Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[rch]

Yes, but what worries me is that the highway officers report that was given to councillors for that same meeting recommends NEW double yellow lines for ALL junctions on Melbourne Grove. This appears to tie in with the deputation's reference to yellow lines, although it's hard to tell because there's been no public discussion of any of this and it's taking weeks to dig out documentation.

The report states:-

"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."

[James Barber]

Hi rch,

IF DCC agrees to new double yellow lines. Some to ensure people can cross the road may make sense but not the 10m from each direction in both directions Village ward councillors have agreed for the North Dulwich Triangle area roads.

And yes we've reallocated some CGS underspends as indeed you did for the 8 years you were a cllr Robin.

NB. The new round of applications for CGS schemes for 16/17 opens 7 September.

With respects to expressing opinions. The law rightly changed after 2010 about councillors having and expressing opinions as long as the councillor wasn't fettered or unwilling to hear new evidence and change their minds.

When Melbourne Grove residents came to me I thought full speed width humps the answer. They changed my mind over time by relating stats etc. I'm not sure what the answer should be as we really need to understand what the impacts would be.

Hi first mate,

Is that what you wanted me to respond to?

Hi Charles Notice,

A recommendation from the Dulwich Community Council will be made a t some point - my guess early in the new year after any feasibility presented around then. That recommendation is likely to be to consult on an option - full humps, closure, something else. After a report with consultation feedback has been produced we'll then make a decision - my guess is around June/July time 2016.

A majority of DCC's 9 councillors will be required at each of those two stages.

Normally ward councillors are given more weight in such matters and the other 6 councillors will counsel but rarely vote down ward councillors on a ward specific issue. This part of Melbourne Grove is shared by East Dulwich ward and Village ward so 6 councillors directly concerned and 3 others for a non affected ward.

Why do you not hear from the other two East Dulwich ward councillors? For Cllr Rosie Shimell and I it's a division of effort and a natural extension of what I started doing before she was elected - I'd be delighted to handover to her but she recently became engaged and has lots of planning to do. Cllr Charlie Smith when he was elected 2014 did start posting but it seemed if fizzle out. It is a big commitment.

P68,

Yes, the rail man was good. That was what inspired me to get properly started.

Hi Markt,

The Southwark Street Design Manual has many flaws. Doesn't allow new cycle parking, etc.

Hi Abe_foreman,

The deputation followed the rules. One speaker. when cllrs had questions and members from the audience other members of the deputation helped answer them. All normal.

If you or anyone else would like to organise a deputation against Melbourne Grove being closed or having speed bumps or anything else - get in touch and I'll walk you through making it happen.

[MarkT]

James

I quoted the Southwark Streetscape Manual:

?research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at."

You responded:

?Hi Markt, The Southwark Street Design Manual has many flaws. Doesn't allow new cycle parking, etc.?

My point, which perhaps I should have made explicit, was that the SSDM warns against the indiscriminate use of measures that will increase visibility, such as double yellow lines. I don?t think that this contradicts anything else within the SSDM.

Do I understand from your response that the cautionary statement in the SSDM is flawed?

The suggestion that increasing visibility can increase speed does, I think, have a ring of truth. Would it not be wise therefore, to consider each proposed new section of double yellow lines individually, with regard to the potential for ?introducing dangers??

MarkT

[rch]

If residents up there want to put double yellows at the Tell junction, that's fine with me, but I would campaign against them down here at the southern end as we really don't have the problem.

Yes, James, we allocated underspends, but in my day we could only allocate underspends to officer assessed items that had initially been rejected from the original bids... anything "new" that came up had to have cabinet member approval and another assessment. It looks like the constitution rules have changed.

I don't mind you expressing an opinion, but I don't understand why the stats changed your mind as they are pretty much the same as they were six years ago when the second consultation went against any changes and even the recent officers briefing advises against both a barrier and full width humps.

[James Barber]

Hi MarkT,

The cautionary statement in the SSDM is correct in my mind and research I've read in the past. I also stated eleswhere on this thread that more double yellow lines doesn't seem useful in my mind. But the SSDM is so silly in places it undermines the sensible bits.

The SSDM has been used to insist Chinese granite has to be used on our streets - about as un eco as you can find.

So overall the SSDM should be either wholly revised or withdrawn until a proper one can be agreed.

[Andrew1011]

Charles Notice Wrote:

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

> 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?

Decisions at Dulwich Community Council have to have a majority of the nine councillors in the three wards (East Dulwich, College and Village) which make up the devolved community council. So it's worth ensuring that all nine councillors are aware of other opinions on this matter.

> Why do we never hear from the other 2 on this

> matter.

My understanding is that Councillor Barber is the official mouthpiece for ED (and Southwark) Liberal Democrats with tbe other Lib Dem councillor being not only practically invisible in East Dulwich generally but also invisible on EDF. Our other (Labour) councillor, having apparently only made a couple of not well received ventures onto this forum, appears to have given up on using social media.

The key to this issue will be influencing the other seven councillors, as two - intentionally or otherwise - do appear to have made known their view on the issue of this barrier.

[Andrew1011]

rch Wrote:

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

> 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.

This is one of the main issues never really resolved by the Southwark Democracy Commission (2010) which was supposed to have dealt with and decoded the more or less impenetrable council - officer and political - structures which hinder wider involvement.

[first mate]

One of the things I am interested to know is how blocking off Melbourne would impact on traffic flow on Ldship and other main access roads, given that traffic is likely to increase once the new Harris, the new Charter and M&S are all up and running.

Have any projections been done given these considerations? To me it sounds like Ldship Lane could become a place of bumper to bumper traffic misery in the not too distant future; I don't see everyone suddenly jumping onto bicycles, especially in the dark winter months.

[Abe_froeman]

A knock on consequence of that could be rat running down other roads joining or running parallel to LL, leading to more deputations, more barriers and more expenditure. All down to the apparent rubber stamping of a solution to a problem for which there is no publicly available evidence of its existence.

[rch]

Andrew, I totally agree with you about the Democracy Commission exercise, this is something we should pick up on a new thread as these issues won't go away.

[rch]

First mate and Abe, this is one of the things that I've been thinking about as well, in tandem with The Melbourne Grove Liberation Committee (sorry, I couldn't resist!), as my house is strategically positioned in a way that makes me more aware of traffic flow on Melbourne.

I reckon that the residences on Melbourne, south of the proposed barrier, along with landlocked Playfield, Lytcott, and part of Colwell will be most affected... this could represent up to around 200 residences with an unknown number of vehicles which will end up being diverted through to a new route.

The most likely exit rat run out to Lordship will be Chesterfield, with Ashbourne as a secondary exit (the entry to Chesterfield is more open and easier to navigate than the Ashbourne junction) as that's the route that most vehicles at this end currently take to Lordship anyway. The junction of Melbourne with Lordship has a lot of issues which drivers tend to avoid, so I can see even residents at my end heading out via Chesterfield, especially when the new school at the police station site is in operation (which is another issue that needs to be considered).

This exercise would almost certainly form part of the feasibility study, but it's not rocket science to see where it's heading...

[first mate]

This is why I cannot understand why some Councillors are in support of the barrier. They really need to say that it is part of a broader vision to seriously reduce car ownership; a deliberately oblique means to place as much pressure on ED car owners as possible.

Consider what Chesterfield already contends with- the car wash and major impending development of M&S (with stepped up daily lorry deliveries). Councillors have already admitted that they expect M&S to increase parking pressure on surrounding streets, and we must not forget the extra 8-10 flats also to be built on that site. Then Harris and Charter will just be down the road.Are all those children coming in on bikes and buses?

I simply cannot believe that Councillors are unaare of these factors or that this is not a deliberate tactic on their part to force through CPZ. Come on guys, if you are so convinced you are right then at least be honest with the local electorate about what you are up to.

[rch]

To be honest, my genuine opinion is that none of the councillors live anywhere near here and don't understand the dynamics of the neighbourhood, and therefore were swayed by the claims of the deputation, even though there are layers of inaccuracies.

Even the Melbourne residents I've spoken to who are in favour of the barrier don't understand what the consequences will be, they think that the traffic will simply disappear...

[rch]

BTW, I don't own a car, I walk everywhere or a friend gives me a lift (which is how I'm aware of the car routes)... which is how I know that the only way to get residents in the area out of their cars is to improve the local bus services.

The reason I'm so vehemently against a barrier or full width humps is that I don't want my quality of life destroyed, which I genuinely believe that the displacement from a barrier will do.

[Penguin68]

first mate writes:- I simply cannot believe that Councillors are unaare of these factors or that this is not a deliberate tactic on their part to force through CPZ.

Yes, of course it is - Mr Barber has long beaten a drum (thank god unsuccessfully last time) for the introduction of CPZs - all councils see this as a nice little earner. It is, of course, a wonderfully socially divisive intrusion - turning one tiny group of roads against another as each resents anyone else's use of what they now see as 'their' road (because they are paying - eventually through the nose - to use it). Turning roads into a gated community has much of the same effect. The introduction of vast swathes of yellow lines (which will incidentally speed traffic but (mainly) reduce parking availability) is another tool in the CPZ maven's toolbox.

Their job is to introduce selfish attitudes ('it's my road and only I can park in it') to leverage revenue streams. It is amusing (in an unfunny way) that it is socialists and lib dems on the council who are so in favour of creating and supporting divisive selfish attitudes, and a conservative who is standing out against this. But of course conservatives (with some exceptions) are not viscerally opposed to cars and car ownership.

(amended to attribute quotation correctly)

[first mate]

Penguin68,

Thank you for articulating rather better than I the reality of councillor tactics.

Do they really think most of us cannot see through them? It is the paternalistic zealotry that really gets my goat and I agree, how ironic that it's the socialists and libdems creating and driving division to ensure their aim of CPZ wins through.

[rch]

Just to be clear, I didn't make the above quoted statement... and, for the avoidance of doubt, I hate all politics! I'll work with anyone who cares about the community...

[first mate]

rch, no it was me and I too dislike politics..I just think the way this and similar issues are being handled stinks.

[rch]

Thanks for clarifying... I get into enough trouble shooting my mouth off without being misattributed!

I agree the system stinks in general, but I'm becoming clearer these days of how we all need to stick together to fight it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't believe in conspiracies. I would be very surprised if this is a deliberate step towards introducing a CPZ (that's not to say that it may not lead in that direction eventually).

Councillors of course want to improve the quality of life for their constituents and it's easy to jump to the support of what on the face of it, seems like a positive campaign to calm traffic and increase road safety.

The problem is that it's not part of any joined up strategy. It's a campaign started by a small group, with a vested interest in the outcome. Whilst those on MG are going to be focused on what they want for their road, they are unlikely to be thinking about the knock on consequences. This is were I would hope we could rely on the council / Councillors to be looking at the bigger picture.

I don't drive down MG (in fact I rarely drive at all in London), but I am worried about how this 'problem' has been identified, the precedent it sets for other streets who may well want the same and the apparent lack of strategic oversight.

[ed_pete]

"Turning roads into a gated community has much of the same effect. The introduction of vast swathes of yellow lines (which will incidentally speed traffic but (mainly) reduce parking availability) is another tool in the CPZ maven's toolbox. "

Such hyperbole !

Can I make a positive suggestion ? Why not invite those behind the DCC deputation round for a cuppa and have honest discussion face-to-face ?

[Penguin68]

My apologies Robin, for wrongly attributing the quote, there was so much good and relevant stuff from you that I glossed over who had actually made the point. And I don't see from you any party political drum being beaten, just a community aware one. I will amend my post to the correct source.

[rch]

Thanks, Peng! Am not having a go, just trying to avoid getting shot at...

ed_pete... I've actually tried this. I spoke to the chair of the deputation about the past consultations, the technicalities, the legislation, and the impact for a length of time, twice, when he knocked on my door. I tried speaking to one of my neighbours after the deputation, but she wouldn't speak to me, but I've had discussions in the road with other pro-barrier residents as well as anti-barrier res.

The pro-barrier residents are entitled to their opinions at the end of the day. But so are the rest of us. What they have done is to unite publicly and speak out formally, so that's what we need to do... otherwise, the only opinion on record will be the pro-barrier, which is what will influence the authorities.

[first mate]

rahrahrah and ed_pete, yes okay perhaps I am being excessive but it is just so frustrating to discover that there really does not seem to be an overview of traffic and parking management for the area. I find it hard to believe that elected officials have not given this consideration, especially considering the fairly significant developments that are imminent.

My interest is also in the community, I am not affiliated to any political organisation.

[XIX]

Unless I've missed something, I don't think we've heard any of the voices of those who actually proposed this thing in the first place here on the EDF (at least since the very start of this thread quite some time ago). I think thats a real shame and has been to the detriment to the quality of discussion/debate, with those on 'the outside' left trying to put the pieces together and work out what is happening based on fragmentary info and investigation - for instance about the status of the petition (or whatever it is!), exactly what was asked for, how many signed it etc - that all could have been clarified in an instant by those responsible if they had wished.

The fact that no-one has come forward to answer such questions and meaningfully engage on the subject (after the 'consultation' they did before - a brief note the day before the council meeting - way too little, way too late) has not done anything to give the impression that this is a transparent and open process with rich 2-way dialogue/debate. I hope they realise that to someone on the outside it looks pretty poor - like they've shut up shop - the proposal/petition has gone in and now silence. People on the outside feel like they're in the dark - it feels quite unfair. And of course, James Barber's selective responses do nothing to help.

Its pretty natural that with a dearth of info/engagement people will start to get frustrated and even tend toward more cynical views (and conspiracy theories). So please, don't stay out of the debate Melbourne Grove proposers - you should be central in it! The discussion would have been so much more valuable, well-informed and balanced with your voices. you never know - you might even change some people's minds!...... And I actually think its the least you should do - bearing in mind the impact of you protecting your own interests with this barrier on others in the vicinity.