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

[James Barber]

Hi Andrew1011,

I'm sorry if councillors from a political party you support haven't been great in this isntance.

It is encumbent upon the administration to really check proposals over before they decide to push for them. This farce will have costs a great deal in officers time and resident good will. This takes great interest in detail. Labour councillors rely more upon council officials to do this detail than my lot did. You could argue that's good, keeping an eye on the bigger picture, potentially getting more done not bothering with the details. But it's the details that can have such a negative impact on communities that can take many years to recover e.g. allowing Sainsbury's on Metropolitan open land on Dog Kennel Hill - this came close to killing Lordship Lane and its taken 20 years to recover.

You also have to wonder.

If councillor in an adminsitration don't check officer schemes rthoroughly then why have councillors?

In this example any councillor who knows the area could quickly see that the most popular turning manuevre of this junction being stopped would have a huge knock on effect in the wider area.

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Andrew1011,

> I'm sorry if councillors from a political party

> you support haven't been great in this isntance.

Ok, I can't resist responding to this arrant nonsense. Clearly you didn't want to leave it at your equally ridiculous private message to me. I've made it abundantly clear that I wouldn't expect a councillor from the majority party to state their position on a proposal/issue before listening to all of the views. That's clearly what happened in this case and just because someone is silent for a period on an issue it doesn't mean that they support or don't support an issue. You have the luxury of not being in the majority either in the Dulwich area or in Southwark, so don't have to consider how you approach an executive proposal which is subject to public consultation.

> It is encumbent upon the administration to really

> check proposals over before they decide to push

> for them. This farce will have costs a great deal

> in officers time and resident good will. This

> takes great interest in detail.

It is incumbent upon any administration to listen and your 'lot', in my experience running a third sector group in Southwark certainly didn't do that any better than you claim Labour does now.

> Labour councillors rely more upon council officials to do this detail

> than my lot did. You could argue that's good,

> keeping an eye on the bigger picture, potentially

> getting more done not bothering with the details.

> But it's the details that can have such a negative

> impact on communities that can take many years to

> recover e.g. allowing Sainsbury's on Metropolitan

> open land on Dog Kennel Hill - this came close to

> killing Lordship Lane and its taken 20 years to

> recover.

It's rather sad if you have to rely on something that occurred 22 years ago as an example to bolster your argument, don't you think? I was against the Sainsbury's development on DKH at the time from the perspective of Metropolitan open land. However, Lordship Lane was a disaster 20+ years ago so, with the benefit of hindsight, I now realise that if Sainsbury's hadn't come to East Dulwich Lordship Lane would be a shadow of it's current state, probably with many of the present retail units now residential. I'm not sure where you've been for the last 12/15 years if you really think it's taken Lordship Lane 20 years to recover.

> You also have to wonder.

> If councillor in an adminsitration don't check

> officer schemes rthoroughly then why have

> councillors?

I have to say I wondered why have councillors at the time of the Lakanal fire tragedy (where was your OCD-esque detail checking then James?) when your 'lot' were in power. Just an example.

> In this example any councillor who knows the area

> could quickly see that the most popular turning

> manuevre of this junction being stopped would have

> a huge knock on effect in the wider area.

You know that's very simplistic given where the money from the scheme is coming from and the wider cycling scheme it's connected to.

However, thanks for your contribution to the apparent abandoning of the no RHT proposal but I will continue to challenge any impression you give that everything is all down to you.

Btw James, thanks for the email in which you claim that total responsibility for a secondary school in the hospital site is entirely down to you, Rosie and Jonathan Mitchell, it made amusing reading. How's the primary school bid going by the way? As you apparently know this area so well, and given your experience on this issue, have you been swayed yet by public opposition to it? Or, has the TRd/EDG junction scheme issue taken some of the heat off you on that subject for the moment?

Andrew1011

[James Barber]

Hi Andrew 1011,

Ouch!

We initiated a campaign for a new secondary school, found huge support for one from a lot of hard work, eventually reversed Southwark Council adamant opposition to it. We submitted a Right to Contest to resolve the pickle of Dulwich Hospital. Two oustanding secondary school providers have applied to open 'our' secondary schoool.Yes, I'm proud of our record of leadership on this.

[Zebedee Tring]

It would be better if this thread could stop consisting of a rant by Andrew 1011 against James Barber and could return to the issue of the Townley/EDG junction.

And so that Andrew 1011 cannot accuse me of attempting to deprive him of his "domocratic (sic) right to have a view and to express it", may I suggest that he start a new thread entitled "I don't like James Barber".

[legalalien]

I've just had a flyer from the Village Ward Labour Action Team advising that the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Transport and the Leader of the Council "have agreed to completely drop the ban on right hand turns from the proposal". This will be formally confirmed in a report delivered at the meeting on the 28th. Officers have apparently been asked "to come back as soon as possible with revised options which improve safety without causing traffic congestion elsewhere in Dulwich".

[Jennys]

This thread is supposed to be about people's views on the planned changes to the junction of East Dulwich Grove and Townley Road. Please let us all discuss that issue instead of using this to let off steam at all and sundry about anything and everything. Politics aside, I have found James Barber to have been very willing to listen and insightful as to how to approach this consultation. Most people have also posted keeping to the topic in question, giving useful ideas and opinions for and against the proposal. Let's continue to have free speech, but let's keep to the subject and not use it as an excuse to slag off James Barber.

[Purplejellybee]

"Officers have apparently been asked "to come back as soon as possible with revised options which improve safety without causing traffic congestion elsewhere in Dulwich"."

Would rather this read "....without COMPROMISING SAFETY of cyclists or pedestrians elsewhere in Dulwich"

While there was some debate about whether the No Right Turn was necessary or sufficient to improve safety at Townley/ Greendale it seemed to have been proposed for good reasons. There were sensible concerns raised about knock on effects on SAFETY elsewhere (which could have been addressed by a wider filtered permeability scheme, but the 'consultation' was about this junction in isolation).

I think worrying about impact of congestion for its own sake is misplaced... but if anyone does want to model that (e.g. if a revised scheme brings in an additional traffic light phase for bikes), please factor in the reduction in congestion which could result if you actually had streets that people of all ages felt sensible and comfortable cycling in. And the increase in congestion which will result if you do nothing to prioritise people on foot or on bikes - in an area with a growing population and growing number of schools.

[Andrew1011]

Jennys Wrote:

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

> This thread is supposed to be about people's views

> on the planned changes to the junction of East

> Dulwich Grove and Townley Road. Please let us all

> discuss that issue instead of using this to let

> off steam at all and sundry about anything and

> everything. Politics aside, I have found James

> Barber to have been very willing to listen and

> insightful as to how to approach this

> consultation. Most people have also posted keeping

> to the topic in question, giving useful ideas and

> opinions for and against the proposal. Let's

> continue to have free speech, but let's keep to

> the subject and not use it as an excuse to slag

> off James Barber.

If Cllr Barber uses this forum and a thread to politicise an issue in a partisan manner, which in the case of the proposed no RHT ban he clearly has done, and as he nearly always does on all subjects, then I reserve the right to respond. As I said to others objecting to my right to express my views on his general electioneering claims and the 'Southwark Labour' process followed in respect of the junction proposal, just don't read my postings and I won't read yours. That includes you too Zebedee Tring.

Nobody should be censored for posting their genuinely held views about local issues here or from challenging the claims of local politicians in respect of those same local issues. Censorship should only happen if posts are offensive or abusive, and I certainly haven't been. And, had Cllr Barber not posted his ridiculous claims this morning, I probably wouldn't have posted again, except directly relating to the process for consultation and, now, decision-making. However, he did and I am entitled to respond.

[Andrew1011]

Purplejellybee Wrote:

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

> Would rather this read "....without COMPROMISING

> SAFETY of cyclists or pedestrians elsewhere in

> Dulwich"

I'd hope that could be taken as read but I suggest you email the Southwark officer concerned, who seems to be Chris Mascord email: [email protected]. You could also copy in the Dulwich area councillors, regardless of which party they belong to.

I certainly want a scheme that is safe for everybody and all road users, and without negative impacts elsewhere, whether they be pedestrians, cyclists, drivers or bus passengers.

[Tessmo]

Andrew1011 Wrote:

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

> Purplejellybee Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Would rather this read "....without

> COMPROMISING

> > SAFETY of cyclists or pedestrians elsewhere in

> > Dulwich"

>

>

> I'd hope that could be taken as read but I suggest

> you email the Southwark officer concerned, who

> seems to be Chris Mascord email:

> [email protected]. You could also

> copy in the Dulwich area councillors, regardless

> of which party they belong to.

>

> I certainly want a scheme that is safe for

> everybody and all road users, and without negative

> impacts elsewhere, whether they be pedestrians,

> cyclists, drivers or bus passengers.

Andrew 1011 - How do you know it's Chris Mascord who's in charge again? Is that definite?

[James Barber]

Hi Andrew 1011,

For most of my comments on this thread I have not be political.

But after so long of nice comments and feedback but no shift to me it has reached the point that it need to be escaalted a stage and yes I did suggest residents needed to be clear to politicians how strongly they felt for or against. It appears to have done the trick.

Hopefully job done.

[@Woodwarde]

Labour leaflet through the door today. Attached.

"We have been in touch with hundreds of residents about this proposal in person, by email and via our survey...

We took this feedback to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Transport and the Leader of the Council and we are pleased to be able to let you know that they have agreed to completely drop the ban on right hand turns from the proposal.

A report to be presented at the Dulwich Community Council meeting 28th January."

[Andrew1011]

I've now had a response to my enquiry into claims made on this thread, which I have told I can reproduce and post here (obviously this is only for those who actually wish to read it and to know):

'There has been much misreporting of both the process and the content of the consultation on the Townley Road junction, and it might be helpful to clarify.

The Village ward Labour Action Team comprising Cllr Anne Kirby, Tessa Jowell MP and Helen Hayes as prospective parliamentary candidate have been gathering local views on this issue since the Council launched its consultation process, as they do with any significant local issues in the ward, through knocking on doors, writing to residents and meeting with individuals who got in touch. They have gathered the views of hundreds of local residents over the past few weeks (in contrast, I understand that Helen received just one email prompted by James's call to action).

Safer Routes to School organised an independently facilitated public meeting on Saturday which was open to anyone, because of the strength of feeling on the issue. Andy Simmons was approached by the group in his role as Chair of Dulwich Community Council and asked to chair the meeting. Those who attended the meeting felt that it was a positive contribution to the local debate on the issue. It is simply untrue to state that the Lib Dems were unaware of the meeting as several were in the audience including one of James' colleagues who lost their Dulwich council seat last year.

The feedback on the no right hand turn, both via the surveys and at the meeting, was overwhelmingly in favour of the principle of safety improvements at the junction but against the ban on right hand turns. The Labour Action team therefore took this feedback to the Council, and in direct response to it, the proposed ban on right hand turns has been dropped.'

[rch]

Just to clarify, as the comment referring to "one of James' colleagues who lost their Dulwich council seat last year" was almost certainly directed at me.

As per my recent post, which anyone can go back to and reread, I hadn't spoken to James about this meeting, which I attended as a local resident.

I hate politics mainly because of the headgames which I feel get in the way of what is best for the community. I am a member of the Dulwich Society and am directing all my community action through this non-political constituted group. Yes, I was an elected representative, but I genuinely feel that it is possible to achieve positive community action without going the political route, which I was finding to be obstructive. This isn't meant to be critical of any party (I actually personally get on well with members of all parties), I just find the whole system to be dysfunctional.

I know the background of this junction scheme very well and I can pretty much guess what went on behind the scenes, but the most important point is that the community united and spoke out in a way that was non-political and the community has succeeded in having its voice heard and the decision to ban the RHT has been dropped.

Hopefully we can all go forward now, as I am aware of other pending consultations that could affect Dulwich residents adversely, so we will need to continue to stick together.

Duvaller - thank you for your earlier nomination for me to handle this matter, but because of these machinations I was very happy to let the people who were already protesting effectively continue to lead. Now maybe you can see why I kept my mouth shut!

[hopskip]

Southwark News provides a summary of the change of plan. Many perspectives expressed here but Southwark News suggests:

Council U-turns on ridiculous plan.

See attached.

[@Woodwarde]

South London Press have generously placed an article on their front page.

The RIGHT DECISION.

A big thank you SLP (JG) for covering the debate and helping the local community to

- get visibility and transparency on this proposal

- secure a commitment from Southwark to consult widely and fully on future planned changes.

The DCC meeting to discuss how to develop an alternative proposal which will NOT include a Right Hand Turn ban is this Wednesday:

Dulwich Community Council meeting on Wednesday 28 January 2015,7pm. The venue for the meeting is Herne Hill Baptist Church, Half Moon Lane, London SE24 9HU

[keyhole]

Good to see it's staying as it is,,,,,,considering there are 6 schools actually 7 at least counting Charter,and Alleyns,lower,medium and large school drop off areas,,,we have compromised brilliantly all this time....Leave it be people,,,,thank God common sense prevailed..hip hip.

[Friernlocal]

Can I suggest as someone who walks over the crossing every day that it does need some improvement. Every day cars jump the red lights when turning right from Townley Road into East Dulwich Grove, some even speed up to get round! What is needed are traffic enforcement cameras to catch the offenders. After a few get fined word would get around.

[Townleygreen]

Totally agree, Friernlocal.

[James Barber]

It was discussed at last nights Dulwich Community Council - new scheme to be worked up and consulted upon with no banned right hand turn.

Many peiple attended just for this one item. Sorry you had to wait so long before it was heard.

[fazer71]

keyhole Wrote:

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

> Good to see it's staying as it is,,,,,,considering

> there are 6 schools actually 7 at least counting

> Charter,and Alleyns,lower,medium and large school

> drop off areas,,,we have compromised brilliantly

> all this time....Leave it be people,,,,thank God

> common sense prevailed..hip hip.

Is that not a sign that the phasing of the lights is in some way WRONG >?>>>>>>?

IE drivers are getting annoyed at having to wait so long to get through so are jumping the lights?

THIS IS A MAD THREAD !!!!!!!

Trying to fix something by spending ?200,000 when it probably just needs a tweak for ?100 !

Insane !

[Jennys]

As I understood it at the (very interesting)meeting yesterday, the phasing of the lights is not an option. Transport for London will not allow this as it will affect the buses. Please correct me if I misunderstood what was said. I think cameras to stop people jumping the lights must still be an idea worth investigating.

[James Barber]

Hi Jennys,

I don't believe that's quite caught what was meant. The proposed scheme introduces an advance green phase for cyclsits gonig south. So that would mean rephasing of thel ights. To keep the Townley Road right hand turn which is most of the north bound traffic would mean keeping the current north bound green.

So what I take from that is that the E-W green phase was/is proposed to stay the same length of time but officers designing a new scheme have the conundrum of how to divvy up the remaining time. Also a diagonal crossing implies an all green pedestrian pahse is longer further reducing the N-S traffic green phase time available.

Hope that makes sense.

[fazer71]

Jennys Wrote:

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

> As I understood it at the (very

> interesting)meeting yesterday, the phasing of the

> lights is not an option. Transport for London will

> not allow this as it will affect the buses. Please

> correct me if I misunderstood what was said. I

> think cameras to stop people jumping the lights

> must still be an idea worth investigating.

So there we have it busses can potentially kill. !!!!!

I find it incredible that with thousands of similar junctions across the UK these super road traffic designers are having to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds and many thousands of hours re designing a bespoke wheel.... Insanity...

[BrandNewGuy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> So what I take from that is that the E-W green

> phase was/is proposed to stay the same length of

> time but officers designing a new scheme have the

> conundrum of how to divvy up the remaining time.

> Also a diagonal crossing implies an all green

> pedestrian pahse is longer further reducing the

> N-S traffic green phase time available.

But with the potential build-out of the corners, the distance will be less, improving crossing without adding time to the pedestrian phase.