Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[Abe_froeman]

It does seem rather odd for a decision maker in this process to argue on such partisan terms before the evidence and consultation have even been collected.

[Earl Aelfheah]

James- my road is irrelevant. I simply used it to illustrate a point, that if you believe that cars shouldn't be used except for access, then any set of residents could potentially have an argument for putting up barriers. Using terms such as rat runs, and trying to portray the vested interest of residents ascommunity mindedness is not convincing. I don't blame residents for prefering ro live on a quiet, traffic free road, the problem is who wouldn't and where does that stop. The council should be taking a wider view.

[ed_pete]

rahrahrah - I believe it was Cllr Charlie Smith who first mooted the idea of a barrier. Perhaps you should email him and ask him his views and post them back here. Here's his email address: [email protected]

[ED_moots]

holymoly Wrote:

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

> 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.

Holy moly. I just meant there's no obligation to participate on this thread on an unofficial web forum.

Of course I would expect all DCC members to engage with local issues and respond to concerns raised by the whole community - employing due process and objectivity, especially when allocating public money.

In this case that hasn't happened but there's really no recourse on EDF. Which is why I asked for an email address from those coordinating the alternative view.

Btw. The DCC agenda on 24/6, item 6 concerns the deputation by MGTAG and specifically mentions double yellows. I have made a freedom of information request to the council for the material submitted by the deputation, including the petition. Will post here unless it is included in the minutes; which I doubt.

[wulfhound]

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.

Tragedy of the commons, simple.

If one person does it? Not a problem at all. Indistinguishable, to all intents and purposes, from a resident coming and going in their car.

If everyone does it - especially in the era of sat nav, where local knowledge no longer counts for anything & someone mid-way through a 25mile journey knows as much about the network as a local mum popping to Sainsburys - the net effect is that residential roads become completely dominated by traffic, to the exclusion of most other potential uses.

That is an argument for closing hundreds of streets all over Dulwich.

Closing them to through traffic - and thereby opening them to people. To kids. To neighbours chatting. To cyclists. To family pets. To actually being able to leave your car outside your house overnight without some speeding numpty knocking the wing mirror off. Bring it on, I say!

[intexasatthe moment]

Wulfhund - I can't see how your tragedy of the commons applies here . We're talking about a road ,the main function of a road is to convey traffic .I'm sure you disagree on this but that doesn't make your view correct .

How can a road's function be damaged by people driving down it ?

Or do you feel that a road's function is limited to providing access to those residents who live on the road ? Oh and to provide a play area ,cycle way and speakers corner .

And " where local knowledge no longer counts for anything & someone mid-way through a 25 mile journey knows as much about the network as a local mum popping to Sainsburys " what are you talking about ? Why should a mother driving to Sainsbury's lack knowledge of the " network " ?Or are you just trying to be offensive ?

[Earl Aelfheah]

So you are calling for hundreds of roads to be closed, or just this one Wulfhound?

[wulfhound]

Wulfhund - I can't see how your tragedy of the commons applies here . We're talking about a road ,the main function of a road is to convey traffic .I'm sure you disagree on this but that doesn't make your view correct .

How can a road's function be damaged by people driving down it ?

Or do you feel that a road's function is limited to providing access to those residents who live on the road ? Oh and to provide a play area ,cycle way and speakers corner .

Sounds like a fine thing to me, on anything less than a main road. Access does of course include tradespeople, deliveries, guests. Victorian residential street grids certainly weren't designed with the function of mass motor vehicle traffic in mind.

And " where local knowledge no longer counts for anything & someone mid-way through a 25 mile journey knows as much about the network as a local mum popping to Sainsburys " what are you talking about ? Why should a mother driving to Sainsbury's lack knowledge of the " network " ?Or are you just trying to be offensive ?

I mean quite the opposite. Someone popping from A to B locally would be expected to know the local network. Someone driving through the area between two distant points would not, but thanks to sat nav & one-button "avoid-the-jam" functions, they are nowadays able to take advantage of side streets. Or do you think that's a good thing, and we should treat any quieter streets as unused capacity waiting to be exploited?

So you are calling for hundreds of roads to be closed, or just this one Wulfhound?

As far as I'm concerned, this particular one should be up to the residents & the various council officials. I'm of the view that doing this on a much wider scale (as, for example, they're doing right now up in Walthamstow with the Mini Holland cycle scheme) will make for a happier, healthier, safer and cleaner neighbourhood. Whether it's something the majority are ready for though, perhaps not yet.

[Scootingover]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> > 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.

> ............

> Closing them to through traffic - and thereby

> opening them to people. To kids. To neighbours

> chatting. To cyclists. To family pets. To actually

> being able to leave your car outside your house

> overnight without some speeding numpty knocking

> the wing mirror off. Bring it on, I say!

Move house. People living on main roads seem to be a disadvantaged group in your scenario!

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/general-advice-144-to-158

Driving in built-up areas

152

Residential streets. You should drive slowly and carefully on streets where there are likely to be pedestrians, cyclists and parked cars. In some areas a 20 mph (32 km/h) maximum speed limit may be in force. Look out for

vehicles emerging from junctions or driveways

vehicles moving off

car doors opening

pedestrians

children running out from between parked cars

cyclists and motorcyclists.

153

Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas.

[Jenny1]

Hi ED_moots

It's a good idea to put in a 'Freedom of Information' request to view the documents submitted by the deputation to the last DCC meeting.

I've now looked at some - but not all - of those documents. I asked the council for a copy of the deputation request and the list of 'supporting' signatures that accompanied it. I can now confirm what I was told by council officers. There is no statement at the top of any of the pages of signatures so they do not constitute a request for a specific measure (ie a barrier). The signatures may have been gathered at any point during an ongoing campaign which began with more modest proposals for traffic calming.

I've sent you a PM about this.

[Earl Aelfheah]

James you asked me at what point I would consider traffic levels high enough to merit closing a street. I would like to know what your answer to this is? Does Crystal Palace Road or Whately Road qualify yet? Once Melbourne Grove is closed, will the displaced traffic taking to Townley push that road over the threshold too? is there a long term vision, any kind of strategy, or do we just close one Road at a time as we move the 'problem' around.

[Scootingover]

If you are Wolfhound, it depends whether you have chosen to live on a residential or a main road! Irritation aside - but it did read like that.

I think we want to be respectful of road and access ethics wherever/whoever. Neighbours on main roads are not some strange beast - we want to chat and move safely like anyone else.

[ED_moots]

Clearly then, that submission does not constitute a petition and should not have been accepted as such. A clearly defined appeal must form part of any petition.

These names could be come from anywhere and have been garnered under any pretence.

The ?3m csg fund should be handled with due diligence. With a quiet submission to the dcc, some canny PR and presentation of some dodgy stats, one wonders what other schemes might receive funding.

[first mate]

ED_Moots,

Quite right and zealots have a way of justifying all kinds of stinky routes and methods if they think it will help achieve their vision.

[Abe_froeman]

I'm not confident any due process will be followed with this campaign. Southwark's own website sets out the rules for this deputation: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s54983/Deputation%20report.pdf

"8. The deputation shall consist of no more than six persons, including the spokesperson

9. Only one member of the deputation shall be allowed to address the meeting, her or his speech being limited to five minutes."

This report of the meeting seems completely inconsistent with those rules:

"Cllr James Barber said: ?The deputation was particularly impressive. They had six speakers and a group of around fifteen to 20 supporters. They had put together a marvellous information pack.

?While there may be some anticipated issues including knock-on effects for neighbouring roads, it is definitely worth investigating. If I lived on Melbourne Grove, I would want it closed.?"

http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/10k-boost-for-road-safety-campaigners-in-dulwich/

[rch]

What's concerning is that although the current TMO document, that we have been discussing, doesn't include any new double yellow lines on the Melbourne Grove junctions, the deputation at the June 24th DCC meeting states the following:-

"To ask councillors to support a consultation and our campaign on the idea of a barrier placed across our road between Ashbourne and Tell Groves, and for better signage and double yellow lines."

So, there IS, theoretically, a campaign to implement more double yellow lines on Melbourne Grove, in addition to the current ones cited in the TMO.

Futhermore, the officer's report to the councillors regarding the "concerns" on Melbourne Grove states that they DO intend to propose to introduce double yellow lines at all the junctions on Melbourne Grove to improve sight lines. Here's the relevant section of the report:-

"In the interim, to improve road safety for all users officers propose to introduce double yellow lines at all the junctions on Melbourne Grove to improve sight lines. Recent observations noted a significant level of parking very close to junctions. This is in contravention of the Highway Code - Waiting and parking (242) DO NOT stop or park: ?opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space.?. Double Yellow lines will be introduced, subject to consultation, to clarify where it is appropriate to park.

In regard to the investigation of new yellow lines, we will assess this during June/July 2015 and, assuming approval by the community council, works could begin in December 2015. Read about how and when we assess Quarter 2 local parking amendment items."

So, although the current TMO doc doesn't include any new double yellow lines, it looks like a proposal - theoretically supported by 138 signatures (which is a separate questionable matter) - will be made by highways officers to a future DCC meeting (probably Sept 9th) for approval with a view towards implementing the double yellows on all the Melbourne junctions.

Therefore, councillors are now in a real bind, having supported the requests of the MGTAG and approved funding to investigate the actions requested by the June 24th deputation, which includes a request for double yellow lines.

[MarkT]

Southwark Streetscape Design Manual Section DS114 "Highway Visibility" states ?research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at."

MarkT

[Abe_froeman]

Hmm, so more parking restrictions me as faster traffic, and presumably at a higher volume as members of the MGTAG drive around in circles trying to find a parking spot?!

[first mate]

rch,

my concern is that 'cockup' is a very convenient fig leaf that allows get outs all round. We experienced it with the M&S fiasco when it was claimed, more or less, that officers and councillors had not fully understood the process.

So the apparent 'double bind' officrs and councillors may have got themselves into on this occasion leaves me thinking how convenient.

[Charles Notice]

Question.

Do all ED Cllrs have to agree on a policy like this>

If 2 are against can the third still push for it to happen?

Why do we never hear from the other 2 on this matter.

[Penguin68]

Why do we never hear from the other 2 on this matter.

Much as we love the forum, it is not an official communications channel for Southwark, nor is anyone compelled to register or post on it. It is nice when those who can impact our lives do (remember the rail-man who was so helpful?) but it is not an obligation.

[rch]

These are all very good points.

Regarding the forum, it's good that James participates, but it's not a usual way for elected members to communicate, especially as members wouldn't want to express personal opinions on matters that they will need to vote on. When I used to post here as a cllr, I had to be very careful what I wrote unless I intended to abstain. The legislation on publicly expressing opinions has loosened a bit now, though.

However, I'm finding that this forum is very useful for residents to communicate with other residents as there is really no other structure for us to access information and share and analyse it, whereas cllrs and council officers have an inherent internal structure which I'm finding is very difficult for residents to access.

We've got the okay from the ED resident, who tracked down the officers Melbourne Grove briefing, to quote from sections of the report as long as we don't publish the whole document, so we'll cite specific relevant sections as we go along.

[rch]

So, following on from the above comments, here's the catch on cllrs voting on allocating CGS underspend for a feasibility study for a barrier, better signage, and double yellow lines (as per the deputation request)...

The officers report states at the beginning why full width humps or a barrier would almost certainly not be implemented with council funding (which we'll go into later) but suggests that devolved CGS funding could be investigated (even though existing legislation would probably override any feasibility study recommendations). This is the exact wording:-

"Given the issue is not likely to be a corporate priority for some time, one funding option that could be investigated is using Cleaner Greener Safer funding. Applications for next year will considered in the autumn. Some approximate costs to consider:

Feasibility study to investigate road closure - ?5-10k

Introduction of road closure - ?20-30k

Replacement of one set of cushions with full width sinusoidal hump - ?3-5k




Officers? view is that replacement of sets of cushions with new full width humps is not likely to have a significant impact on vehicle speeds."

But the catch here is that the CGS process, referred to above as being considered in the autumn, consists of an open bidding process followed by an officer assessment of whether the bid is a viable use of public finding. In the normal process, a lot of the bids are eliminated from the list even before it goes to the voting stage.

But, but by approving the funding for this feasibility study out of CGS underspend, cllrs have circumvented the bidding process and the officer assessment.

I think this is what concerns most residents... that up to ?10K of public funding can be spent on a feasibility study that officers have already briefed is probably not feasible, based on a set of signatures that doesn't constitutionally qualify as a petition.

If a barrier is actually voted to go through after the feasibility study, then more funding will need to be allocated for a wide-range public consultation across all the affected streets (could be another ?5-10K), plus another ?20-?30K to fund the implementation of the barrier itself.

Officers' recommendations state that, in the interim, the double yellows on all the junctions should proceed with internal council funds in December.

[ed_pete]

So, according to the DCC Agenda, the depuation asked for:

To ask councillors to support a consultation and our campaign on the

idea of a barrier placed across our road between Ashbourne and Tell Groves,

and for better signage and double yellow lines.

There is no definition of what "better signage and double yellow lines" means exactly but it could simply mean re-painting the existing lines to make it clearer as to where they are.

[first mate]

Could James ( as the councillor that is a regualr voice on the forum) please comment on rch's points?