Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[@Woodwarde]

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2558/traffic_orders

the Traffic Management Orders are at this link

The Cabinet decisions are at this link

Decisions

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDelegatedDecisions.aspx?DS=0&bcr=1

Neither of these seem to cover the Melbourne Grove parking (yellow line) changes back to Nov 2014. I understand (but may be wrong) that changes to yellow lines are the subject of TMOs and should be consulted beforehand even if an informal consulation has taken place beforehand.

Southwark website says:

For further assistance please contact the constitutional team on 020 7525 7055 or [email protected]

Although the people to ask seems to be:

Nicky Costin

Road network and parking business unit manager

Public Realm

or Matt Hill

Public Realm

so worth you asking if some of the changes on Melbourne Grove are new and have not been the subject of TMO. You would need to live there to know.

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> We've all gone around and around this which seems

> a bit premature at this point.

Premature? I don't think so.

Unless people act now, and we will, it will allow things like this to be slithered in by default or stealth ("Oh it's too late, you should have said/done something sooner"), and unopposed by those local councillors who seem to be broadly in favour of these ridiculous wasting of money measures anyway.

[Zebedee Tring]

Matt Hill was the guy at the Community Council meeting in March who told us that there would be further consultation on the Townley Road scheme, which didn't in fact take place. So be wary.

[ED_moots]

I may be wrong but, living at the north end of Melbourne, it seems like most of these restrictions are already in place and have been for some time. Could this scheme of changes have been in the pipeline for some time?

It seems increasingly futile to vent our frustrations here, however logical and well articulated they are.

I respect James Barber's efforts to participate as there is no obligation on his part but, whilst questions are only partially answered and details of this process remain unclear, it's only adding fuel to the fire.

The decision to spend public money on a feasability study is flawed; made without objectivity or proper representation of the facts or the community. If we have the energy we should apply to the dcc to reverse this allocation of funding. We received a letter through our door raising these concerns which I have lost so, if those Melbourne residents who put the letter out are inclined, please could they post an email address here.

Those opposed to the allocation funding and, of course, the preposterous idea to block our road can send their name and address to form a counter petition.

[@Woodwarde]

More at the link below on TMO. Yellow lines are notified to the police and so our local police reps should have been party to the consultation if the detail of the process below has been followed. If these yellow lines on Melbourne are new then we can ask the police what they think?.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200083/roadworks_and_highway_improvements/1957/traffic_management_orders

Traffic management orders

The traffic management order process and statutory consultation

This page provides information about traffic management orders and notices for permanent and experimental schemes generated from within the council.

Information regarding temporary traffic orders - e.g. for road closures to enable streetworks or construction, is available here.

Traffic management orders (TMOs) are documents which provide the legal backing for the enforcement of road, traffic or parking schemes under the relevant national legislation.

Follow traffic order consultations to view statutory consultation documents for current road, traffic or parking schemes. A form for responding to these consultations is provided here.

A selection of frequently requested traffic orders are also available.

Permanent orders

Permanent orders give rise to the majority of signs and lines that are placed on streets. Examples of these are:

Single/double yellow lines

Parking places

Prohibited and compulsory turns

One-way traffic working

Speed limits

Please note, not all on street restrictions require an order, bus stop clearways and box junctions being two examples.

Experimental orders

Experimental orders are used to enable the council to monitor the effect and vary as necessary. The duration of an experimental order lasts no more than eighteen months before they are either: allowed to lapse, amended or made permanent.

Road humps and pedestrian crossings

TMOs are not required for road humps or pedestrian crossings but similar procedures with regards to Public Notices and objections apply.

TMO Procedures

By law, the council is required to publish notices in a local newspaper which advertise the proposal and effects of TMOs. In some cases the notices are also published in the London Gazette. You can view our traffic order consultations to view notices and statutory consultation documents for current road, traffic or parking schemes.

If the council feels additional publicity is needed for a TMO they can choose to erect notices on lamp columns in the street to which any TMO proposal relates.

In the case of permanent and experimental orders the council must consult statutory bodies such as the Police, Ambulance, Fire Brigade, Bus Operators, Road Haulage Association and Freight Transport Association. Also, other stakeholders such as cycling and disability groups will be contacted if any TMOs affect them.

How to object to or make a representation in respect of a proposed TMO

The way in which you can object to or make a representation in respect of a proposed TMO is outlined in the Public Notice and a deadline by which any such objections or representations should be received given. The council is legally obliged to consider every objection that is sent, and will reply in due course to acknowledge that objection, and to inform you of the appropriate decision maker's determination of that objection.

A form for responding to TMO consultations is available here.

After the making of a TMO, if the public feel the council has not followed the correct procedures in making the order they can appeal to the High Court within six weeks of the TMO being made.

More about Traffic management orders

[holymoly]

ED_moots Wrote:

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

>

> I respect James Barber's efforts to participate as

> there is no obligation on his part but, whilst

> questions are only partially answered and details

> of this process remain unclear, it's only adding

> fuel to the fire.

The Lordship Lane side of Melbourne Grove and roads off it (Tell, Ashbourne etc) are part of East Dulwich Ward. James Barber, Rosie Schimell, Charlie Smith are our Councillors here. I expect them to get involved and to be open minded to all residents' needs.

And reading between the lines and information now emerging - they did get a Southwark officer's input to the Melbourne speeding issue in time for an open discussion at the June DCC which they did not bring into the debate.

[James Barber]

Non of the double yellow line changes have been brought to the Dulwich Community Council for our input and recommendation.

At the last DCC meeting double yellow lines for the North Dulwich triangle were agreed - I tried to get them toned down as they are completely OTT.

I have now raise this matter of East Dulwich ward double yellow lines with officers and will report back.

[@Woodwarde]

James

do these changes come as local parking amendments - LPAs:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/2766/local_parking_amendments

And if so, is this the process and are we in the Quarter 2 phase for changes to happen in December 2015?

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/2766/local_parking_amendments/2

Programme, as follows.

2015/16

We have a quarterly programme of works during 2015/16 as follows:

Quarter 1 (for items received during March and May 2015)

?Site investigations - March to May 2015

?Reports to community council - June to July 2015

?Traffic orders - July to August 2015

?Implementation - September to October 2015

Quarter 2 (for items received between June and August 2015)

?Site investigations - June to August 2015

?Reports to community council - September to October 2015

?Traffic orders - October to November 2015

?Implementation - December 2015 to January 2016

Quarter 3 (for items received between September and December 2015)

?Site investigations - September and December 2015

?Reports to community council - January to February 2016

?Traffic orders - March to April 2016

?Implementation - May to June 2016

Quarter 4 (for items received between January and March 2016)

?Site investigations - January and March 2016

?Reports to community council - April 2016

?Traffic orders - May to June 2016

?Implementation - July to August 2016

[first mate]

Post removed because misunderstood above.

W, James seems not to have been aware of these plans so hoping he will now get to grips with this and report back, as he says he will, on implications and how to fight it most effectively if it does seem that large slices of parking are to go.

[Earl Aelfheah]

So the total average speed measured on MG was 19mph Northbound and 18mph Southbound. There is no evidence which I have seen to suggest that MG is an accident black spot.

So what is the issue that is being addressed? Is it simply an attempt to reduce the number of vehicles using the road? Should roads be for residents only? Not very community spirited is it James?

What's the rationale here - what's the problem that road closure seeks to solve?

[@Woodwarde]

First Mate

I think 2 consultations re parking might affect Melbourne and associated roads.

1. One-hour parking for shops consulation and outcome

I have not kept track of the final outcome but this would possibly affect the LLane end of Tell, Asbourne etc and Lordship Lane itself. I can ask Councillors about this.

2. Yellow lines for Melbourne at side street junctions (Tell, Ashbourne and beyond).

I understand that these are on the Council radar now, alongside the barrier/speeding debate. No idea if any of these have jumped the gun and made it into the Consolidation document referenced earlier in this thread. Hopefully someone who lives on Melbourne can check that. It is probably unlikely but worth a check.

Will be interesting to see what Cllrs are able to advise.

[rch]

Okay, I've now had a chance to look at all 471 pages of the TMO document, plus I've gone out and done a walkabout.

Firstly, the double yellows in the TMO list for the south side of the Chesterfield junction w/Melbourne, plus both sides of the Ashbourne junct w/Melbourne, are already there... it looks like they were implemented a while ago without anyone realising, there would have been a traffic order that slipped under the radar. I can't tell if the existing lines are to be extended, but it doesn't look like it.

The TMO document doesn't look like it's proposing to line the curved northern side of the Chesterfield junct, probably because that's not a proper corner and is offset.

The only new double yellows proposed for Melbourne are at the Tell Grove junction with Melbourne, which actually makes sense in line with the Ashbourne and Chesterfield lines, as the road in that whole section is narrower and therefore cars passing is more difficult. The Tell Grove yellows will probably lose one car parking space, maybe two in a pinch.

Happily, the Lytcott, Blackwater, and Colwell junctions with Melbourne appear to have no plans for double yellows (only the junctions with Lordship are cited), probably because the stats are so low and we don't complain much down here...

To be fair, I don't think James can do much about this... as some of the double yellows are already there and must have been legally approved, setting a precedent.

Looking at the context of the entire 471 page document, this looks to me like the Tooley Street Dictatorship going mad with highway regulations. I remember having these discussions as a cllr years ago and we always took the view that double yellows constituted street clutter and if it ain't broke don't fix it... but that if residents complained, then address their specific complaints. So this looks like what has happened, with highway engineers now consolidating all the bits and pieces and filling in the gaps (including lots of roads in Dulwich Village as well as East Dulwich) into one Master Plan.

I'm guessing that the only reason that this was mentioned in the Melbourne Grove Councillors Briefing is because it was going to be done anyway and it makes it look like the council is responding positively to residents' "concerns".

[rch]

I haven't had a chance to study the TMO document to see if the proposals for the Lordship shopping parade are on there, this exercise is actually involves quite a bit of work, but I'll try to have another go when I have more time.

Also, the Melbourne Grove - Briefing for Ward Councillors would have definitely been given out to all the cllrs before the June 24 DCC meeting... Cllr Kirby referred to it in public at the meeting, which is how I knew it existed, and I don't think she would have gotten an isolated copy.

Residents are currently requesting permission to publish this briefing here so that we can discuss all the points openly.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Survey shows that a lot of people use a road - thereby demonstrating what? - that its a well used (and useful) route. There is no evidence of MG being an accident black spot. If there is small number of drivers speeding, then target them.

The logic which runs - lot's of people use this route, let's close it, is bizarre. Apparently this is selfless, community mindedness, if you believe james barber's rhetoric.

[@Woodwarde]

rch

In the vein of Southwark following its formal process and correct me please if I am wrong.... This is a consolidation document and anything in it should have been agreed and have been through the TMO process before appearing in here.

So is the Tell Grove proposal jumping the gun? If so, perhaps other changes have also slipped through the net.

[rch]

I totally agree, rah.

One of the solutions that the officers briefing mentions is the Community Roadwatch program of volunteers working with the police on local speed monitoring sessions, which is something that I have actively been trying to propose in the area.

I mentioned this to the deputation at the DCC meeting, but the deputation members were so negative about it that the local police have put any further Melbourne Grove sessions on hold.

Ironically, I was talking to a barrier supporter this morning while out surveying the double yellows and they commented how fast a car was speeding as it passed us by... but because I've had the training, I could tell that it was almost definitely going under 20mph.

Maybe what we really need is one of those smiley-face neon signs that post the speed of passing cars...

[rch]

Woodwarde, sorry we're ping-ponging threads... my guess is that the TMO proposal is a preliminary part of the traffic order process, as the cllrs briefing states that the works won't be done until Dec. Also, all of this information is currently available on the Southwark website, although I don't know if it has been advertised in the Southwark News yet. Am guessing the ad will come in Sept.

In context of the existing double yellows at Ashbourne and Chesterfield, I think the Tell doubles are probably sensible. When I had a look this morning, there was a car parked right at the kerb in breach of the Highway Code, which would have made it difficult for a resident in a car to turn left into Tell, so the proposal is indeed probably justified there.

[first mate]

RCH,

Thanks again for your input. Think the problem with the process is that it does not feel transparent and so there is a sense that stuff is being slid through; if councillors are not made aware in good time of various changes then what hope the rest of us?

Anyhow, agree some proper speed monitoring might help get objective data though even that is of limited use unless compared with many other streets in the area whrre residents could make similar claims. It does not seem to me that barriers will do more than push the problem elsewhere and that is why I am somewhat cynical about any apparent political support for this proposal.I think unless enough people are caught speeding and hit in their purses, there is little that will stop them doing it again. It is human nature. Blocking off roads as a solution is simply barmy.

[James Barber]

Hi rahrahrah,

Community spirited. Closing the road or using it as a rat run avoiding main roads.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Effectively closing a road to the to all but residents is nothing to do with being community spirited. It's to do with the interests of a minority - about moving a problem rather then dealing with it (assuming that the problem is speeding and dangerous motorists - I'm still not actually sure).

[Earl Aelfheah]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi rahrahrah,

> Community spirited. Closing the road or using it

> as a rat run avoiding main roads.

What is wrong with avoiding a main road - or taking the most direct route to your destination? As long as one isn't speeding, or driving in a dangerous manner, it is perfectly legitimate. This idea that all journeys should be restricted to A roads is exactly the problem. That is an argument for closing hundreds of streets all over Dulwich.

[rch]

Totally agree, again, rah. All a barrier will do is divert traffic to create new rat runs. Residents in landlocked Lytcott and Playfield will probably cut through Ashbourne and Chesterfield.

In the meantime, I've gone back and double checked the double yellows on Tell and they are listed for the junction of Tell and EDG, NOT Tell and Melbourne, so apologies... scrolling through the 471 page PDF document looking for listings at different ends of the alphabet is a pain.

FYI, from another thread it looks like the Ashbourne and Chesterfield double yellows were approved in the run-up to the May 2014 elections, which is how they got through under the radar.

[James Barber]

Hi rahrahrah,

At what traffic levels would you think rat-running along residential streets to avoid main roads unacceptable?

clearly Melbourne Grove residents mostly think they've reached that point,.

Heber Road traffic counts - I can't find any for your road.

But for surrouinging streets - Pellatt Road west section 654 vehicles a day, east section 321; Silvester Road west section 135, east section 613; Goodrich Road west section 835.

hi rch,

apart from Melbourne grove I don't see what other rat-run people could divert onto?

If you're coming north along lordship Lane and want to go along East Dulwich Grove you'd be daft to not already use Townley Road. If you're planning to go over Dog Kennel Hill you'd use Lordship Lane which is a main road. Vice versa.

The issue will be the impact and inconvenience for residents for and against.

[first mate]

James, think you should amend your first statement to "some Melbourne Grove residents" and it is not at all clear that "some" in any way represents the majority view on that road.

We also know, from back in the day of the old CPZ debate, that highlighting the needs of one street is not a great way to go, since restrictive changes to one tend to impact those around it, usually for the worse. We need an overview of the whole of ED and surrounding areas to try to figure out the best way forward.

[richard tudor]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi rahrahrah,

> At what traffic levels would you think rat-running

> along residential streets to avoid main roads

> unacceptable?

> clearly Melbourne Grove residents mostly think

> they've reached that point,.

>

> Heber Road traffic counts - I can't find any for

> your road.

> But for surrouinging streets - Pellatt Road west

> section 654 vehicles a day, east section 321;

> Silvester Road west section 135, east section 613;

> Goodrich Road west section 835.

>

> hi rch,

> apart from Melbourne grove I don't see what other

> rat-run people could divert onto?

> If you're coming north along lordship Lane and

> want to go along East Dulwich Grove you'd be daft

> to not already use Townley Road. If you're

> planning to go over Dog Kennel Hill you'd use

> Lordship Lane which is a main road. Vice versa.

>

> The issue will be the impact and inconvenience for

> residents for and against.

Why do you refer to MG as a "Rat Run". This has always been a main through fare from the year dot. It has not suddenly appeared.

When the residents of Camberwell Grove tried to put a barrier across they tried to classify this major road as a "Rat Run"

As someone mentioned The traffic on MG was there before and it is not new.