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

[Tessmo]

So where is the "formal statutory consultation"?

[rch]

Are you guys aware that the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group are making a deputation to the Dulwich Community Council meeting tomorrow night (at Barry Road Methodist Church) to lobby councillors for funding to investigate the implemention of a gate on Melbourne Grove between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane in order to stop the road from being used as a cut through?

If successful, the traffic displacement from this would make the refused No Right Hand Turn at Townley proposal look minor...

[Bobby P]

Yes, rch. I live on Melbourne and have done for many years. I don't see any case for a traffic gate blocking the road. The displacement would indeed INCREASE congestion and pollution especiallly for those of us living near the Ashbourne junction, the proposed site of the roadblock. Needless to say, I don't see how this in any way improves quality of life here, and can imagine many ways it reduces it. (A roadblock at Ashbourne won't reduce speeds down the rest of the road, if that is the issue, and there are other ways to do that, without a roadblock. The only accidents on the road I have ever seen, by the way, haven't been the result of speeding, though I acknowledge speeding in general is undesirable).

Needless to say, I haven't been consulted, and heard about this from a neighbour (also very against it) but it is a bad idea that I am told has originated from a newcomer on the road who has been very persistent in pushing it forward. It's a free world so I don't blame them, but I shall certainly be opposed to any roadblock.

[LalKJ]

Hi Bobby P

I am surprised to hear you haven't been consulted on this matter. In a pm if you prefer, please send me your house number, as I know the main guy behind this proposal has put three notices through all the doors and door knocked at least 2 times at each address to discuss and seek signatures of support for this proposal. You may be thinking, which is right of course, that this doesn't constitute a formal consultation, but that is what the we are seeking - the meeting is to get the funding to do the necessary consultation ahead of any actual steps, as there is sufficient support along the South side of Melbourne Grove to support at least a consultation on this point. I live near the Ashbourne Grove junction too and fully support this. Evidence from other road blocks is that cutting off the road will not (after a period of readjustment whilst people get used to the new set up) increase traffic along neighboring roads as the traffic will go along the routes more designed to take it, i.e Lordship Lane.

We are just trying to open on the forum on this issue, and you are of course at liberty to oppose it with your justifications, but the majority, as per the petition, of properties along the street are in support.

[Bobby P]

Hi LalKJ, I'd ask you and anyone who wishes to put in a roadblock the following I suppose:

1) What is the perceived problem that you are hoping to alleviate? I see posted here that a survey found cars doing speeds of 25mph, which surely is not a problem, and if true is indeed somewhat less than I'd expect, despite the borough-wide 20mph limit. (What I normally see, on the contrary, is drivers letting each other by, as there is not really room for two cars to pass in parallel, rather than racing down.)

2) Assuming that cars travelling at 25mph is correct, and assuming people felt they wanted to reduce it, surely the speed people drive along the road is not going to be reduced by putting a road-block near Ashbourne. Why would it?

3) For me (and I might add my two immediate neighbours, also opposed to this) living near the Ashbourne junction, we would expect that - if the road is blocked - that anyone who wishes to drive North to any destination, e.g. residents living further south on Melbourne, will have to turn up Ashbourne onto Lordship Lane. One might expect this to create extra noise outside our front windows as they slow, change down gear and turn, as opposed to travelling by quickly which they currently do, and will mean they all have to access their "points North" via the most congested section of Lordship Lane, turning off Ashbourne.

4) Putting in a barrier presumably would reduce parking space where it is in short supply (and no, we don't want to allow the Council to revive the CPZ rationale we residents so roundly defeated a year or two back).

5) I'm a cyclist, pedestrian and driver, but I would expect - if driving - it would add time and inconvenience to need to go up crowded Lordship, and thence potentially Grove Vale, to reach points north. That's my personal view based on living exactly where I do, but since that particular location is where you are proposing your barrier to go, I'd say we

who live closest are the most affected.

6) I just don't see the evidence, in summary, of the problem you are trying to fix. Perhaps I'm missing something, but if I can't see a problem and can I can only see negative effects and inconveniences of the proposed "solution" (more traffic noise near our houses, longer journey times, more congestion pushed into a bottleneck), then why would I want to push for change. Yes Melbourne is a rat run, but one I've been more than happy to live on for the last 12 years, and if I wanted to live in a cul-de-sac, I would have moved to one.

[intexasatthe moment]

I have to say I agree with everything Bobby P has posted above . Surely this kind of thing( residents requesting that their roads become cul de sacs ) won't be approved by Southwark ?

[richard tudor]

If a small number of residents collar the local Cllr and push it forward without the majority of residents hearing until it is to late it will happen.

Why do new residents always want to change things once they arrive.

If Southwark can push the 20 mph through as indicated on page 7/10 last paragraph under healthy living of their manifesto they can do anything without people having any idea.

Camberwell Grove tried to install a tollgate years back to turn the road into a cul de sac. It was thrown out.

[intexasatthe moment]

richard - you don't think that Southwark would need to consult ?

"Camberwell Grove tried to install a tollgate years back to turn the road into a cul de sac. It was thrown out." - ooh I remember that I went to that meeting . Was it really a tollgate ,thought it was just closing it off ?

Probably not wise to talk about tollgates ,it'll give people ideas ...

[mockingbird]

BobbyP makes the clear point that any changes are not isolated ones and would have serious knock on effects. Melbourne Grove was highlighted by residents objecting to the Townley NRHT proposal, as a road that would encounter a serious and unacceptable traffic re-routing. No doubt the reverse is true and so it's pretty obvious that these proposals for change can not be viewed in isolation.

[Readey]

I live on Melbourne Grove, near to the Ashbourne junction, and I whole hearted agree with the points made by Bobby P. I cannot understand the benefits of a barrier.

I do wonder how much the residents of Ashbourne Grove know about this idea, I cannot imagine there has been any door-knocking or notices put through their doors?!

[jangle]

As a long time resident of Melbourne Grove (near Ashbourne Grove and Tell Grove) I am in support of a consultation into traffic measures, of which a barrier could be one.

The police carried out a two week traffic survey and found an incredible 15,000 vehicles use this stretch of road every week and sadly over half are breaking the legal speed limit.

Bobby P and others here don't seem worried by this but two residents petitions take another view with overwhelming support for action.

As for comments about 'new-comers' wanting to change things, that's just not relevant. I and other residents have campaigned in the past for similar traffic related measures on this road and we welcome the efforts and energy of more recent residents.

There have been multiple leaflets/updates posted in every door on Melbourne and many doors of adjoining streets.

The notion that we would apply for this without due process is nonsense. An open public consultation is what is being requested, at which point all comments, for and against can be considered.

[KalamityKel]

Readey Wrote:

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

> I live on Melbourne Grove, near to the Ashbourne

> junction, and I whole hearted agree with the

> points made by Bobby P. I cannot understand the

> benefits of a barrier.

>

> I do wonder how much the residents of Ashbourne

> Grove know about this idea, I cannot imagine there

> has been any door-knocking or notices put through

> their doors?!

Apparently, according to an undated letter that came through the door yesterday there had been plenty of door knocking and local contact. Interesting that no one had knocked on our door (there is generally always someone home) or that the neighbourhood grapevine hadn't picked any of this up.

I'm not sure my views on this idea although agree something does need to be considered. Remembering the difference some time ago having the ends of Melbourne Grove (junction E.Dulwich Grove) closed off for extensive road works (sewers?) made...

It's a difficult stretch of "rat run" as blocking any section only pushes the problem elsewhere.

[rch]

I've lived on Melbourne Grove for 30 years now and I also agree with the points made by Bobby P. I practice what I preach and don't drive, but I am a regular pedestrian and bus user.

I have a copy of the Traffic Survey conducted from 11-24 April 2015, which shows that the average speed is 19mph, which is why the cabinet member couldn't justify spending public funds to change the speed humps from cushions to full-width humps. In any case, most of the highest speed stats (at 26mph, not even up to 30) were generated by motorcycles, which wouldn't be affected by full width humps.

This is now the second campaign I am aware of to turn Melbourne into a No Through Road... the first one failed precisely because of the traffic displacement concerns. Furthermore, not only is Melbourne Grove an important emergency vehicle route, but it's also TfL's current emergency bus diversion route now that the full-width humps have been implemented at the other end of Melbourne.

Parking will almost certainly be affected by a gate... will have to check what the policy is now, but the clearance requirements used to be 2.5 metres on either side, which could take out up to 6 spaces.

The traffic displacement would almost certainly affect Townley road, putting even more pressure on the new junction, which I suspect will already have problems coping with volume.

I can almost understand the concerns of residents in the Tell Grove to Chesterfield section of Melbourne, as the road is very narrow along that stretch, but there are other more organic ways to address these issues in ways that won't have such a knock-on effect.

One solution would be to implement a raised junction treatment at the Ashbourne junction and maybe another one at Chesterfield, with or without narrowed corners. Because the speed stats are so low here we wouldn't qualify for public funding, but we could use devolved CGS funding.

I've also been working with residents and the police to set up a resident volunteer speed camera program (called Roadwatch) so that we could regularly survey any areas of concern in East Dulwich and Village, which will help to raise awareness of speeding concerns in some of the new 20mph areas.

I've mentioned both of these solutions to the campaigners, but they only appear to be interested in blocking off the road.

[@Woodwarde]

For those interested in hearing more on the case for restrictions on Melbourne Grove, I understand that there is a deputation from Melbourne residents at the Dulwich Community Council this evening.

7pm. Christ Church, Barry Road

[howdood]

Is it not the case that the issue with Melbourne Grove could be fixed if they simply sorted out the timings etc. on the lights on Townley / Greendale? Earlier comments suggested that the problem with MG had only become pressing after they made the changes to the signal timings and more people started using it as a run run as a result.

[bawdy-nan]

The Melbourne Grove thing is really strange. I mean, why people go down there. It's not a comfortable drive so even if it is potentially quicker it's quite tricky usually as it's not especially wide. I did notice that a few years ago my sat nav started directing me down there if I had it on coming back from somewhere and all cans and cars I've had bringing me home from work after a late night shift go that way if they have sat nav. I wonder if this has something to do with the increased traffic?

[Penguin68]

I mean, why people go down there

It's the chosen route through by many sat nav programmes - I have been in minicabs and seen it, and on my own sat nav. It is also a way of bypassing the constant crossings in Lordship lane.

[Bobby P]

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who wasn't aware of this petition/delegation, and not the only one to have serious concerns about its knock-on effects.

I only heard about it in the last couple of days via a neighbour who had been approached by the originator of the campaign knocking on their door to argue their case and get their petition signed. I can't fault the organiser(s) for their persistence, given their objectives, in going door to door to get signatures. I do, though, question the whole rationale behind Melbourne becoming a cul-de-sac.

Some thoughts on the comments above, particularly from rch:

I'm very interested to hear that this is not the first campaign to block the road, and that the first one failed because of the displacement concerns I raised above. (And thanks for corroborating the loss of parking places to any barrier, as a practical issue, rch).

If rch's summary is correct, the police traffic survey information also bears out what I note from my own observations as a long-term resident: that actually the average speed is 19mph. Again, I fail to see how a barrier near Ashbourne changes the speeds of vehicles further down the road.

And finally, rch's suggestions for other measures (if there actually is any speed problem) seem a lot more sensible and practical than a barrier, but have not been welcomed by the petitioners. Why, I wonder?

From what my neighbour told me of the petitioning, it does seem that the campaign instigator, who moved very recently to Melbourne from a street where residents got a road barrier installed, is pushing to instigate the same roadblock idea here, in my opinion irrespective of its need or practicality. Of course, anyone certainly has a right to try, but why one would move to an obvious rat-run and immediately campaign to change it rather than moving to a quiet cul-de-sac, I don't know. Altering one's new home is one thing, one's whole new road is another.

But whatever the background to this petition, I'm much more interested in hearing some convincing rational arguments FOR a barrier, especially with regard to car speeds, because I haven't yet seen any here beyond "it will reduce traffic", which really just means "displace traffic" - not a good option.

For any who are opposed to this, it will be instructive to hear the actual "pro" arguments at the DCC meeting tonight where the petition is apparently going to be submitted to Councillors (7pm Christ Church, Barry Road).

[rch]

So the real issue seems to be volume along the narrow section of Melbourne, not speeding? To be honest, volume is increasing in the whole Dulwich area (and London!)... it's mostly noticeable in Melbourne during rush hour and school run time.

The most helpful solution would be to lobby TfL to increase the bus service down here (and extending the tube to Camberwell will help indirectly)... it's only better public transportation that will get people out of their cars.

But also bear in mind that Calton Avenue residents have been campaigning for a gate to close off the top of their road and Gilkes Cres are also talking about campaigning for a gate at the junction of EDG to mitigate the displacement from the new Townley junction... so this could be the thin end of a complicated wedge.

We could end up with a complex network of private roads with the main roads not being able to handle the displaced capacity...

[intexasatthe moment]

East Dulwich as a gated community - the dream moves closer to reality .

[intexasatthe moment]

" lobby TfL to increase the bus service down here " - down here to Melbourne Grove ? So distant from Lordship Lane and it's bus services ?

[@Woodwarde]

I would be interested to see the different stats for Melbourne in school holiday time. In the village, it is very noticeable during the half term period (one for state schools, two for private schools) that in the week where the private schools are on holiday and the state schools are open, then the roads are fine. Car traffic reduction is very significant and the school coaches are not on the roads. Public transport seems to serve the state schools adequately. Is it the same for Melbourne?

[Bobby P]

@Woodwarde, yes, not sure if the traffic stats for term and holiday times have been measured or differentiated officially (probably not). You are probably correct there will be a difference in holiday time, though not sure Melbourne is particularly affected. The question is really whether anything meaningful would be worth doing to prevent parents using their cars, and I very much doubt it. As rch says above, in general, car use and ownership will have increased as the area has gentrified. Especially without the tube, and with poor lateral East/West public transport routes in South London, ED residents that use cars have more use for them still than many others in London.

Apart from cycling, I use bus and train, which can be OK if going to certain places, but are pretty poor - or very slow - for other journeys, even a common one into the West End - and for travelling round the Zone 2 laterally, there's not a lot of options (37 is semi useful). So I don't see car usage in the area declining much in the short/medium term. We don't even have the Boris bikes here.

[LalKJ]

Hi @Woodwarde - you are right, much less transport issues with state schools purely because due to their catchment area nature most people are within a 1000m of their state school, so most pupils do walk. Things are marginally better in the holidays here, although to be honest, we don't have much school traffic at the moment (expected to change when the two new schools open). One of the significant changes in recent times has been the speed and quantity of heavy goods vehicles. Sat NAVs do seem to be directing traffic down MG, and this includes a vast number of vans, lorries and articulated trucks, and for some reason, we are the one of the few roads in the area with no reminder 20mph signs around.

I would just make a few points to the comments above, 1. The process that has been followed is that advised by the local councillors. E.g. Petition of MG residents first and then if requisite majority agree leaflet all connected roads - letters have gone round to all properties on Tell, Ashbourne, Chesterfield, Bassano, Blackwater, Playfield, Colwell - if you live on a connected road and think you have been missed, please join this thread and I will speak with the organiser.

2. The proposal of a barrier is the solution suggested as most workable by the councillors.

3. I would reiterate that just because someone is newish to a road this has any relevance on the matter in question. The main guy's previous house (still local) was a cul-de-sac I believe but not due to a traffic barrier! Again, there have been a number of discussions between the council and MG residents for at least 6 years on traffic calming measures.

4. Finally, this is just a consultation, there is a petition where the majority of MG residents agree to a barrier, but the forum tonight is to hear all concerns. It is a nice road to live, so I don't think anyone wants to create unnecessary animosity between neighbours.

[@Woodwarde]

After some repeated requests for clarification, Southwark have released the following text this afternoon. There is an accompanying map which I will need to resize before I can post. Hopefully this documentation will go up on the Southwark website.

What is not clear yet is why Southwark have not issued the formal Statutory Consultation (yellow notices) at the junction which allow 21 days for the community and statutory consultees to input prior to conclusion of plans.

From: Chris Mascord

Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 10:25 AM

To: Mascord, Chris

Subject:

Dear Stakeholder

I am writing to inform you of the upcoming works programme at the Townley Road / East Dulwich Grove / Green Dale junction.

The main construction works will commence on site Saturday the 4th of July and extend through to Monday the 31st August. This construction period coincides with the summer holiday duration of both Alleyn?s and JAGS, when pedestrian demand at the junction will be minimal and traffic volumes, including coaches, reduced in accordance with both schools being closed. As a result, disruption to traffic volumes and inconvenience to road users will be minimised.

Below is a table illustrating the affected roads, measures proposed and anticipated durations:

Site

Works

Duration

Traffic Management

Green Dale (both sides of road)

Footway and carriageway resurfacing, traffic signal installation and segregated cycle lane

From 22/06/2015 to 10/07/15

Footway closures, parking restrictions and temporary traffic signals (for pedestrians and motor vehicles)

East Dulwich Grove ?Eastern Arm (both sides of road)

Footway widening (southern side of carriageway), footway and carriageway surfacing and traffic signal installation

From 04/07/2015 to 31/07/2015

Footway closures, parking restrictions and temporary traffic signals (for pedestrians and motor vehicles)

East Dulwich Grove ?Western Arm (both sides of road)

Footway widening(southern side of carriageway), footway and carriageway surfacing and traffic signal installation

From 04/07/2015 to 31/07/2015

Footway closures, parking restrictions and temporary traffic signals ( for motor vehicles)

Townley Road (both sides of road)

From Carlton Avenue to East Dulwich Grove junction)

Footway and carriageway resurfacing, traffic signal installation, segregated cycle lane and pedestrian island modification

From 04/07/2015 to 31/08/2015

Road closure on Townley Road to the north of Carlton Road junction (diversion routes will be sign posted) and parking restrictions

Carlton Avenue (western side on approach to Townley Road junction)

Footway renewal works and segregated cycle lane

From 06/07/2015 to 17/07/ 2015

Footway closures and parking restrictions

Hillsboro Road (junction with East Dulwich Grove)

Carriageway table resurfacing works

From 13/07/2015 to 18/07/2015

Road closure (diversion routes will be sign posted)

Throughout the construction period, Townley Road will be closed to through traffic to the north of Carlton Avenue and the junction with East Dulwich Grove. This will simplify the operation of the junction and reduce delay to traffic on East Dulwich Grove. This section of Townley Road will be used for storage of materials, contractor welfare units and construction machinery, keeping East Dulwich Grove and Green Dale free from obstruction. Attached is a plan illustrating the proposed vehicle diversion routes that will be implemented for the duration of the works. All diversion routes will be clearly signed at key locations and will be regularly reviewed as part of ongoing traffic management operations.

Hillsboro Road will also be closed for one week from the 13th July to complete the raised carriageway table at the junction with East Dulwich Grove.

The works at the junction over the weekend of the 4th July will involve altering the existing signal equipment to reflect the removal of the staggered pedestrian islands and closure of Townley Road (which as detailed above will simplify the operation of the junction during the construction phase). Signalised pedestrian crossings will be retained on the eastern arm of East Dulwich Grove and across Green Dale to provide opportunity for pedestrians to safety cross east to west and north to south at the junction during the construction period (please note that pedestrians will still be able to traverse across Townley Road, as no traffic will be using this section of the carriageway).

Priority will be given to installing new ducting, kerblines and footway buildouts adjacent to the junction in order for TfL to install the new signal equipment the third week of August, so that it can be operational in time for the return of both schools on the 1st of September. Footway works will be coordinated so that pedestrian movements can still be accommodated throughout the duration of the scheme, with temporary pedestrian walkways will be implemented where appropriate.

If required, officers from the Council and representatives from Conway Aceom (who will be implementing the works on site) would be happy to meet with local residents and stakeholders to discuss the implementation and phasing of the works in more detail. Please contact me if you are interested or have queries.

Whilst we are aware that these works may cause some disruption due to the scale and location of the scheme, every effort is being made to reduce delay and minimise the duration of the construction phase of the scheme.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Mascord