Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[Earl Aelfheah]

I completely understand your frustration first mate and I wasn't being critical, just stating my perspective on it.

[BrandNewGuy]

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.

[James Barber]

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.

[ianr]

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.

[Abe_froeman]

Are the terms of reference for the feasibility study available to the public anywhere?

[XIX]

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.......

[Charles Notice]

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 [email protected]

07900 227366

Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward

Skype cllrjamesbarber

[www.jamesbarber.org.uk]

[twitter.com]

[first mate]

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]

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.

[James Barber]

I would always expect fellow councillors to fully express their views but not try and dictate to other wards. That's the way I approach all issues in the DCC area.

[Andrew1011]

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.

[first mate]

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 [email protected]

07900 227366

Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich Ward

Skype cllrjamesbarber

[www.jamesbarber.org.uk]

[twitter.com]

[Abe_froeman]

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.

[Penguin68]

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.

[BrandNewGuy]

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.

[rch]

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...

[Penguin68]

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?

[James Barber]

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.

[Charles Notice]

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.

[Zebedee Tring]

Milo Road is a very short road with very few houses. It therefore bears very little comparison with Melbourne Grove.

[Penguin68]

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.

[rodneybewes]

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.

[rch]

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.

[Abe_froeman]

Maybe you could encourage them to undertake the traffic study now?!

[rch]

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??