Residents- Chesterfield, Ashbourne, Bassano, Blackwater, Tell Grove, Colwell, Blackwater and Matham

[EDAus]

Locking this thread as it's a duplicate of "Southwark request for comments re Covid-19 / healthier streets" https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?32,2113728,2113998 which was started first.

Admin

Southwark are asking for resident?s views about ways that will help with social distancing, discouraging traffic, improving cycling/walking and identifying pinch points.

One suggestion being raised again is filters on Melbourne Grove which would restrict vehicle access but allow walking and bikes.

This could potentially displace traffic onto Chesterfield / Ashbourne / Bassano / Blackwater / Tell Grove / Colwell / Blackwater and Matham.

It could also increase traffic on surrounding roads such as Lordship Lane potentially leading to an increase in standing traffic and pollution.

Please provide your feedback / comments to Southwark:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/health-and-wellbeing/public-health/for-the-public/coronavirus/impact-on-council-services/coronavirus-help-us-combat-covid-19-by-suggesting-healthier-streets

You can add comments under the ?How you can help section? by using a button called - ?Add comment?. When you press this a map of Southwark appears which you can use to pin / add your street and comments / concerns.

Admin ? you can close the post etc., to new comments I just wanted to raise this, as it impacts a large number of local residents but was hidden in other threads where it may not be immediately obvious.

[Rockets]

For any resident in that area it is worth noting:

This is one of Cllr McAsh's pet projects that he is shamelessly using Covid-19 as the catalyst for engaging those who live on the impacted roads to get the restrictions put in place.

Cllr McAsh was canvassing Melbourne Grove residents some months ago agitating for the closure on the basis that the Dulwich Village Healthy Streets closures would push more traffic along Melbourne Grove.

If you have any opposition you have to be vocal directly to Cllr McAsh and the council and make your voice be heard throughout the community - you are his constituents but he only tends to listen to the minority that further his goals.

The survey Cllr McAsh has forwarded will exclude from the findings any input from anyone who does not live on the impacted roads. The same happened during the CPZ consultation.

If you have any concerns make sure you are heard. He is supposed to represent you and look after your interests not those of his party.

[first mate]

I suspect the council drive for CPZ is underpinning this latest move. Playing their usual long game of ?street dominoes? the council would be more than happy to displace lots of traffic onto the roads listed, as those streets ?resisted? at the last CPZ consultation. If this new meddling proposal succeeds we should expect councillors soon to turn up on the doorsteps of residents on those ?CPZ-resistant? streets, ready to lend a sympathetic ear and keen to drum up support for their car-free solutions, with money making permits and myriad penalties the end goal.

Given current issues with public transport,money, pervasive uncertainty and stress, attempting to ramp up pressure on car use is crazy. This political ?tunnel vision? is both alarming and inept.

[Serena2012]

Thank you for highlighting these proposals. I agree that they appear opportunistic; an example of extreme nimbyism and fail to address what will no doubt be a significant knock on impact of displaced traffic on surrounding roads. Indeed, the benefits for the residents of the area as a whole are far from clear, nor is it clear that the perceived issues that these proposals set out to fix (e.g. the challenge of social distancing on the pavements) is more pronounced on these roads than it is elsewhere. Indeed, I have encountered far more issues attempting to social distance on Grove Vale, Matham Grove, Zenoria/ Oxonian and East Dulwich Grove than I have on any of these roads.

In terms of knock on impact on neighbouring roads, I have significant concerns about the impact of the proposals on the junction between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane, which is incredibly dangerous to pedestrians and has been the location of numerous accidents in recent years. Increasing the volume of traffic using this junction cannot be prudent, and is a fatal accident waiting to happen. There will also invariably be heavier traffic on the stretch of Grove Vale that runs past Goose Green Primary, as well as a higher likelihood of tailbacks at the Goose Green roundabout, which combined with the knock on impact on all other neighbouring roads, makes it hard to justify these proposals.

[northernmonkey]

Its interesting the way that this is being portrayed and it isn't wholly accurate. The Melbourne South closure was part of the OHS consultation and therefore has already been consulted on. The rationale for the closure is not to change the route that people use to access their homes (whilst inevitable) but instead to stop the large volume of traffic that uses the length of Melbourne Grove as a rat run to cut off Lordship Lane.

If you use a map and look at the layout of the road, the idea that traffic would cut down Melbourne south when travelling North and then right turn down Ashbourne or Chesterfield is clearly unlikely as it would essentially be going back on itself. Whilst there may be some journeys that go down these roads from residents of Melbourne its more likely that there will be a significant decrease in traffic cutting through to reach Melbourne Grove and travelling beyond.

In addition - its worth looking at the work of the Liveable Streets group on traffic evaporation to see why there isn't a 1:1 correlation on diversion.

Final point is that Melbourne Grove has the entrance to ED Charter and it is unsafe at present. When schools return social distancing on the pavement will be impossible and so children need a safe route. If Melbourne North is blocked off, then the parallel and obvious alternatives also need closing. In this current climate we need safe routes for cycling and walking and Melbourne Grove was identified as a potential route back in 2015, so taking action now would seem appropriate. Every person walking or cycling is one less car blocking routes for journeys that need to be made by car, so finding ways to encourage it is key.

[Serena2012]

Northernmonkey - on the assumption that not all pupils attending Charter East Dulwich live on the Northern portion of Melbourne Grove, and will therefore almost invariably need to walk along Grove Vale or East Dulwich Grove in order to to get onto the relevant section of Melbourne Grove, I struggle to see how a proposal that threatens to displace traffic onto these other roads, thereby making them more polluted, and more dangerous for walkers and cyclists alike does much to promote active travel.

Even if the decision is taken to close the Northern portion of Melbourne Grove given the huge volume of school children using the road to get to Charter East Dulwich, I struggle to see why these closures should also be applied to Elsie Road and Derwent Grove, particularly given the issues the displaced traffic will invariably cause along Grove Vale, Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove (which arguably will have a much more detrimental impact on the community as a whole). I get why the Northern section of Melbourne Grove is in a somewhat unique position in this context, given the size of Charter East Dulwich. However, a proposal that allows other roads like Elsie and Derwent to jump onto the bandwagon at huge cost to the safety and well-being of those living, commuting and travelling along the other streets in the area cannot be supported.