haves is positive reasons to walk rather than polluting high density, low income, poorer areas of the borough.

[Rockets]

Cllr McAsh - could you give us a definitive list of where monitoring is currently taking place (on which roads) when it went in and how long the monitoring will run for?

Is, for example, any monitoring being done on the roads east of Lordship lane which now seem to be soaking up much of the displacement from the council's closures? Whateley, Underhill, Goodrich, Upland, Overhill, Melford etc?

[tiddles]

The silence is deafening......

[Rockets]

Is anyone receiving any responses to emails on the subject - I know Cllr McAsh encourages people to email him but there seems to be radio silence on this issue from all councillors now?

[dulwichfolk]

Shouldn?t all these questions about the LTN/traffic orders be directed at the highways officers listed on the appropriate traffic order? I assume they must be under some obligation to respond in order for the order to be valid.

As aren?t they the ones who give the final say so regards these changes as I?m assuming the councillors aren?t experts in traffic management/etc.

I could have it wrong...happens often.

[Rockets]

I don't think they are responding either - complete radio silence from the everyone on all these matters.

People are resorting to trying to engage with them on social media and, once again, they just don't respond to anyone who isn't praising the closures.

Has anyone had any sort of response from any of the councillors or anyone involved in the closures recently? Perhaps if they refuse to acknowledge the existence of any dissenting voices then they can continue pushing the narrative that it is only a minority.

I did read with interest the Southwark Code of Conduct that LegalAlien posted (keep up the great work your digging is turning up some gens!) and how badly many of the councillors are performing in relation to them and these closures:

SELFLESSNESS: Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves,

their family, or their friends.

INTEGRITY: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or

other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in

the performance of their official duties.

OBJECTIVITY: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments,

awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of

public office should make choices on merit.

ACCOUNTABILITY: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and

actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to

their office.

OPENNESS: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the

decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and

restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

HONESTY: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to

their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects

the public interest.

LEADERSHIP: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by

leadership and example.

[Serena2012]

James - I have another query for you. The current ED Station LTN results in all those living on Elsie Road, Melbourne North, Derwent Grove and Tintagel Cresecent; their visitors; delivery drivers; gardeners; tradesmen etc having to drive down EDG whenever they leave their homes.

Bearing in mind that (even by your own admission, you are concerned about displacement of traffic onto) EDG, a road which has more schools; a home for vulnerable adults; a nursery; higher density housing; higher pedestrian footfall and more social housing than the roads that have been closed, has any thought been given as to how to disincentives those on the filtered roads from jumping in their cars and driving?

As someone who lives round the corner, I have noticed no tangible reduction in vehicles travelling down these roads since the closures were introduced, which leads me to the conclusion that even if the ?rat runners? have been stopped in their tracks, there has been little or no commitment from those living on these roads to reduce their own vehicle usage. Indeed, in the 3 minutes or so it took me to walk one way down Elsie this lunchtime, I witnessed 4 residents of Elsie/ Tintagel in their cars. How is this acceptable?

I have significant reservations about this LTN, not least as its very design displaces traffic onto what was an already highly polluted stretch of main road with significant vulnerabilities, including a day nursery for 90 preschoolers and a home for vulnerable adults. It also, given that it consists of 4 short parallel streets, running between 2 A roads, neither of which form part of the LTN, has none of the characteristics that you would expect to see for a LTN to succeed. However, without significant additional and punitive measures for those residents living on the filtered streets who choose to drive I genuinely don?t see how it can succeed.

I caveat the above by saying that I am wholly supportive of school streets on Melbourne North until September 2021 when the main entrance of Charter moves to EDG (it is currently split, with years 10 and 11 at Charter entering from a stretch of EDG that currently going Southbound in the morning has bumper to bumper traffic in circumstances where this did not happen previously). I also support a permanent school street on Elsie and Tintagel, as well as a camera enforced closure of Melbourne South, which means residents and emergency vehicles can still access from both ends. This should also tackle the challenges of the Melbourne/ EDG junction, as well as a lot of the rat running along Melbourne North. To the extent that Melbourne North is to remain shut as a cycle route, it strikes me that it needs camera enforcement to avoid displacement onto EDG, with Derwent and Elsie becoming one way streets, so as to create exactly the same disincentive to driving as currently exists, whilst also reducing displacement.

The current closure in Dulwich Village has had the no doubt desired by some impact of pushing huge volumes of vehicles onto the de facto school streets in the area (namely Lordship Lane, Grove Vale and EDG) and needs to be reversed, or at the very least, a more measured solution put in place with immediate effect. Southwark risks causing its very own health crisis involving the thousands of schoolchildren educated on these now far more polluted streets otherwise.

[heartblock]

Serena if you stand as a councillor in ED covering EDG I will vote for you....

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

Thanks a lot for everyone's positive comments in response to my last post. I appreciate it.

Free school meals during the holidays

I'm sure that many of you are aware already but I'm really pleased to be able to share that Southwark Council has committed to funding free school meals for primary school children during this half term(https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2020/oct/southwark-council-to-pay-for-free-school-meals-over-half-term). Marcus Rashford and others have done such a great job of raising the huge issue of 'holiday hunger' and child poverty. It made me sick to see Tory MPs refuse to feed hungry children.

Of course, the council is cash-strapped too after ten years of austerity so I hope that the government will step in and do the right thing - but I am proud that Southwark is has stepping in for the time being.

Support traders over Christmas

Christmas is always a critical time for traders but this is even truer than normal in the context of the pandemic. The council is working with local businesses to come up with plans to support their trade. One of the options on the table is to increase available parking.

I encourage everyone to do everything they can to support the traders of East Dulwich.

Matham Grove and Zenoria/Oxonian Street

There have been issues on these roads for a while, which have only been exacerbated in recent months. We will not rush into any decisions on them - and will make sure that the impact on nearby roads is properly considered - but in my view we should be looking at these streets regardless of what happens to the LTNs in general.

Peckham Rye

A few people have been in touch to raise concerns about the proposals for Peckham Rye (the road). We have taken these concerns forward and the proposals have been paused whilst officers consider solutions to the issues raised. Some of this involves negotiation with TfL so it may not be all that quick.

Leaves, litter etc

Sadly, cuts to the council finances has meant there has been an overall reduction in street cleaning. However, there is some flexibility to redirect the existing resources if there are places which we think are in particular need of more attention. Please let me know.

Monitoring

I am afraid I do not know the details to this. The process is still ongoing. As mentioned above I have requested that various streets be included in the monitoring process but I am not involved in its day-to-day implementation.

Emails

As far as I know, I have replied to all recent emails that needed a response (i.e. ones which ask a question or involve me doing something). If I have missed you then I am very sorry - please do send up a follow-up email.

Please bear in mind that being a councillor is not a full time role - I juggle it alongside other commitments including my job as a primary school teacher. This means that responses may not be immediate.

Code of Conduct

Rockets - if you feel like me or any other councillor is performing 'badly' in relation to the Code of Conduct please use the complaints process outlined here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/councillors-and-mps/your-councillors?chapter=2

Incidentally, am I your councillor? Do you live in Goose Green ward?

Reduction in car use

The hope is that car use will reduce on both the roads with filters and others in the local area. Hopefully this will be clear when we have the monitoring data.

Thanks a lot everyone - best wishes

James

[Sue]

Thanks for all your hard work, James.

[Serena2012]

James: Thanks for the update. I have another query. You?ve mentioned your concerns about the incredibly dangerous junction between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane previously (which has become a congestion hotspot following the implementation of the local LTNs). Is there an update on the council?s thinking in relation to this? The current situation is untenable long term given high pedestrian footfall, and no doubt another serious, if not fatal accident waiting to happen.

Conscious there are complications here, (particularly given the proximity of the junction to the traffic lights on Lordship Lane and the Goose Green roundabout) but I would hope that safety at this junction is a key consideration when deciding the future of the East Dulwich station LTN as well as future traffic planning on Matham and Zenoria.

My concern, having witnessed a significant rise in driver aggression and breaches of the Highway Code on this stretch of EDG since the ED Station LTN was introduced (including a driver travelling in the wrong direction up EDG to avoid tailbacks on the other side of the road; frustrated drivers U turning in the middle of the road, and drivers reversing along the road) is that there needs to be holistic thinking about this junction as well as how to service those vehicles wanting to turn right onto Lordship Lane.

The danger at present is that if Matham were to be filtered, drivers will seek to avoid the Goose Green roundabout and make the illegal right turn regardless, which will be incredibly dangerous unless this is properly thought through and mitigated in advance. The alternative (pushing even more traffic into a 100 metre U turn involving the Goose Green roundabout) is also unattractive given the added pollution and congestion this will cause on a stretch of road that is already saturated and struggling to cope with the volume of traffic it experiences.

[Rockets]

Cllr McAsh,

I refer you back to my previously unanswered questions.

When will the council be reviewing the data - data collection went in some time after the closures so what is the timeline for the review?

- We kept being told by the council that pollution monitoring was too expense so how are you able to do that now and what baseline will you be using?

- Are we expected to live with the negative impact for the next 6 months whilst the council collects the data?

- Will the next phases of the closures be put on hold or does the council still plan on implementing them?

- Your comment regarding Matham Grove etc worries me as you seem to be focussed on putting measures in place to deal with the displacement rather than focussing on the source of the displacement. This would suggest to me that you think action to remedy the problem may not be forthcoming or a long way off. Is the council commitment to resolving the source of the problem? We do not need a sticking plaster approach to this.

- Given your admission of not consulting with shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove (and your subsequent apology) will you be forced to remove those immediately as this is in direct contravention of the powers given to you by the government to put these in place?

The frustration many of us are feeling is that no-one from the council is providing any sort of answers to our questions (there is a big difference to responding to questions and answering questions).

You say you cannot answer the questions on monitoring - why not? People want to know that the council is actually monitoring on the roads that are having to deal with the displacement - yet no-one from the council is prepared to share the information we need to be able to determine whether the council is dealing with this matter in a fair and equitable way. Given the way the council has repeatedly manipulated data in its previous presentations I am sure you can understand why many of us are sceptical that the council is doing what it needs to to get the true picture of what is happening and what the real knock-on effect of these closures is.

Given your desire for us to support the traders this Christmas will you be removing the ludicrous closures and the CPZ that are causing untold harm to Lordship Lane and the surrounding shopping streets? Remember some of the Melbourne Grove traders have experienced a 60% drop in trade since the Melbourne Grove closures went in - by the time you put a few extra parking spaces in it may be too late for many of them.

To be brutally frank it is a little galling and somewhat hypocritical that you come on here urging us to do our bit to support our traders when the council has, seemingly, gone out of its way to do everything it can to damage the thriving community we all so love and cherish - have you seen how many empty properties there are along Lordship Lane now? As you admitted yourself and apologised for, the council showed zero consideration for the shopkeepers around Melbourne Grove. Neither did they apply common sense to determine the impact of the DV closures on Lordship Lane which has become so polluted due to the regular tailbacks caused by the DV closures. What many of us find incredible is that, despite the problems Phase 1 has caused, the council charges ahead with the next phases of closures in Dulwich Village and Townley Road that will put yet more pressure on Lordship Lane. You may be able to throttle the displacement onto EDG from DV with the timed closures of DV but more traffic will now inevitably travel northbound along Lordship Lane.

We have always done our bit to support our local business, it's about time the council did theirs.

I am, however, very glad that the council has decided not to pursue the ludicrous Peckham Rye LTN closures. I am hoping this is a turning point and the first sign that the council is finally learning from its mistakes.

And well done to the council for trying to help with the school meals issue - it is an awful situation brought on by a government hell-bent on digging its heals in and using children as part of its war with local authorities. Politics is in a dire situation at the moment and, as today's EHRC report and the Labour party's subsequent suspension of Jeremy Corbyn has shown, there are deep problems on both sides of the fence and many of us wish for more centrist, less polarised political landscape in future - many of us feel utterly abandoned by both big political parties (at all levels).

[KidKruger]

Unfortunately Rockets, your questions won't be 'answered' properly, because the truth is a single "because we were trying to force-through what we decided to implement and didn't want any distractions to stop it, including stakeholders and dependents".

You are (correctly) applying logic and accepted procedure to a disingenuous approach, so there will be mismatches which cannot be explained without exposing corruption.

Democracy.

Street Level.

[Nigello]

have you seen how many empty properties there are along Lordship Lane now ?

You argue that a closed route (MG) has businesses that are badly affected. You also argue that the main roads, like LL, are busier because of the closures, yet on such an extra-busy LL, businesses are closing.

Please show your working out.

[legalalien]

Just one more thing that is nagging at me about the background to the (north) Melbourne Grove closure.

The South multi-ward forum meeting on 25 February (the one with the Neighbourhood Fund allocation to Clean Air for Dulwich), also considered:

(1) applications for funding from the Cleaner Greener Safer capital programme. Ideas for the CGS fund come from applications from the local community, and "All Cleaner Greener Safer projects require consultation with stakeholders, including the project applicant, local residents, Tenants and Residents

Associations and local community groups where appropriate."

(2)allocation of the Devolved Highways Fund. There's a description of this in the report, "an explicit objective within multi-ward areas is that they be used to actively engage as widely as possible with, and bring together, Southwark?s diverse local communities on issues of shared or mutual interest. The Devolved Highway programme is an important tool in achieving community participation." Again, ideas are to come from the local community and the consultation requirement is the same."

The appendix of approved projects includes these things, approved for the Goose Green ward:

1316156Vale Residents' Association - cycle parking on streets close to East Dulwich Station (CGS or Highways)

1316166Implement measures to reduce rat-running between East Dulwich Grove & Grove Vale (CGS or Highways)

1317441Greater Dulwich healthy route (CGS or Highway).

Is the middle one the current blockage of Melbourne Grove North, or was there some plan for speed humps or similar? What is the third item - "Greater Dulwich healthy route"? Bear in mind that these applications must have been made by around October/ December 2019 to be approved in Feb 2020, so all pre-COVID. It's not entirely clear to me who applied for the second and third item. Also Vale Road Residents?

Then we get the comment from Cllr Livingston at the June ESC meeting that the early projects were made in response to high levels of support as shown in the (then just launched and not highly publicised commonplace site); and the StreetSpace site itself says this (dated 15 Sept):

We have just installed a new set of trial Streetspace measures in East Dulwich, following numerous suggestions on this site.

People told us:

?These streets (Derwent Grove) are rat runs with dangerous speeds being reached by drivers cutting through these relatively short, straight roads. Social distancing on pavements is impossible forcing pedestrians onto the roads.?

?This road (Melbourne Grove) is a rat run and has problems with speeding traffic. If there was a permeable filter pedestrians, cyclists and children could use the street and not be at risk from speeding drivers cutting from East Dulwich Grove to Grove Vale.?

I would be interested to know whether the funding from CGS and the Devolved Highways fund was used for these closures, as the consultation requirements for those funds clearly weren't met.

It all just seems a bit odd.

Edited to add: there are similar applications for allocations from CGS and Highways for the first two items in the previous year as well (with different application numbers) although I don't think they were approved.

[Rockets]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> have you seen how many empty properties there are

> along Lordship Lane now ?

>

> You argue that a closed route (MG) has businesses

> that are badly affected. You also argue that the

> main roads, like LL, are busier because of the

> closures, yet on such an extra-busy LL, businesses

> are closing.

>

> Please show your working out.

Nigello, it is quite simple. There are two sets of LTN road closures that are massively impacting the area. The first is the DV closure which is forcing traffic trying to find an east/west route across Dulwich along EDG and Lordship Lane. This, in turn, is creating more congestion along the northern-most tip of LL which is leading to increased pollution on the main shopping street in the area. As a result it is losing its appeal as a place to go shopping - at the weekends it is awful.

The second closure is Melbourne Grove which, combined with implementation of the CPZ, is impacting the shops on Melbourne Grove. Those shops, in the main, are not high footfall businesses they are far more outlier businesses that benefit not from the footfall levels of LL but those types of businesses that require people to travel specifically for them (beauty salons, hairdressers, locksmiths etc). Many of those people, rightly or wrongly, may drive to get there. By both closing the road and removing the ability to park nearby (a large number of the parking bays outside the shops are 30 mins only - most hair appointments and beauty treatments are longer than 30 minutes) you can see why many of the business owners are concerned by the plummeting visitors to their businesses.

To be honest, lots of people on here were flagging these issues to the council but they ignored them. They also ignored bothering to actually talk to the shop owners to get their input. Which is far as I am concerned is utterly negligent of them.

Does that help clarify things for you?

[FairTgirl]

Cllr McAsh

One it is brilliant to hear that Peckham Rye road closures are paused and hopefully off the table for good. We spent some time explaining to three Cllrs that Peckham Rye closures would be a case of closing roads at one of East Dulwich Road (Melbourne Grove etc) to prevent traffic using them, while doing the exact opposite at the other.

Back to Melbourne Grove and businesses. We totally agree with Rockets. If the council supports business and is urging people to support local business why has this been so lacking from start to finish?

We have seen from Southwark docs that funding was being sought by local residents for road changes on Melbourne Grove and neighbouring roads back in Dec/Jan 2019 and the previous year as well. At no point from then to now has anyone sought the opinion of business. You have apologised but not explained why? Could you please?

The businesses brought up the loss of parking and the CPZ more than 6 weeks ago. The loss of parking spaces was detailed in the LSP East Dulwich Trials Road Traffic Orders Notice dated 20 August. Getting it back was described as a possible 'easy win' in a meeting 22 Sept, so why has it taken so long and still not happened? It is now 10 weeks since the road closure and we lost parking.

Will increased parking simply be the reinstatement of this lost parking - or new additional parking?

Is it just for Melbourne Grove/Grove Vale which lost parking or business across East Dulwich who will get increased parking?

Monitoring is frankly crucial to determining success and failure of closure schemes as they are meant to be about reducing air pollution, as well as increasing active travel. Given we are in the midst of a public health crisis that is linked to air pollution, if there is any chance whatsoever that road closures could actually lead to an increase in air pollution around certain populations (eg children, elderly, BAME) already most at risk from air pollution and COVID, surely monitoring roads likely to take displacement with such heavy school populations should be mandatory? This should have been in place long before any road closures were contemplated.

Wandsworth Council were operating within the same timeframes to bid, access funds and implement their LTN schemes, but they managed to gather baseline traffic data and put in air pollution monitoring. See attachments.

There were no monitors on EDG and only one near Townley Road on Lordship Lane according to Air Quality reports for 2019

I know you have said you don't know about monitoring - but I have asked these questions of a Scrutiny Committe and was told to ask you and that you should have the answers. Given that TfL were communicating with Wandsworth cllrs over these matters, shouldn't you know about monitoring in your ward around substantial road closures?

If you don't have decent baselines for any of this how will you determine if traffic has gone down anywhere other than the closed roads?

Given that a tiny increase in air pollution can increase Covid deaths by 11% shouldn't you be making it your priority to know if these schemes could put people's health at risk?