Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Back to the notion of a 'rat run', which is one of those 'boo' phrases that's deployed to prevent thought. Having cars avoiding main roads/congestion does not necessarily lead to greater speeding or more dangerous driving leading to accidents. From what we know, Melbourne Grove does not have a speeding problem and does not have a problem with accidents. On top of that, there's no evidence of a recent increase in traffic. So unless residents' real objection is to cars simply driving down 'their' road, they have no privilege to trump the desires of others living in the area or of road users, who have a perfect right to avoid congestion in a safe way.

Hi XIX,

The propsers made a proposal, a study will be undertaken, then a decision based on the study, a consultation based on that, then a final decision.

I'm not aware of any imminent activity in the next 6 months for any of us. This thread is proving how passionate some feel about this issue having a particular solution. But realistically nothing outside officers working on a study will take place for 6 months.


I've made this point repeatedly but still some feel something must be happening now. It isn't.

So not sure why anyone could be frustrated that more information isn't forthcoming when their isn't any.


Hi rahrahrah,

Precisely - their is no conspiracy.

Yes, residents came with a problem. We agreed to fund a feasibility study of what can and can't be done looking at the wider impacts.

XIX, according to a Southwark News report of 2 July, http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/10k-boost-for-road-safety-campaigners-in-dulwich/


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."


I don't know if the pack was circulated at the 24 June CC meeting, or when/if it or any parts have been formally submitted. It wasn't included in the documents accompanying the agenda at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CId=176&Year=0, hasn't been added since, and the minutes are still not up.

rch,


RE your statement:


"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."


Are you willing to co-ordinate this? You would be by far best placed with your experience to know to how to go about speaking out formally to the council to ensure the counter view is heard.......

If Cllr Barber proposed putting in a barrier to the DCC would he expect other Cllrs to follow his "moral lead" and not get stuck in and just pass the motion through.




Posted by James Barber August 05, 02:01PM


Hi ZT,FM,

WRT Townley Road/EDG junction I promoted the issue widely, chased when things would come to DCC. Explained deputations and petitions to several groups and generally made a public and private fuss. I explained why I was doing this due to impacts on East Dulwich ward traffic. But the junction is relatively small well into a neighbouring ward. I felt morally limited as a councillor from getting truly 'stuck-in' as I would hope other councillors would when the same happens in East Dulwich ward.


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

Regards james.barber@southwark.gov.uk

07900 227366

Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward

Skype cllrjamesbarber

[www.jamesbarber.org.uk]

[twitter.com]

I thought it was worth posting the bulk of the newspaper article



"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.?


A resident who lives on nearby Tell Grove, who preferred not be named, said: ?With two new schools coming I think it is worth looking into. My kids and I cycle down Melbourne Grove and cars absolutely race by. It?s not so bad on major roads where cars and cyclists expect each other, but on smaller roads it?s a nightmare and a real danger.


?However, I don?t know if I?m for or against the proposal. If it merely displaced traffic onto other roads then it clearly wouldn?t be the best idea. However, it is certainly something that should be studied.?

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> Charles - Melbourne Grove is on the border of two

> Wards so 6 out of the 9 DCC councillors are

> directly involved. As for the other 3 I guess you

> have to ask them.


Of course one of the other three councillors who Cllr Barber would wish not to 'dictate to other wards' is also the Member of Parliament for our constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood. I certainly wouldn't expect her inevitably wider and more strategic views to be dictated by parochial thinking and the non-strategic views of one or two councillors.

James,


You asked which DCC I was referring to re double yellows on Chesterfield. Please see below, posted by you where it states you were consulted on the Order that covers those double yellows.


I want to know if when consulted you gave a yes or a no. If yes, for what reason and why for longer double yellows on Chestefield?


"

Thus is the email I've received and I've responded asking for a guarantee no additional lining of any kind or double yellow lines etc will be added as a consequence.


"

Southwark Council - Member enquiry


Our Reference: 551054

________________________________________



Dear Councillor Barber


Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th August 2015, in which you requested information regarding yellow lines in the East Dulwich ward. I believe you are referring to the recent making and publication of a 'consolidation order'.


The traffic order which has been advertised is known as a 'consolidation order' which is exactly this -a consolidation of existing traffic orders to ensure these remain manageable and easy to follow. This London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2015(1) ('the 2015 Order') consolidates the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 2012(2) ('the 2012 Order') together with the 60 subsequent amendment orders amending the provisions of the 2012 Order.

It is deemed best practice (e.g. in guidelines issued by the British Parking Association) for local authorities undertaking decriminalised parking enforcement to regularly consolidate and maintain the traffic orders forming a basis for that enforcement.

This follows the Consolidation Order process laid out in Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities? Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489).

There are no new restrictions being introduced by way of this consolidation order.

The yellow lines you have specifically queried at Ashbourne and Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove were originally included in an order made on 8 May 2014 as part of the Lordship Lane area traffic order and sign decluttering review . The name of the Order was the London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) (Amendment No. 32) Order 2014(3) ('the 2014 Order').


As part of our review process, surveys on street were undertaken by an officer to check that the road markings in existence matched the traffic orders. In the case of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove the traffic order waiting and loading definitions would have been amended to reflect more closely the markings as existed on street. Chesterfield Road had new lengths of restrictions installed at this time.


Statutory stakeholders and ward members including yourself were consulted in the process of making the 2014 Order, on 10 April 2014.


I trust this addresses your concerns but if you have any questions about this response please do not hesitate to contact me.

"


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

Regards james.barber@southwark.gov.uk

07900 227366

Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward

Skype cllrjamesbarber

[www.jamesbarber.org.uk]

[twitter.com]

It would save a lot of people (including councillors) a lot of time if all of these consultations and outcomes could be published on southwarks website.


I'm particularly keen to see the terms and extent of the so-called "feasibility" study on the Melbourne Grove separation barrier.

I have noticed that Mr Barber, on this thread and his own, keeps referring to Melbourne Grove as a 'rat run'. Obviously the use of the word 'rat' is an attempt to categorise users of the road in fairly pejorative terms - but I had always thought that the phrase was most generally applied to roads used as alternative commuting routes - so significantly between, say, 7 and 9 in the morning and between 5 and 7 in the evenings. Is this actually the most significant traffic time for this road (accepting that people who live in it and in adjacent 'land-locked' roads would have to use it then if they commuted?) Is this being used by 'foreign' commuting rats - or is it being used through the day by ED locals because it is a convenient route for them?


I only ask because (at times, and when it is a convenient and a logical route) I am one of Mr Barber's Melbourne rats (living in Underhill Road I also rat up and down that as well) and I am not sure I particularly like the nomenclature.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> I'm particularly keen to see the terms and extent

> of the so-called "feasibility" study on the

> Melbourne Grove separation barrier.


I really hope you're not holding your breath, because you won't get an answer.

Hi XIX... thank you so much for your support, I sincerely appreciate your confidence in me!


I particularly didn't want to lead an alternative campaign, as I was concerned that my ward councillor background would inadvertently be seen as a political manoeuvre, which might be used to undermine the community voice.


Also, I genuinely prefer to work as part of a team... I would describe my style of leadership as more "catalytic".


So, while I've been responding to questions about council logistics and constitutional policies, we've developed a network of interested residents with very specific, but complementary, skills which has organically formed the core of a campaign committee.


It's taken about six weeks (!) to extract all the information we need out of Southwark council but we've now got the wording to a proper community petition agreed, which we look forward to the rest of you guys in the affected areas joining in with in due course.


Specific details to follow...

Just out of interest, if the petitioners were able to get part or all of Melbourne Grove turned into their private road, I assume the up-keep costs of this would also transfer to them, and away from the remainder of ED Community Charge payers, no longer able to access this street of privilege?

Hi P68,

We already have this type of road closure in a number f places locally. Milo Road, Friern Road, Gilkes Crescent instantly come to mind. It isn't that revolutionary.

IF it ever comes to pass that section of Melbourne grove would have a lower priority to maintain - and also much less need. So it would receive less public funding.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi P68,

> We already have this type of road closure in a

> number f places locally. Milo Road, Friern Road,

> Gilkes Crescent instantly come to mind. It isn't

> that revolutionary.

> IF it ever comes to pass that section of Melbourne

> grove would have a lower priority to maintain -

> and also much less need. So it would receive less

> public funding.


But none of these roads are well used roads like MG


I do wish you would not throw in bits that are meaningless but somehow you feel they confirm your pet desire.

Melbourne Grove links the A2216 with the A2214 - no others of the roads listed by Mr Barber links A roads (Friern does connect to the A2216 but doesn't then (and didn't, before it was blocked) connect to any other A road. Apart from Friern, about as long as Melbourne, the other two mentioned are tiny.


But then, in his vocabulary, ED drivers are rats.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

>

> But then, in his vocabulary, ED drivers are rats.


Rubbish, rat-run is an accepted term to describe short cuts through residential districts that people use to avoid traffic on main streets elsewhere. You know full well he doesn't think ED drivers are vermin. Quite frankly I don't know why he turns up to this forum at all with some of the bollocks thrown at him.

Ironically, my end of Melbourne goes blissfully quiet in July and especially August... I suspect a significant proportion of the cut=through traffic is local residents doing the school run. It would interesting to do a year long measurement to observe the ebb and flow patterns.

I wish I could! They actually choose the busiest times of the year to measure traffic flow, as it gives a worst case scenario picture.


But it really is intriguing watching how the flow alters so dramatically. It looks to me like most of the users are locals... the post from Upland Road (?) recently was very telling, showing how locals manoeuvre around the area. Yes, there are some lorries and builders vans, and a surprising number of transport ambulances, but they are serving the local community.


There are around 100 residences on this side of Melbourne, plus five or six side roads that feed into it... how on earth does someone decide who should be able to drive along this route??

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...