Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[Jenny1]

I've now communicated with the teams at Southwark who manage community councils and constitutional matters and wanted to update the forum on what I've been told.

I talked to Southwark because I had concerns that there may have been muddle in this whole process that led to residents of Melbourne Grove being represented as having backed a 'petition' to block the road, whereas in fact they were simply expressing a wish for general traffic calming measures.

The information I now have has reinforced my concerns.

Southwark's guidelines say that a petition can only be presented to a community council for consideration if it's signed by more than 250 people and must contain 'a clear and concise statement covering the subject of the petition and on each page of the petition' (for obvious reasons). The document submitted to the last Dulwich Community Council met neither requirement. It contained instead a long statement of concern about the speed and volume of traffic on Melbourne Grove and a request that a barrier and other traffic calming measures be considered. This is signed by five people and is what's called a 'deputation request'. Attached to this are further pages (with no statement at the top of any of them) carrying the signatures of 133 people.

It's apparently common for 'deputation requests' presented to community councils to be backed by lists of signatories. However it would be a mistake to call such a document a petition in favour of a specific measure.

I'm talking to residents on Melbourne Grove and adjacent streets who share my concerns and will keep the forum updated.

[first mate]

Well done Jenny, please keep us updated. Amongst the five who signed the deputation request is their a councillor name attached?

[Bobby P]

Jenny, that's good detailed analysis. I assume Southwark has to adhere strictly to procedure on these kind of cases, so it's important to know what was and was not presented to the Council.

[Andrew1011]

Jenny1 Wrote:

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

> I've now communicated with the teams at Southwark

> who manage community councils and constitutional

> matters and wanted to update the forum on what

> I've been told.

>

> I talked to Southwark because I had concerns that

> there may have been muddle in this whole process

> that led to residents of Melbourne Grove being

> represented as having backed a 'petition' to block

> the road, whereas in fact they were simply

> expressing a wish for general traffic calming

> measures.

>

> The information I now have has reinforced my

> concerns.

>

> Southwark's guidelines say that a petition can

> only be presented to a community council for

> consideration if it's signed by more than 250

> people and must contain 'a clear and concise

> statement covering the subject of the petition and

> on each page of the petition' (for obvious

> reasons). The document submitted to the last

> Dulwich Community Council met neither requirement.

> It contained instead a long statement of concern

> about the speed and volume of traffic on Melbourne

> Grove and a request that a barrier and other

> traffic calming measures be considered. This is

> signed by five people and is what's called a

> 'deputation request'. Attached to this are further

> pages (with no statement at the top of any of

> them) carrying the signatures of 133 people.

>

> It's apparently common for 'deputation requests'

> presented to community councils to be backed by

> lists of signatories. However it would be a

> mistake to call such a document a petition in

> favour of a specific measure.

>

> I'm talking to residents on Melbourne Grove and

> adjacent streets who share my concerns and will

> keep the forum updated.

Good stuff.

[@Woodwarde]

Jenny1 - this is very interesting. I too had made enquiries and had been advised that Councillors would scrutinise these documents before decisions and certainly funding were approved. The implication being that all was according to procedure. So what were our ward Councillors doing by approving this and ?10k of funding?

Presumably it is now null and void and funding lost?

[Jenny1]

Thanks firstmate, BobbyP and Andrew1011.

I don't think any councillors have signed up to the deputation request firstmate as there are none living on Melbourne Grove.

Hi @Woodwarde. As I understand it it was fine for a deputation request to be presented to the community council suggesting a barrier and other traffic calming measures for Melbourne Grove with a list of signatures attached. And if they like councillors can grant funding for a feasibility study into traffic management based on such a document.(I just happen to think it would have been wiser for them to reflect on the fact that they've paid for two similar studies and consultations in recent years and thus already have all the information they need on Melbourne Grove and the views of its residents.)

But an impression seems to have been created somewhere along the line that more than a hundred people on Melbourne Grove have signed up to an actual petition specifically asking for a barrier on the road. That's not right. Because there was no statement at the top of any of the pages of signatures submitted people might well have simply been expressing a general concern about traffic.

The distinction is important.

I'm talking to other residents of the immediate area who would prefer the council to come up with a more joined-up plan of managing the traffic in the whole area. Thinking about safety and access for all residents - no matter which street they live on and whether they're on foot, driving a car or cycling. It would be good to think there was some long term, sophisticated thinking going on about this. Will keep you posted on what we come up with.

[James Barber]

I'm not aware of any funding for such studies in recent years?

ie the last decade.

A reputation was requested and net the requirements. They presented a document that also included a petition within it from a majority of Melbourne Grovd residents.

This came after what must be 6 months + of residents recently raising such concerns.

Ward councillors from both wards all agreed to fund a feasibility study to consider the problems related by the deputation.

It now seems likely the study will report back early 2016.

[Scootingover]

James Barber said:

>> A reputation was requested and net the requirements. They presented a document that also included a petition within it from a majority of Melbourne Grovd residents.

However as noted on an earlier thread:

> Southwark's guidelines say that a petition can

> only be presented to a community council for

> consideration if it's signed by more than 250

> people and must contain 'a clear and concise

> statement covering the subject of the petition and

> on each page of the petition' (for obvious

> reasons). The document submitted to the last

> Dulwich Community Council met neither requirement.

> It contained instead a long statement of concern

> about the speed and volume of traffic on Melbourne

> Grove and a request that a barrier and other

> traffic calming measures be considered. This is

> signed by five people and is what's called a

> 'deputation request'. Attached to this are further

> pages (with no statement at the top of any of

> them) carrying the signatures of 133 people.

>

> It's apparently common for 'deputation requests'

> presented to community councils to be backed by

> lists of signatories. However it would be a

> mistake to call such a document a petition in

> favour of a specific measure.

Agree. I was at the meeting. The AUDIO record will show that none of the Cllrs discussed the 'petition' and whether its format conformed to that specified by Southwark. The wording of the deputation was formulated afterwards and so those signing will not have seen that, nor had the benefit of a statement at the top of the page that they were signing.

The list of signatures is at best an indication of support for a review of traffic calming measures. It would be misleading of the DCC to create the impression that there is demand, need and support for a barrier only.

I do hope that the DCC checks that the public record of the meeting (its minutes) is clear on these points and that the CGS funding was allocated to review traffic management more broadly. One of the cllrs (Andy Simmons) was very vocal about the need to review a wider area and the impacts of placing any traffic calming measures on Melbourne. The audio record will show this - let's hope that the meeting minutes are also clear.

[spider69]

messageRe: Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic

Posted by Andrew1011 July 08, 12:48PM

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> Is it just me or is anyone else confused how it's

> possible for James to check the signatures on the

> shredded petition but not the subject matter ?

Yes, I was a but puzzled by that too.

Was this question ever answered?

He backed the petition but did not know what it was about.

[Jenny1]

Hi James

You asked about the previous surveys/consultations on traffic management on Melbourne Grove.

The first was in 2004 (If I remember correctly). A number of options were considered for the road - including full width speed bumps. In the end 'cushions' (or partial speed bumps) were chosen - partly so that emergency vehicles wouldn't have to navigate full width bumps. Those 'cushions' were then installed.

Five years ago - when the road was due for resurfacing - the issue of traffic calming was looked at again. The council did a survey of the traffic on the road (the results of that are posted higher up on this thread and show that the traffic is much the same now as it was then). The council then consulted residents who voted to keep the 'cushions', rather than go for anything more dramatic.

It's these surveys and consultations that led me to say that I think we already have all the information we need about the traffic on the road and the views of its residents.

As I said in a previous post I'm not disputing that it's fine for a deputation request to be presented to a community council with pages of signatures attached. But this doesn't - according to Southwark's rules - constitute a petition in favour of a specific measure. All that we can really know is that 138 people on Melbourne Grove (including those who presented the deputation request) have said they're in favour of general traffic calming measures.

This means that it would not be correct for a feasibility study to focus on a barrier - as there is no argument that that is what's being called for by the majority of the residents of the road.

[Andrew1011]

Hear hear.

[James Barber]

Hi Jenny1,

I don't recall any such consultation 5 years ago. I certainly recall conversations between several residents and then I had with then local Tories who were against speed bumps replacing speed cushions. I suspect if this change had proceeded then we wouldn't be having these discussions now.

[rch]

There was a consultation on full width humps vs cushions in tandem with the statutory consultation for the road resurfacing, as highway engineers cleverly calculated that it would be more cost-effective to incorporate the implementation of full-width humps into the resurfacing exercise rather than going back and replacing the cushions.

But the residents voted to keep the cushions and from memory so did the police and emergency services. The main worry was vibrations and structural damage from the humps for not much gain in traffic calming, as the speed surveys show that there aren't speeding problems (ianr posted the routine surveys from 2009 on June 26th, although the document attached to the link seems to have curiously been changed?).

Another mitigating factor is that the row of 8 houses between Colwell and Blackwater are converted shops with no front garden and basements, with flooding issues from the Victorian sewage system, so even the engineers were concerned about potential structural damage if full width humps were implemented. Bear in mind that now this section has three pumps installed by Thames Water as part of the flood alleviation scheme, so vibrational issues would be even more of a problem along here to the point where humps would probably be avoided in this section even if the road voted in favour in general.

Another part of the consultation that was voted against by residents was the build out scheme at the junction of Chesterfield and Melbourne, mostly because of the potential loss of parking.

In hindsight, implementing build outs at the Ashbourne and Chesterfield junctions would probably positively address the issues along that narrow point of Melbourne Grove, although I'm going off of the suggestion of the raised junction table in the buildout now that I can see the problems on EDG. Build outs on their own would probably do the trick, especially if they had nice planting on them. Having said that, the Chesterfield junction is probably large enough to incorporate a pedestrian island instead of a buildout, which would act as a calming measure as well as a pedestrian crossing point for not much cost.

From memory, the barrier suggestion has also been discounted in the past, mostly because of the displacement and the emergency services.

I've probably got all the documentation of both consultations (including the original one with Tessa Jowell which led to the cushions) buried in 12 years of paperwork... but I'm not sure I have the energy to dig through it all. In any case, at least three of us on this forum remember the more recent one, so Jenny's not imagining it.

[Andrew1011]

rch Wrote:

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

recent one, so Jenny's not imagining it.

Absolutely right.

[Jenny1]

Hi James. I see this a little differently. You said....

(Hi Jenny1,

I don't recall any such consultation 5 years ago. I certainly recall conversations between several residents and then I had with then local Tories who were against speed bumps replacing speed cushions. I suspect if this change had proceeded then we wouldn't be having these discussions now.)

In 2009 we - as residents of Melbourne Grove - were sent an official Southwark council letter asking us if we wanted full width speed bumps and some changes of road layout to calm the traffic. Southwark said they were due to resurface the road and wanted to consult with us to make sure that we wanted the existing partial speed bumps kept - rather than anything more dramatic put in. The residents voted against the more dramatic measures - making clear they preferred the partial 'bumps'.

If asked to vote again tomorrow maybe residents would go for something different. Though to be honest I'd be surprised if they picked full width bumps given that - as recent threads on this forum show - many local residents are campaigning to get these removed because they can cause noise disturbance and structural damage to houses. That's why many favour pedestrian 'islands' or 'build-outs' to narrow parts of the road.

I do think though that it's important to respect the fact that only five years ago (when surveys show that traffic conditions were much the same as they are now) residents responded to an official Southwark consultation by saying 'Please don't change anything. We're happy with what we've got already'. I don't think it's fair to ignore that.

[rch]

I can confirm Jenny's version of events because I've now found the paperwork! Residents got a very lowkey letter on July 19th 2009 to consult on Melbourne Grove Highway Improvements to begin in early August (just two weeks later!).

In the diagram that was attached to the letter, the road resurfacing was to include full-width humps and the narrowing of the entrance to Chesterfield... if no one had replied to the consultation then this is what would have gone through, but a majority residents responded in unison against the changes.

From memory, I think the engineers were quite shocked at the level of objections against the full width humps, I think they just assumed that this is what residents wanted. In fact, from other paperwork in my file (yes, I'm sad!), it looks like the road resurfacing was delayed until May 2010 (almost a year), presumably until the redesign without the humps and the Chesterfield narrowing was formally approved to represent residents' wishes.

Just to be clear, I don't remember being told about this in advance as a cllr (which is probably also why James doesn't remember it), I only got the letter as a Melbourne resident. I remember people stopping me in the street and ringing my doorbell because they were freaking out about the humps, though, but all we could do was to object.

[James Barber]

This is useful to know. The letter bypassed councillors as indeed are the reported results.

I hope that any final report will include the results of that letter and the feedback.

[spider69]

Why were Cllrs by passed. They represent the people who rely on them to post possible changes

[Zebedee Tring]

This isn't the only recent case where local councillors have been bypassed. It has happened also re late and dubious "amendments" to the Townley Road junction scheme.

If this had happened when I worked in local government, the officers involved would have been hung out to dry. Clearly Southwark officers believe that they are above criticism.

[rch]

To be fair, I don't think that this was specifically a case of bypassing cllrs, it was more just a relatively standard statutory resurfacing consultation. Cllrs get given a schedule of works and are therefore aware of what's happening in their wards, but in this case I think that officers thought that the tweaks that they were incorporating into the road resurfacing plan were in line with what the residents wanted.

The interesting thing about this one is that the switch to the full width humps weren't actually listed in the covering letter... it wasn't until one looked at the drawing that one could see what was being proposed, which is what triggered off the alarm, which in turn triggered the objections.

The Red Post Hill hump consultation which took place a year after the Melbourne resurfacing saga is a similar case, it was meant to be a bog standard consultation... residents were in support of the proposed implementation of the humps that were meant to slow down the traffic until the heavy vehicles going over them started to keep them awake at night and manifest cracks in their houses. At this point the residents in the road united in protest, at which an extra ?40,000 had to be found to take out the humps and implement the ped islands.

Townley Road was a more complicated issue, as this redesign had been on the cards ever since the original junction had been bodged by TfL improperly... where it became a problem is that Tooley St politics became a driving factor in the redesign rather than the needs of the community. In fact, I predict that the junction redesign in the middle of Dulwich Village will become a similar issue.

But from my perspective the problem is poor engagement with the community leading to a lack of understanding of what the real issues and possible solutions are.

This isn't helped by the fact that the cllr position is still only a part-time role split between three elected members per ward who don't necessarily communicate with each other... while this might have worked back in the 50s and 60s, the whole system really needs to be reviewed, in my opinion, with a view towards cllrs becoming a full time role with proper compensation and a support system rather than a "volunteer" role limited to hands off "representation" and scrutiny, which can be fobbed off by an administration based five miles away.

In the meantime, we've now got the madness of a barrier, with knock-on effects, which we need to address...

[Zebedee Tring]

It may be a more complicated issue. However, the fact remains that the officers at the Community Council meeting in March promised to inform and consult residents and Councillors further regarding changes to the scheme, but they didn't. Apart from the local MP (also Ward Councillor) who has expressed her concern about this failure to consult, other Councillors on the DCC don't appear to have given a damn - unless they are prepared to demonstrate that I'm wrong by going on the record and saying otherwise.

It's lucky for them that the next local election is three years away and the next General Election five years away.

[rch]

I agree in theory, but the technical part of the problem with the Townley situation is the ward boundaries, as cllrs outside of Village ward wouldn't have had a significant amount of influence. On top of that you have the issue of being a councillor in opposition to an administration with a strong overall majority and therefore a general public mandate.

And you can't really blame the engineers as they are under instruction from the administration, which also has a majority vote in the DCC.

I guarantee you that if I had still been a Village ward councillor, that I would have made as huge a fuss as possible about this redesign, even if I couldn't have stopped it, as I know the background even better than some of the current highway engineers... but you get what you vote for.

[Zebedee Tring]

I don't really accept this. There are at least three Opposition Councillors on the DCC, including your former political colleague James Barber. So far we have heard SFA from them.

So far as the ward boundaries are concerned, ALL the Dulwich Councillors not just from Village Ward but from the other Dulwich Wards (as well as the local residents who pay the wages of Council officers, whether by Council Tax or general taxation, but who don't seem to matter in between elections) were promised further consultation on the scheme. What is the point of having a Community Council if the DCC members don't show a greater interest in the implementation of decisions that they have taken?

Why don't we just abolish democracy and appoint a bureaucrat to run the Borough according to his or her wishes? That would seem to be no less effective as the present set up? (I am making the final point only half seriously).

[first mate]

ZT hear hear.

[rch]

But James Barber is an East Dulwich ward cllr, not Village... he probably wasn't even copied in on the original notifications.

Promising further consultation is all well and good, but the final decision is down to the Cabinet Member. Furthermore, the funding issue was another complex layer... exacerbated by holding off the final design approval until after the May 2014 local election.

I hate the politics, it's one of the reasons why I'm glad to be out of it... on the other had, I love the community and want to keep working for the better of the residents.

There is talk of both Dulwich Village and Herne Hill investigating setting up a formal Neighbourhood Forum, maybe that's the best way forward.

If they do this, then maybe we should look at doing it in East Dulwich as well...