Consultation on ?improving? the junction of East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale

[Tessmo]

Thanks Scootingover.

OK, can I check I understand all this?

1. Councillor Mark Williams, who has written the foreword to the Cycling Strategy, will be the one who makes the decision on the controversial junction change at Townley Road that is?part of the Cycling Strategy.

2. On the last day of the public consultation, when it was all too late, local residents were told that the junction change was?part of the Cycling Strategy.

3. The Cabinet member for parks is Councillor Barrie Hargrove. He used to do Councillor Mark Williams? job. He will be taking the decision about the controversial Quietway/Cycle Superhighway through Dulwich Park which is? part of the Cycling Strategy.

4. Southwark Cyclists, Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School, and The Dulwich Society are described as ?key interest groups?. They don?t always make the minutes of their meetings public, or say who their committee members are, they are not elected by the local community, and Alistair Hanton is a member of all three. Despite this, they are?part of the Cycling Strategy.

Anyone got a rubber stamp?

[bawdy-nan]

I've just received an email from "Dulwich Young Cyclists" inviting me to an "open meeting" on 17th January (ie next Saturday):

"Dulwich Safe Routes is working for a safer environment for children walking and cycling to school.

Please join us for a discussion looking for positive outcomes from planned road changes now and in the future, including the proposed changes to the Townley Road Junction.

Saturday 17th January, 15:00 - St Barnabas Hall

Gilkes Place SE21 7BT"

I wanted to share this because it is an open meeting and I am currently baffled as to why an organisation which says it is for a "safer environment for children walking and cycling to school" would be so vehement a supporter of a proposal that, it seems to me, will lead to a significantly more dangerous environment for children who attend the two state schools in the village and who, because they are local, tend to arrive on foot already. I can only assume that the group has additional information about why the impact will not be to make the JAGS / Alleyns pupils safer at the expense of the primary school pupils.

Edited to say, actually I'm not sure why the no right hand turn would make the Jags/ Alleyns kids safer. But I do absolutely support attempts to make the junction safer and do think that this can be achieved through lots of changes short of the no right hand turn.

I looked at the papers on the council consultation site about likely traffic impact but found it very difficult to understand.

I should say that I am a cyclist and parent of 2 children who go to school locally (on foot and by bike) and want to see cycling and pedestrians prioritised over other traffic. In this case, however, the proposals, I think, will cause real danger to children who walk to school or cycle.

[Green Goose]

The whole thing stinks.

These bl00dy cyclists are so selfish.

Let's all let the air out of their tyres!

GG

[bawdy-nan]

The thing is GG, that the proposed changes will also be to detriment of cyclists at the already very tricky Village / Court Lane / Turney Road / Calton Avenue multi-junction

[Jennys]

And to the detriment of cyclists as well as pedestrians in the whole Dulwich Village/East Dulwich area generally as motorists who would have used the right turn into East Dulwich Grove would have to look for other routes.

[Scootingover]

You?re seeing what I see Tessmo.

Also, same names with obvious interests. Names/institutions that keep cropping up:

Alastair Hanton (AH), Laurie Johnston (LJ), Andy Cawdell (AC), Mark Williams (MW), Barrie Hargrove (BH),

AH operates across:

Dulwich Society Chair Transport committee; Chair, Southwark Living Streets, Southwark Cycles, member Southwark Cycle Joint Steering Group; London Cycling Campaign, Board Member; Trustee, Herne Hill Velodrome; see also as Director, Hume House and Ed Bonner; Chair, Herne Hill and Dulwich Trade Justice Campaign, Living Streets; trustee Campaign for Better Transport; chairs the pressure group Action on Lorry Danger; represents the London Cycling Campaign on several working parties at Transport for London.

AC as Chair of Southwark Cyclists; Trustee, Herne Hill Velodrome; member Southwark Cycle Join Committee; Chair and founder member of the London Cycling Campaign

L J ? member Dulwich Society Transport Group; CEO DulwichSafeRoutes

Mark Williams; Barrie Hargroves ? Southwark Cabinet, Transport and Parks roles; Southwark Joint Cycle Steering Group Chairs; Southwark Cycling Strategy

http://www.endole.co.uk/company/07458529/herne-hill-velodrome-trust

https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/the-hume-house-and-ed-bonner-company

Alastair Hanton ? Co Secretary and Director

THE HUME HOUSE AND ED BONNER COMPANY LIMITED GILKES CRESCENT, LONDON

SE21 7BS

Classification: Activities of political organizations

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/141208/hughes_simon.htm

The Register of Members' Financial Interests: Part 1

As at 8th December 2014

HUGHES, Rt Hon Simon (Bermondsey and Old Southwark)

4. Sponsorships

Name of donor: The Hume House and Ed Bonner Company Ltd

Address of donor: Gilkes Crescent, London SE21 7BS

Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: ?2,000

Donor status: company

(Registered 4 April 2014)

Traffic and Transport Dulwich Society ? Townley 2008

http://www.dulwichsociety.com/newsletters/44-winter-2005/206-dulwich-society-news38

A number of improvements in road safety have recently been achieved by the Dulwich Society through the "Walk to School Campaign" promoted by Transport for London (TfL). These improvements followed consultation by the Society with local schools, Southwark Council members and officers and TfL. The places identified by the Dulwich Society and where work has been carried out include new zebra crossings built across Burbage Road and outside Alleyn's School in Townley Road and the entry treatment at the junction of Woodwarde Road and Calton Avenue. These measures will make it safer for children to walk to and from the Village schools as well as JAGS and Alleyn's. ??????.

Alastair Hanton (Chairman, Traffic and Transport Group)

AH and Townley again in 2008

http://www.dulwichsociety.com/newsletters/40-winter-2006/274-travelling-to-school?tmpl=component&page=

Firstly: changes to road layouts to make it safer for pupils walking to school. With money from Transport for London and work by Southwark Council, the following changes have been made:

? A zebra crossing outside Alleyn's School in Townley Road.

? A zebra crossing in Burbage Road.

? A zebra crossing and traffic calming outside the Charter School in Red Post Hill.

? Narrowing Woodwarde Road at the Calton Avenue junction.

? Raising the carriageways at road junctions along Half Moon Lane and Townley Road.

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6735

Picture April 2013

Jeremy Leach (Living Streets); Alastair Hanton (Southwark Cyclists); Andy Cawdell (Southwark Cyclists); Amy Aeron-Thomas (Road Peace); Colin Hartridge-Price (Southwark Cyclists); Cllr Barrie Hargrove; Charlie Lloyd (London Cycling Campaign).

The pledge says: "We'll work to improve the safety of every Londoner by only signing new contracts with the safest haulage companies, which conform to the London Cycling Campaign's Safer Lorries conditions.

"We also pledge to ensure our council-operated services meet the same standards."

Cllr Barrie Hargrove, cabinet member for environment, transport and recycling, signed the pledge last week with Charlie Lloyd of the London Cycling Campaign and representatives of the local Southwark Cyclists group outside the council's headquarters on Tooley Street.

"As a cyclist myself, I am very pleased to give the council's full commitment to Southwark Cyclists that we will work as a council and with our contractors to aim for all our lorries and those of our contractors to meet the highest safety standards," said Cllr Barrie Hargrove.

"Southwark Council aims to be London's friendliest borough for cycling and I am charged with delivering the council's commitments on cycling and safety."

Andy Cawdell, coordinator of Southwark Cyclists, said: "This pledge will make it safer for all of us to use the roads, both in Southwark and beyond. We hope other boroughs will follow Southwark's lead."

London Cycling Campaign

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-board-and-committees

http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/agenda-2015/policy-commissions/britain-s-global-role-policy-commission/britain-s-global-role-policy-consultation/tax-avoidance-by-multi-national-companies

http://www.newlondonarchitecture.org/event.php?id=166

http://www.streathamguardian.co.uk/news/8726890.print/

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/what-we-do/how-we-are-run

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Borough%20and%20Bankside%20Community%20Council/20080305/Agenda/Sub%20Group%20minutes.pdf

http://www.openstreets.org.uk/our-trustees.html

Alastair Hanton

Alastair is co-founder of Open Streets Trust. A former Deputy Managing Director of Girobank, he has for a number of years served as a director or adviser to a number of NGOs concerned with development, fair trade and environmental transport including Christian Aid, the Fairtrade Foundation and the Campaign for Better Transport. Alastair also chairs the pressure group Action on Lorry Danger, and represents the London Cycling Campaign on several working parties at Transport for London.

[bawdy-nan]

Scootingover Wrote:

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

> You?re seeing what I see Tessmo. etc

>

>

I don't see this as sinister rather evidence of someone who cares passionately, campaigns hard and puts his money where his mouth is. Good for him. But I remain baffled by the heels in on no right turn because the consequences seem to counter everything else he campaigns for (including the liklihood of really messing up Gilkes Crescent) ... the more I read about him the more respect I have, actually, and I would really like to hear the background ideas - wish the commitees and campainers would reveal themselves and engage ....

[Scootingover]

To clarify

>>Seeing what I see Tessmo

referred to the points 1-4 made in that post, ie that the decision to prohibit the Right Hand turn is made already but Southwark don't want to reveal their hand.

My later post shows the positions held for a reason. This is of major relevance in consultations when lobbyist groups are in fact the same people but accepted (wittingly or unwittingly) as distinct organisations making their individual representations.

Real life is often this way you may rightly say, but here I draw attention to it as part of the increasingly evident conflict of the Townley Consultation process and one that Southwark needs to note and not ignore.

[bawdy-nan]

sorry Scootingover, I wasn't trying to undermine your points.

Perhaps I misread your post. I read it as identifying a very close conected network of campaigners and especially Alastair Hanton.

I do see that it is all very closely connected and that the same lobbyists appear in different hats all over the place but I reckon that's probably the way in local politics and where people are active. I don't disagree with you that this undermines the idea of "consultation".

What I am interested in is hearing from these activists. I would normally identify myself as being broadly on their "side" but here I am at a loss as to see why they seem so powerfully in favour of something that seems, to me at least, so evidently against what they've been campaigning for in the past...

[Scootingover]

I suspect they are in a dilemma as they hear the reaction from residents. They too are victims of a poor consultation process and a masked Southwark agenda. But you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Why do I think this?

I was shown an email from the Dulwich Society in response to queries on the Consultation which says:

"The Traffic and Transport committee, chaired by Alastair Hanton, has been party to the negotiations with the Council on these junction improvements along with the 'Safer Routes to Schools' group, the prime mover, and the schools themselves. The subcommittee's view is that the proposal (specifically option 4) will substantially improve pedestrian and cycling safety at this junction and will not lead to problems for traffic elsewhere.

Discussions over the scheme have been going on for some while and it is only now, during the wider public consultation exercise, that serious objections have come out. The subcommittee's reports to the Exec committee have been on the basis that there are identifiable safety problems at this junction and that pedestrians (mostly school children) and cyclists, are at particular risk - the exec committee had been assured that there were back up surveys and modelling reports and we were led to believe that the public consultation exercise would be a formality, and that everyone would be in favour."

The DulwichSsafe Routes Bike-It officer says in their blog comments (Tim Warins I believe)

http://dulwichsaferoutes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/east-dulwich-grovetownley-rdgreen-dale.html

Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School said...

Hello Southwark cyclist and local resident,

We didn't design the process but want to try to work positively and collaboratively. We didn't know about the banned right proposal and hadn't seen the junction plans before they went out for consultation either. Very happy that individuals are responding to Southwark to ask questions, raise concerns and make suggestions.

8 December 2014 at 16:29

So they have spoken out already in fact on their concerns but they do not know how to tackle this with Southwark either. Because they are in close contact with the Southwark consultation organisers, I also suspect that they have been told that the no RH turn is non-negotiable and they do not know which way to turn.

Turn RIGHT - forgive the pun...........

[BrandNewGuy]

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> The whole thing stinks.

> These bl00dy cyclists are so selfish.

> Let's all let the air out of their tyres!

> GG

There's no need to be a twat. No-one here is disregarding cycling safety. It's a question of weighing up the opinions and views of all 'stakeholders' (cyclists, pedestrains, drivers, local residents, TFL etc) and not letting the entire traffic process be hijacked by one narrow interest group.

[holymoly]

Tessmo ? I agree with you that the Cycling Strategy 'hidden' agenda is driving this and that consultation is not visible to many of us. We are focussed on Townley and only unravelling the connection with the Cycling Strategy at this point.

A friend of mine shared this with me from a resident on Eynella. They have not had the benefit of either the Townley consultation or a formal notification of the Cycling Strategy Consultation.

I am sitting here thinking of the many letters/emails etc sent to Chris Mascord for the Townley consultation and we will never get to see them; they could be overshadowed by people answering from anywhere in fact ? there is nothing on the consultation that says how responses from residents will be considered in relation to those less affected. What if I had encouraged all my work colleagues, my running club, my relatives and friends in London to respond - even though they would not really be using the junction. How would Southwark have filtered them out or considered their relevance.

So for what it is worth, here is a sample and indicative letter and I bet there are hundreds if not thousands like it to Southwark:

The Chief Executive,

Southwark Council,

PO Box 64529,

London SE1P 5LX

Dear Chief Executive,

NORTH-SOUTH CYCLE SUPERHIGHWAY.

As you can see, I am a resident of Eynella Road. Some ten days before Christmas I was alerted to the Southwark Cycling Strategy by a member of the Friends of Dulwich Park which, like Eynella Road, would be significantly affected by the plans for a super cycle highway. Despite Southwark Council?s statement that they are engaging with their commuters and listening to their needs, no one connected with Southwark Council has had the courtesy to tell us what is afoot. We have not received a single letter from the Council and certainly no sign of the consultation supposedly conducted in November and December 2014. Having now read the Southwark paper on its proposed Cycling Strategy, it seems clear that no-one involved in the planning, including Councillor Mark Williams and his team, have, as yet, given any detailed consideration to the position of users and residents in the area most closely affected. The Cycling Strategy questionnaire, for the few fortunate enough to have found it and have the means to read it on line, does not meet the questions that we would like to ask. Comments, for example, that ?On residential streets, traffic will be heavily calmed or designed out? (whatever that may mean) are hardly encouraging.

It is not clear whether the local councillors in Village and East Dulwich wards have been involved in informing and sounding out local residents but I hope they will take note of our concerns before the Council, as it clearly expects to do, rubber stamps the new strategy in March. The current protest about plans for the Townley Road junction with Greendale and East Dulwich Grove is a good illustration of the problems that arise when the planners press ahead paying little heed to local opinion or those who use the crossing almost every day.

Dulwich Park

The proposal to route a dedicated cycle highway through Dulwich Park raises significant concerns which will be articulated by the Friends of Dulwich Park. I looked, without success, for any estimate of the demand for such a cycle path. What is the assessment of the number of cyclists likely to use this route at various times of the day on weekdays and at weekends? Where are they supposed to be heading?

Very large sums of money have been spent on the park in recent years to provide a safe and attractive environment for mothers and babies, mothers and toddlers, young children, teenagers as well as adults and the elderly. It is not clear what will be gained by driving a super highway across the park: an aggressive hoard of cyclists could well increase the threat to the safety of other park users (on foot as well as young cyclists) both in the park and as they approach the Court Lane Gate along Eynella Road.

It is not clear whether the cycle highway will be open after dark? If it is to operate outside park opening hours, how will it be lit to avoid light pollution, and who will pay the additional running costs and ensure that vandals do not enter the park during the hours of darkness?

Eynella Road

There are 25 housing units in Eynella Road and the road is also used for parking during working hours by staff from the Library, Lloyds Bank and other commercial enterprises around the Lordship Lane/Eynella Road junction. These provide valued services for a wide area and attract customers on foot, by public transport and by car. It is usually very difficult for residents to find parking spaces by day and often also in the evening. Parking on both sides of the road is essential for family and professional (e.g. doctors) reasons and there is no feasible alternative: there is nowhere else to go. It is difficult therefore to see how a cycle highway can be fitted into the narrow space available without exercising draconian unilateral powers and severely disadvantaging those who live and work here. Journeys with very young children, transport to more distant schools, deliveries of goods and major shopping, family visitors, older residents (age was ignored in the survey) cannot be carried out by cycle. Furthermore for nearly100 years householders have been able to park on both sides of the road and residents have resisted any attempt to alter the character of the road (see for example the 1906 Southwark archive photograph of the road) by opposing drives for off-street parking which would endanger the many school children walking daily down Eynella Road to the Court Lane gate of the park.

Eynella Road also provides an essential link to adjacent roads which are likely to suffer in the event of changes to the traffic flow. Certainly diverting traffic towards the Dulwich Village/Court lane junction would create a major hazard. Further the crossroads at the Library/Plough are already slow to negotiate in rush hour and will not be improved by giving cyclists absolute priority at this junction or diverting other traffic with equally valid road-user rights.

There is much of merit in the forward thinking but the planners must explain to local residents what they aim to do, listen to their views and recognise that many other users have rights as strong as the cycling community.

Yours sincerely,

[richard tudor]

Holymoly

I suspect the articulate letter above will be destined for the waste bin. Southwark Officers have their own agenda.

[Zebedee Tring]

While I am almost as cynical as richard tudor on this, the more people make senior Council officers aware of the huge controversy in Dulwich surrounding both the Cycling Strategy and the Townley/EDG junction issues the better.

I suggest that Holymoly sends (preferably by email) a copy of his/her letter to the Council's Monitoring Officer Doreen Forrester-Brown, who is also the Director of Legal Services. She is currently dealing with my complaint about the consultation and decision making on the junction, and it would be a good idea to give her more background on the way that the Cycling Strategy is being handled and in particular the role of Cllr Mark Williams.

I have asked Ms Forrester-Brown in her capacity as Monitoring Officer, to take the necessary action to ensure that no decision is taken on the junction proposal until a further study on the no right turn suggestion has been carried out and that if such a study is not available to consultees before the Dulwich Community Council meeting on 28 January, a further DCC meeting should be held to consider the study findings. I have also said that it would be totally inappropriate for Cllr Williams to make final decision on the proposal because he appears to be fixed in his views on the no right turn proposal and appears to be dismissing without proper consideration other alternatives. I have therefore suggested that the matter should go to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or other appropriate Committee and if necessary to the full Council for a final decision.

Her email address is [email protected].

Indeed it would be a good idea to tell the local press that there is a story that will interest them.

[holymoly]

Richard Tudor said;

>>I suspect the articulate letter above will be destined for the waste bin. Southwark Officers have their own agenda.

As a Council/public body, I assume that they will be required to keep all the documentation for a period of time - I believe it is 6 years currently.

ZT - what do you think of the benefit of asking for assurances of that from the Monitoring Officer, on the basis that there is a high chance that it will need to be made public. Or in your experience, does the correspondence (email or written) have to be retained on file for a period?

New Labour Leaflet distributed: Cover letter attached to this post - text from the return form is shown below.

I attach the mailing that came through the door from the Village Ward Labour Action team today. Chatting in the village, I hear that Tessa Jowell was walking around there yesterday which I am told is not a usual thing for her to do.

Did anyone else get one and are you going to reply? Another question for the Councillors is to understand how any replies to this mailing are to be taken into consideration. I assume that they are too late for the consultation process but it would be good to get clarity on that. It smacks of a secondary consultation when you read the text.

The options provided are:

I support the proposals for the junction

I oppose the proposals for the junction

I support the principle of the proposals for the junction, but oppose the proposed right hand turn ban from Townley Road into East Dulwich Grove

I support the principle of the proposals for the junction, but I have the following concerns (space for comments)

[Zebedee Tring]

Holymoly, I see no reason not to ask for such assurances from the Monitoring Officer if and when you write to her.

[@Woodwarde]

A few headlines from the Dulwich Society website:

East Dulwich Grove / Townley Road / Green Dale junction scheme

Published on Friday, 02 January 2015 16:05

Southwark Council has completed its initial consulting on these works which are designed to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety at this major junction. There have been a large number of objections from local residents, many having mixed views on the proposal - particularly the removal of the existing traffic light controlled right turn from Townley Road into East Dulwich Grove. It is expected to be discussed further at the next Dulwich Community Council meeting on 28 January (see southwark.gov.uk).

Last Updated on Saturday, 10 January 2015 11:37

The ?Southwark Spine? Cycling Strategy

Published on Friday, 02 January 2015 16:05

The consultation on this has not been well publicized and local residents are now waking up to the implications for several of the residential roads that are identified as ?quiet ways? and more particularly Dulwich Park - the plan assumes that cyclists will be able to ride through it at speed. The consultation is available on line at the links below - look for the executive summary which is probably the most informative section:

(Edited to expand links)

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200107/transport_policy/3623/cycling_strategy (Landing page and docs)

http://www.sdgdigital.co.uk/sites/southwarkcycling/ (interactive map)

https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=1163 (Online Questionnaire)

Last Updated on Friday, 02 January 2015 16:09

I would add to this last post that the consultation (not the interactive map, but the Online questionnaire itself),

finishes on 1st Feb.

there are two things that you should keep watching:

1. the first is the statistics and detail on the Interactive map which of course will be populated largely by cyclists due to the limited visibility of the Consultation by Southwark;

Stats today, 12th Jan on the Interactive map are as follows:

? 87 people signed up

? 380 map comments

? 714 people agree

? 37 people disagree

2. the second is that you are supposed to fill out the online survey. That is interesting and I attach the full text here so you can read it start to finish, before you complete it. Consultation closes for THIS document on the 1st Feb.

It is unclear how this consultation is working. These look like very general information gathering tools and not ones that could be substantiated with any weight as a serious effort to gather views broadly; other than from a cycling community who are in the loop and plugged in to the limited communication channels that exist to date.

However, just like Townley, the next thing to expect is a new local Quietway or Superhighway Consultation that will use these stats and recommendations for road changes on the interactive map - and how will that information be positioned? As rigorously gathered and substantiated or the input of limited existing cyclist groups?

I wonder.............

[spider69]

In responce to @Woodwarde, Charles Notice wrote earlier

"The officers sit in a room with a red pencil and draw lines on a map.

Post a piece of paper on a lamp post and hope no one noticed what is happening

Local pressure groups badger Cllrs and the thing gets passed.

Most locals have no idea it happens.

Join a local green or cycling pressure group and find out"

How true this is turning out to be

[@Woodwarde]

FYI:

more new documents just added to the original Southwark Townley EDG Junction Consultation site

Edited with link

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4025/townley_road-_previous_junction_safety_reviews_and_background_information

Townley Road- Previous junction safety reviews and background information

NEW: Cycling to School Partnerships- Southwark Council bid for 2013/14 (43.6 KB PDF)

NEW: Dulwich schools map (1.02 MB PDF)

NEW: the list of Safety reviews looks considerably longer so there may be new additions?

[slarti b]

Those 2 docs were added at the end of last week, I think 8\9 Jan. I am pretty sure all the others on the site were already there. I can see why they have not publicised this.

The documents they have NOT put on web site include

- the plans of the "shovel ready" scheme referred to in the document and submitted as part of this bid. I wonder if it included a banned RHT?

- The final bid which they say will be submitted in Oct 2013

Also, as a tax and rate payer it looks a pretty flimsy justification to spend ?220k of public money!

[Tessmo]

I don't understand the Dulwich Schools Map that's just been added. If that's all that's been used to think about the implications of this junction, no wonder things have gone so wrong. Where's Heber? Goodrich? St Anthony's? The new school planned for the East Dulwich police station site? Much nearer to the junction - and much more likely to be affected by displaced traffic - than Dulwich College. Don't these primary schools MATTER?

[James Barber]

Hi Tessmo,

The schools you've listed have such tiny admissions area that it seems unlikely pupils would need to travel via this junction. I'd imagine that's why they've not been included.

The private schools don't have distance based admissions and their pupils can come from much further afield. With such high congestion in the area I hope future planning permissions will be conditional on improving this.

[Scootingover]

I have only heard one of the schools - JAGS talk in the Press about their strong support for the scheme - they do not talk about the detail of the modelling. In the same press article (earlier post on the thread) Alleyns use what looks like politically correct wording about supporting safety - but do not give a clue on their view of the option put forward in the proposal.

One of our labour councillors has advised that the modelling has excluded something significant. JAGS has permission for a new music school which removes its current onsite parking. JAGS have stated that the parking will be moved to where the Scout Hut is located on Greendale. I am not surprised that they are keeping this low key but the use of Greendale for this purpose is significant.

Why are we not aiming to agree on some simple changes that can bring safety, help pedestrians and cyclists and let us move step wise to something sensible, i.e. a solution that works and can be adapted over time.

Bawdy-nan posted:

>>I've just received an email from "Dulwich Young Cyclists" inviting me to an "open meeting" on 17th January (ie next Saturday):

>> "Dulwich Safe Routes is working for a safer environment for children walking and cycling to school.

Please join us for a discussion looking for positive outcomes from planned road changes now and in the future, including the proposed changes to the Townley Road Junction.

Saturday 17th January, 15:00 - St Barnabas Hall

Gilkes Place SE21 7BT"

I am going along, as I want to hear what Dulwich SR understand about the modelling and its impacts and how much they got involved in the planning details.

I did not get this mailing so thanks for posting about it. Do you know why you were on the email list Bawdy-nan?

[Tessmo]

James, as I said before, Heber, Goodrich, St Anthony's and the new East Dulwich primary school on the old police station site would all be affected by the right turn ban from the Townley Road junction, because Southwark's thinking so far is that Lordship Lane would take a lot of the displaced traffic. Children from the area round Townley Road do go to Heber and Goodrich, and have to cross Lordship Lane. Children cross over Lordship Lane at the junction by the Library to get to St Anthony's, too. The point is that any plan that affects traffic flow must consider ALL the children in Dulwich Village and East Dulwich. Of course the children travelling to the independent schools come from a much wider area. But let's not forget the children walking to local state primary schools.

[bawdy-nan]

Scootingover

> Greendale for this purpose is

> significant.

>

> Bawdy-nan posted:

> >>I've just received an email from "Dulwich Young

> Cyclists" inviting me to an "open meeting" on 17th

> January (ie next Saturday):

> >> "Dulwich Safe Routes is working for a safer

> environment for children walking and cycling to

> school.

> Please join us for a discussion looking for

> positive outcomes from planned road changes now

> and in the future, including the proposed changes

> to the Townley Road Junction.

> Saturday 17th January, 15:00 - St Barnabas Hall

> Gilkes Place SE21 7BT"

>.

>

> I did not get this mailing so thanks for posting

> about it. Do you know why you were on the email

> list Bawdy-nan?

I think I am on a mailing list after filling in a questionnaire about barriers to cycling to school. I cycle a lot locally and when I commute and my children do cycle or would like to.