Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[FairTgirl]

I agree also with Rockets.

This was published in SE22 magazine last week as well.

Disagree with Cllr McAsh statement that there was no chance to consult with community - they did consult three times with very specific people, February started out flyering particular roads, held door to door surveys and meetings in July with specific people and shared the plans of the road closures.

Only explanation thus far business have been offered was that it was to do with social distancing, no mention of traffic or cut-throughs. But they were flyering residents a month before Covid lock-down.

Also don't undertand why if you are not sure - 'so it is a complex job to assess whether the roads would be better or worse without the new measures' - and it could (and has had) very negative impacts why you would just forge on anyway.

Why not do some actual proper data gathering post lockdown to see if traffic has actually increased first, then if it has discuss it with ALL stakeholders, and assess it better before others have to suffer the impacts on their livelihoods and health while a handful get cul-de-sacs.

Traffic will increase in winter, if you look at all pollution data it always does for obvious reasons, is that the best time to experiment with road closures that will just add more pressure to already polluted roads, a time when people are least likely to visit local businesses on foot or by bike, adding further to their post-lockdown suffering.

Overall pollution is coming down in London as per the Mayor's report at the weekend, car ownership is decreasing in Southwark, less young people in Southwark are getting driving licences, according to the council's own data. Report today says sales of electric cars are booming. There are so many other ways to keep this going in the right direction that don't have such poor outcomes.

[ed26]

How do I propose closing off Bellenden Road at the junction with Maxted Road and Danby Street? This would make the area much safer for the kids at The Belham, reduce the congestion at the parade of shops, and it would make my afternoons at home a lot quieter. I'm sure it would have terrible knock-on effects on the other roads around here, but it wouldn't bother me as long as I can have pleasant walks with less noise and air pollution #notmyproblemmate

[tiddles]

And destroy a load of small businesses

[eastdulwichhenry]

> it's easy to like road closures It's the impact on

> the other roads. Congestion, pollution, delays and

> dangerous roads that we don't want.

None of which are supported by any evidence other than "it looked a bit busy on Lordship Lane today". Reality check: Lordship Lane has always been busy. But at least pedestrians and cyclists now have a real alternative. Hopefully it is here to stay, despite the pathetic rearguard shown here.

[Rockets]

eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

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

> > it's easy to like road closures It's the impact

> on

> > the other roads. Congestion, pollution, delays

> and

> > dangerous roads that we don't want.

>

> None of which are supported by any evidence other

> than "it looked a bit busy on Lordship Lane

> today". Reality check: Lordship Lane has always

> been busy. But at least pedestrians and cyclists

> now have a real alternative. Hopefully it is here

> to stay, despite the pathetic rearguard shown

> here.

Just five posts above yours was a pasting of a post from Cllr McAsh, a key advocate for the closures, who is acknowledging that the closures are causing problems elsewhere.

The only rear-guard action here is of the pro-closure lobbyists who continue to insist the closures aren't causing any problems elsewhere and that everything is awesome! It's the type of myopic, deliberately blinkered and unbalanced approach to this that is galvanising so many Dulwich residents to fight it.

[KidKruger]

the closures have had an impact on other roads. even without 'evidence' it's obvious to see for reasons people have already mentioned above. you're always going too refute a photograph or question and readings on a pollution meter anyway.

the only way your point could possibly make sense would be if all the original traffic, which used the roads now closed, had actually vanished into thin air. that's the only way there could be zero difference from the closures.

and if those cars have not actually vanished (probably the more realistic proposition, right ?), then they must be somewhere.

All parked at home with journeys deleted ? Nope.

All taking new routes that don't include our postcode ? Nope.

Oh wait, perhaps they are trying to now navigate the remaining roads which are still open and that causes congestion and centralises pollution to the main arteries ? Oh yeah !

eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

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

> > it's easy to like road closures It's the impact

> on

> > the other roads. Congestion, pollution, delays

> and

> > dangerous roads that we don't want.

>

> None of which are supported by any evidence other

> than "it looked a bit busy on Lordship Lane

> today". Reality check: Lordship Lane has always

> been busy. But at least pedestrians and cyclists

> now have a real alternative. Hopefully it is here

> to stay, despite the pathetic rearguard shown

> here.

[FairTgirl]

The E-petition appears to be back up on Southwark website.

Do sign it and use genuine addresses so the strength of feeling can not be easily dismissed by the council.

Sign Residents Against Local Road Closures Petition here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=500000049

[dan_hall]

Thanks for bringing this petition to our attention, I have just signed.

Whilst it is good to encourage people to use their cars less, I really don't think that these road closures are the correct way to go about it. Even cyclists seem to be generally negative to these closures as it is difficult to cycle around the surrounding roads due to increased congestion, and this was supposed to be beneficial to cyclists.

[KidKruger]

I'm all for reduced traffic, congestion, pollution.

What you don't do is implement instant changes, with little/no notice, without providing alternatives (and yes, some of the alternative is drivers adopting mindset to cease short journeys, etc.).

There needs to be an actual long-term strategy with specific goals and measures agreed, which rolls forward years ahead and is shared to all affected people at the start, along with updates on the way.

How many hundreds of thousands of people bought diesel cars because the Govt said that was the best thing to do, only to now be being doubly-penalised (ULEZ and CC) when driving through town ? And soon ULEZ will be expanded to entire North/South Circular diameter.

At a time when a lot of people are struggling for money and likely will be for years to come, forcing them to buy a replacement car or be fined for being in their own neighourhood is plain predatory.

[DulwichFox]

Basically Roads are built to be used by Cars and all other vehicles.

Pavements are for people to walk on.

Millions being spent repairing both.

When the Council closes roads.. makes them one way... it creates a situation with many cars

end up driving around lost. This is the cause of much of the pollution , congestion in our area.

Restricting Parking also creates more congestion.

Open up our roads... allow parking more freely and cars will be spread over a larger area

and not in restricted areas.

Wait and see When Southwark creates more CPZ's you will be able to park on every inch of available road

as long as you pay.

[FairTgirl]

Islington residents are starting legal action, as have Ealing residents.

Notable quote from the piece in Islington Gazette - a 2018 High Court battle between Trail Riders and Fellowship and Wiltshire County Council set a precendent that consulatation is still necessary under ETROs. (Experimental Traffic Road Orders).

Erik Pagano (resident who brought the case) said: [ETROs} should only be used when the works are genuinely experimental and not just novel and certainly should not be used to circumvent the normal consultation process."

https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/politics/threat-of-court-action-over-islington-people-friendly-streets-1-6871719

[Spartacus]

Good write up in the Southwark news

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/becoming-like-a-ghost-town-east-dulwich-traders-fear-closure-after-low-emission-road-blocks-installed/

Not convinced by Councillor Rose's quote

Councillor Catherine Rose, cabinet member for leisure, environment and roads at Tooley Street, gave the following statement: ?We understand the concerns raised by businesses on Melbourne Grove.

?Both myself, Cllr Burgess and ward councillors have met with the traders and are very sympathetic to the issues they have raised, we are reviewing the impact of the traffic reducing measures on their businesses and looking at what mitigations can be put in place.

?I want to see a long term, sustainable reduction in cars and low traffic neighbourhoods are one of a variety of potentially impactful ways of achieving low traffic Southwark.

?It?s important to encourage active travel to our high streets and we?ll also be working with traders to see what we can do to increase cycle parking in the Grove Vale and Melbourne Grove area.?

To me it felt like, yeah yeah we've heard you complaint but we're keeping the measures regardless because everyone must cycle.

[Rockets]

Indeed the Cllr's statement very much reads like - "after consulting with Southwark Cyclists we have decided that there is a simple fix: we will remove more parking spaces and replace them with cycle racks."

In all seriousness the pressure is now mounting on the council and councillors as each time there is an article or news report like this more people say: "wow, do the council really know what they are doing".

We know from Cllr McAsh's statement that there was no consultation with shop owners and this is an utter dereliction of duty on the council's part. It may also make the closures unlawful due to a lack of proper consultation.

[KidKruger]

The businesses on MG need compensating, not just for financial loss, but for the stress and inconvenience of having to face (with no consultation) the very real possibility of their business ending. Heaven knows how many ?10,000s individual owners have piled into their business to initially set-up then operate through this period of road closures.

Council will take business rates off you with no favours, then threaten your business longevity without your so much as having a say-so.

Complete lack of awareness (one would hope) and abuse of position.

Out of control, power unto themselves. Very amateur.

[FairTgirl]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Indeed the Cllr's statement very much reads like -

> "after consulting with Southwark Cyclists we have

> decided that there is a simple fix: we will remove

> more parking spaces and replace them with cycle

> racks."

>

> In all seriousness the pressure is now mounting on

> the council and councillors as each time there is

> an article or news report like this more people

> say: "wow, do the council really know what they

> are doing".

>

> We know from Cllr McAsh's statement that there was

> no consultation with shop owners and this is an

> utter dereliction of duty on the council's part.

> It may also make the closures unlawful due to a

> lack of proper consultation.

Curious to discover quite why Southwark Cyclists hold so much sway, as Rockets you said in another post elsewhere, why would Southwark continually include this lobby group in decision making reports - when TFl will have all necessary data required.

Popping onto their website and reading their campaigning material, reports, minutes is quite edifying. The url is the name of an East Dulwich former councillor until 2018.

He states on his (former) councillor page that he was previously chair of Southwark Cyclists - the fact his name is in the url suggests he is still heavily involved and he states he lives locally.

I am possibly the last person to be aware of what feels a relevant connection.

Over in Oval, it has come to light that one of the first LTNs that was created there is home to three local councillors...

[first mate]

I think there is a longstanding relationship between sectors of the Labour Party in particular and a stated aim to rid London of private car ownership by 2030. The socialist hue of labour councils and councillors may be a factor in how fanatically they pursue this agenda see https://www.fleetpoint.org/carandvannews/car/privately-owned-cars-should-be-banned-from-london-by-2030/

It seems Southwark has signed up to this agenda with zeal and cycling organisations will have been useful allies and organs of promotion. Hence S?wark Cyclists central role as a ?stakeholder? and consultee.

[FairTgirl]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Indeed the Cllr's statement very much reads like -

> "after consulting with Southwark Cyclists we have

> decided that there is a simple fix: we will remove

> more parking spaces and replace them with cycle

> racks."

>

> In all seriousness the pressure is now mounting on

> the council and councillors as each time there is

> an article or news report like this more people

> say: "wow, do the council really know what they

> are doing".

>

> We know from Cllr McAsh's statement that there was

> no consultation with shop owners and this is an

> utter dereliction of duty on the council's part.

> It may also make the closures unlawful due to a

> lack of proper consultation.

The business collectively feel quite depressed that Cllrs think a few cycle racks will prevent them losing ?1000s a week. Surely even they read that quote and feel embarrassed?

What was it Grant Shapps said about failure to consult? 'Get it fixed or no more cash'.

[Rockets]

FairTgirl Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Indeed the Cllr's statement very much reads like

> -

> > "after consulting with Southwark Cyclists we

> have

> > decided that there is a simple fix: we will

> remove

> > more parking spaces and replace them with cycle

> > racks."

> >

> > In all seriousness the pressure is now mounting

> on

> > the council and councillors as each time there

> is

> > an article or news report like this more people

> > say: "wow, do the council really know what they

> > are doing".

> >

> > We know from Cllr McAsh's statement that there

> was

> > no consultation with shop owners and this is an

> > utter dereliction of duty on the council's

> part.

> > It may also make the closures unlawful due to a

> > lack of proper consultation.

>

> Curious to discover quite why Southwark Cyclists

> hold so much sway, as Rockets you said in another

> post elsewhere, why would Southwark continually

> include this lobby group in decision making

> reports - when TFl will have all necessary data

> required.

>

> Popping onto their website and reading their

> campaigning material, reports, minutes is quite

> edifying. The url is the name of an East Dulwich

> former councillor until 2018.

> He states on his (former) councillor page that he

> was previously chair of Southwark Cyclists - the

> fact his name is in the url suggests he is still

> heavily involved and he states he lives locally.

>

> I am possibly the last person to be aware of what

> feels a relevant connection.

>

> Over in Oval, it has come to light that one of the

> first LTNs that was created there is home to three

> local councillors...

That's interesting - I didn't realise that.

I did wonder why Southwark Cyclists has a postal address on London Wall, E1. Then I looked a bit deeper and it seems the reason is that they are part of the London Cycle Campaign.

Now interestingly the London Cycle Campaign proudly claims on their website that they helped invent the term LTNs with Living Streets.

Cast your mind back to the East Dulwich CPZ consultations and Living Streets is quoted extensively by the council as they are the ones who came up with the figure that people spend 40% more when the walk to the shops - which formed the basis of the council's lobbying of the local community.

It's all worryingly insular and nepotistic if you ask me. It seems the council is deliberately engaging and consulting only with people in their own echo chamber and ignoring the views of the wider community.

[FairTgirl]

Surely for the sake of balance there should be some disability/elderly groups/BAME stakeholder groups involved, not to mention Chamber of Commerce in all theses decisions?

[ed26]

I take my car out roughly twice a week - once for a weekly shop and once for an appointment near the Brixton end of Brockwell Park. I used to take the 37 to the Brixton appointment, but after waiting for 20 mins in the rain with a crying child for a 37 that zipped past with a "bus full" sign on it, I now drive to that appointment.

I think long and hard about whether it's worth paying c?2K p.a. (insurance, tax, parking, etc.) for this, and then I think of needing to visit my elderly parents in the sticks at short notice, so yes it is.

The Council will not get me to drive less by closing roads. In fact, road closures will make me more stressed when sitting in a needless traffic jam at the Lordship Lane / East Dulwich Grove junction. I'm pretty chilled, but many drivers aren't, and angry drivers cause accidents.

What will get me to drive less is for TFL to sort out the 37 again, so it comes frequently enough that it isn't full when it arrives. And for Sainsbury's to employ telepathic shoppers, who will choose exactly the items that I want, within an hour of me ordering. The Sainsbury's option seems more likely at the moment.

I'd support remodelling of the road network if it was properly thought through. If traffic is to be redirected up Lordship Lane, then the whole East Dulwich Road / Lordship Lane / East Dulwich Grove junction needs to be remodelled with pedestrian crossings, cycle lanes and traffic-controlled lights. If roads are going to be closed arbitrarily, the Council needs to consider whether existing closures, turning restrictions, etc. are still necessary. It's currently as if the whole scheme has been designed as a primary school project.

[James Barber]

Hi FairGirl,

I was Southwark Cyclists chairperson for several years ending from memory 2002.

I bought/rented the southwark Cyclists URL way back pre 2000 and it was only around 15 years that I transferred maintaining these payments to Southwark Cyclists.

I am a member of London Cycling Campaign - have been since 1992 - which automatically makes me a member of the local Southwark branch called Southwark Cyclists.

I have also been a member of Living Streets which makes me a member of Southwark Living Streets for similar period but never leading them.

Surprised to hear my name is still against the Southwark Cyclists URL.

You asked about other possible stakeholder groups - many are asked but not so many choose to get involved.

WRT to Southwark Cyclists - it felt like we were often banging our heads against brick walls when we were consulted.

Personally. I think implementing a CPZ and LTN's at the same time makes it very hard to digest together. An all day CPZ as a trial instead of, as my lot proposed in 2021, a 1 hour CPZ during a trial is the wrong way round.

With a Climate Crisis it is strange how so many are so adamant nothing should or can change. We need a 90% reduction in our CO2 emissions to have habitable planet.

FairTgirl Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Indeed the Cllr's statement very much reads like

> -

> > "after consulting with Southwark Cyclists we

> have

> > decided that there is a simple fix: we will

> remove

> > more parking spaces and replace them with cycle

> > racks."

> >

> > In all seriousness the pressure is now mounting

> on

> > the council and councillors as each time there

> is

> > an article or news report like this more people

> > say: "wow, do the council really know what they

> > are doing".

> >

> > We know from Cllr McAsh's statement that there

> was

> > no consultation with shop owners and this is an

> > utter dereliction of duty on the council's

> part.

> > It may also make the closures unlawful due to a

> > lack of proper consultation.

>

> Curious to discover quite why Southwark Cyclists

> hold so much sway, as Rockets you said in another

> post elsewhere, why would Southwark continually

> include this lobby group in decision making

> reports - when TFl will have all necessary data

> required.

>

> Popping onto their website and reading their

> campaigning material, reports, minutes is quite

> edifying. The url is the name of an East Dulwich

> former councillor until 2018.

> He states on his (former) councillor page that he

> was previously chair of Southwark Cyclists - the

> fact his name is in the url suggests he is still

> heavily involved and he states he lives locally.

>

> I am possibly the last person to be aware of what

> feels a relevant connection.

>

> Over in Oval, it has come to light that one of the

> first LTNs that was created there is home to three

> local councillors...

[Abe_froeman]

Assuming you have not had any discussions with the council over these current road closures then James?

[dougiefreeman]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi FairGirl,

> I was Southwark Cyclists chairperson for several

> years ending from memory 2002.

> I bought/rented the southwark Cyclists URL way

> back pre 2000 and it was only around 15 years that

> I transferred maintaining these payments to

> Southwark Cyclists.

>

> I am a member of London Cycling Campaign - have

> been since 1992 - which automatically makes me a

> member of the local Southwark branch called

> Southwark Cyclists.

> I have also been a member of Living Streets which

> makes me a member of Southwark Living Streets for

> similar period but never leading them.

> Surprised to hear my name is still against the

> Southwark Cyclists URL.

>

> You asked about other possible stakeholder groups

> - many are asked but not so many choose to get

> involved.

> WRT to Southwark Cyclists - it felt like we were

> often banging our heads against brick walls when

> we were consulted.

>

> Personally. I think implementing a CPZ and LTN's

> at the same time makes it very hard to digest

> together. An all day CPZ as a trial instead of, as

> my lot proposed in 2021, a 1 hour CPZ during a

> trial is the wrong way round.

>

> With a Climate Crisis it is strange how so many

> are so adamant nothing should or can change. We

> need a 90% reduction in our CO2 emissions to have

> habitable planet.

Forgive me James, but I don?t believe the advocates for the reversal of the road closures are ?adamant nothing should or can change?. From these threads I think it?s pretty clear that we are all in agreement that we need to reduce vehicle useage - however it needs to be properly thought through and ALL residents need to be consulted and listened to in the process. Doesn?t seem an unfair or far-fetched ideology to me.

[ed26]

James - can you clarify who "are so adamant nothing should or can change." Everyone in this thread has agreed that we should aim to minimise vehicle use. But we don't achieve that by making it slower and further (and consequently more polluting) to get from A to B, which is what the road closures (new and existing) are doing. The Council should be working hand-in-hand with TFL to make it easier and less stressful to get from A to B on the existing infrastructure, not reducing the current public transport provision.

[Rockets]

DougieFreeman - this does seem to be the go-to position of a lot of the pro-closure lobby that somehow people think the status quo was acceptable. It wasn't and everyone realises there have to be changes to the way we all use cars, home deliveries etc etc. No-one on here has ever said do nothing.

What people want is something that doesn't make the problem worse - which is is obvious these closures are currently doing.

So James, are you at all worried about the increased congestion and pollution that these closures are causing on other roads and what, bar closing more roads, do you think can be done to resolve it? It's clear the traffic won't just disappear in the numbers required to make a difference and all these closures are doing is pushing the traffic down fewer and fewer routes.

Southwark Cyclists were consulted on the proposed closures on Peckham Rye - does it worry you at all that your ex-constituents will now have to bear the brunt of the traffic through the backstreets of Dulwich as cars will no longer be able to turn right from Peckham Rye onto East Dulwich Road?

Everyone in Dulwich is being impacted by these closures yet only a very small group is benefitting.