Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[BrandNewGuy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi hopskip,

> I don;'t think you;'re correct.

> Melbourne Grove residents originally asked for

> full width road humps to replace the current ones

> that can be ignored.

> A fellow East Dulwich councillor suggested to them

> several options including closing the road at the

> northern end.

>

> The residents then went door to door on Melbourne

> Grove and obtained a majority of residents on

> their road agreeing.

Agreeing what? That the road be closed? That some (unspecified) measures be taken??

[rch]

That's the million dollar question!

Some of the people signing the No Barrier petition are concerned that their signatures on the deputation submission are being used for measures that they don't actually agree with, so who knows WHAT they were signing as there is no statement at the top of the papers that were submitted at the DCC meeting.

The problem with all of this is that people with no experience are campaigning for measures that highway engineers have advised against, rather than asking experienced engineers what their advice would be to address concerns.

Tail wagging the dog.

[richard tudor]

Perhaps if the Cllrs had told people that the road had been looked at before and did not present a problem there would not be this mess now.

Still we all need to be loved.

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi hopskip,

> A fellow East Dulwich councillor suggested to them

> several options including closing the road at the

> northern end.

As usual, this is utter disingenuous rubbish which, at worst, misrepresents what the other councillor said or, at best, completely and conveniently misses the wider context of what he did say, and how the broader possible options available for traffic calming were presented.

Councillor Smith listed the possible options, of which a barrier was just one of the many availabe. The people who organised the deputation then, probably - and from what I've read on this forum and in the local press - encouraged by you have only pursued that one of all of the options. Indeed they are still pursuing that as the only option, given the printed letter I received on Saturday sent on behalf of the pro-barrier 'group' calling itself "Melbourne Grove Traffic Action". They must be pretty browned off with you, given your recent apparent Damascene conversion from their 'a barrier at all costs' cause and your previous publicly stated line of: "If I lived on Melbourne Grove I'd want it closed off".

[hopskip]

Andrew1011 Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > Hi hopskip,

> > A fellow East Dulwich councillor suggested to them several options including closing the road at

> the northern end????.

> As usual, this is utter disingenuous rubbish which, at worst, misrepresents what the other

> councillor said or, at best, completely and conveniently misses the wider context of what he

> did say, and how the broader possible options available for traffic calming were presented.

>

> Councillor Smith listed the possible options, of which a barrier was just one of the many availabe.

> The people who organised the deputation then, probably - and from what I've read on this forum

> and in the local press - encouraged by you have only pursued that one of all of the options.

> Indeed they are still pursuing that as the only option, given the printed letter I received on

> Saturday sent on behalf of the pro-barrier 'group' calling itself "Melbourne Grove Traffic Action".

> They must be pretty browned off with you, given your recent apparent Damascene conversion

> From their 'a barrier at all costs' cause and your previous publicly stated line of: "If I lived on

> Melbourne Grove I'd want it closed off".

Our Councillors should have provided the necessary facts and viable options to avoid this issue escalating and dividing the community.

FACT: The April police traffic survey is clear that on its normal measures and recent study of Melbourne Grove that the road operates within normal measures at the 85th percentile across all vehicle groups.

FACT: Southwark Council officers provided a briefing (shown in full earlier on this thread) to Councillors in time for them to relay facts to the June DCC public meeting. They did not refer to this document during the debate following the Deputation. Southwark Council state in this briefing that they do not support barriers as an intervention.

FACT: The Deputation for the barrier focused on a single solution. Why they did so is not clear. The 138 signatures attached to the deputation were not in the prescribed format to ensure all signing were aware that they were supporting a single option for a barrier rather than support for an appropriate traffic calming measure. These 138 signatories represent a smaller number of households as there are multiple signatures per household.

SUPPOSITION: The 138 signatories would not all have known what they were signing for as the signatures were gathered before the deputation statement was finalised and submitted and it did not appear on the sheet that they signed.

FACT: Other Melbourne residents, residents on adjoining roads, local shop keepers and residents on potentially impacted roads are now aware of the proposal to close Melbourne Grove and are not supportive of that particular measure for traffic calming but would support other options.

FACT: There was some agreement for a feasibility study and an award of ?10k CSG funding stated at the June DCC but no minutes yet available as an official record and confirmation of next steps. The issue will come up again at the DCC on 9th Sept.

SUPPOSITION: Councillors will be reconsidering their views and examining the costs of a variety of potential solutions. They will look for a solution that is proportionate to the locality.

[Andrew1011]

hopskip Wrote:

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

> Our Councillors should have provided the necessary

> facts and viable options to avoid this issue

> escalating and dividing the community.

I quite agree with that and, as an non-parochial ED and Melbourne Grove resident, I have been lobbying as hard as I can to ensure things are dealt with properly and that the earlier apparent steamrollering stops.

[intexasatthe moment]

hopskip wrote

" Our Councillors should have provided the necessary facts and viable options to avoid this issue escalating and dividing the community.

FACT: The April police traffic survey is clear that on its normal measures and recent study of Melbourne Grove that the road operates within normal measures at the 85th percentile across all vehicle groups.

FACT: Southwark Council officers provided a briefing (shown in full earlier on this thread) to Councillors in time for them to relay facts to the June DCC public meeting. They did not refer to this document during the debate following the Deputation. Southwark Council state in this briefing that they do not support barriers as an intervention.

FACT: The Deputation for the barrier focused on a single solution. Why they did so is not clear. The 138 signatures attached to the deputation were not in the prescribed format to ensure all signing were aware that they were supporting a single option for a barrier rather than support for an appropriate traffic calming measure. These 138 signatories represent a smaller number of households as there are multiple signatures per household.

SUPPOSITION: The 138 signatories would not all have known what they were signing for as the signatures were gathered before the deputation statement was finalised and submitted and it did not appear on the sheet that they signed.

FACT: Other Melbourne residents, residents on adjoining roads, local shop keepers and residents on potentially impacted roads are now aware of the proposal to close Melbourne Grove and are not supportive of that particular measure for traffic calming but would support other options.

FACT: There was some agreement for a feasibility study and an award of ?10k CSG funding stated at the June DCC but no minutes yet available as an official record and confirmation of next steps. The issue will come up again at the DCC on 9th Sept.

SUPPOSITION: Councillors will be reconsidering their views and examining the costs of a variety of potential solutions. They will look for a solution that is proportionate to the locality."

Good post .

[first mate]

I recall somewhat similar divide and rule tactics used at the great CPZ debacle.

[@Woodwarde]

Interesting to see this order appear for Play Streets on Melbourne Grove. These usually take place on a Sunday when it is better for all surrounding streets. Hopefully all affected have been notified adequately.

Anyone know more about play streets and the process for applying?

The Council of the London Borough of Southwark

PUBLIC NOTICE:

ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984 ? SECTION 16A

THE (RESTRICTION OF TRAFFIC) SPECIAL EVENTS ORDER 2015

Road Melbourne Grove (ps)

Extent: Ashbourne Grove ? Tell Grove

Days:

Saturday 5th September

Saturday 3rd October

Saturday 7th November

Prohibited Hours: 12pm ? 2pm

6. For information regarding this notice, please contact Parking & Road Network Management on 0207 525 2014.

Dated this 27th August 2015

Nicky Costin

Road Network & Parking

Business Manager

[bels123]

.

[Bobby P]

What on earth are "play streets"? Closing our favourite rat run on busy Saturdays?

Woodward, are we to understand from your post that the 'Block Melbourne Campaign' has sneakily arranged a "trial" blockage/closure on three Saturdays starting next week (coincidentally up to Ashbourne/Tell, where they want their barrier) using this scheme? I've lived here a long time and never seen the road blocked for something like this, especially not in the middle of a busy Saturday. And no, we have NOT been consulted, so presumably this won't go ahead. If it does the Council has some major complaints coming.

[Zebedee Tring]

Extract from Southwark's website:

"During the summer months, Southwark Council has eased traffic regulations to help local people set up play activities for their children. Applications are now open for anyone who wants to close their local road for Play Streets".

However, I see that the closures are due to take place on Saturday 5th September, Saturday 3rd October and Saturday 7th November. Since when have September, October and November been part of "the summer months"?

[Jenny1]

Southwark's website asks organisers of 'Play Streets' to provide a copy of a 'consultation letter' that should be sent to residents when planning such an event. As a resident of Melbourne Grove I can confirm that - like Bobby P - I've received no such letter.

I am not in favour of a permanent blocking of Melbourne Grove. People may well have seen the link to an online petition on change.org, higher up this thread, which invites people to sign up to the following statement -

" We the undersigned don't want Melbourne Grove South blocked off by a barrier. We want joined-up thinking to make all our roads safer for everyone.

We want the whole community - young and old, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists - to be able to use our streets easily and safely. As residents we want the emergency services to have rapid access to our roads when we need their help.

We believe the best way to get safer shared streets for everyone is to call on Southwark Council to produce a comprehensive traffic management study to include all roads in the Grove Vale/Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road Triangle. "

I'm part of a group of residents on Melbourne and Ashbourne who are co-ordinating this petition. If you'd like to learn more or would simply rather sign a paper petition than an 'online' one please email us. The address is [email protected]

Thanks.

[richard tudor]

The longer this goes on the bigger joke it becomes.

[bels123]

.

[vesti]

We just got a letter- this evening!

[Zebedee Tring]

Does anyone know the names of the people who applied for the Play Streets? I think that we should be told. Or are they allowed to remain anonymous on the ground that disclosure of their names would breach their human rights or constitute a breach of the Data Protection Act? (insert your chosen spurious reason)

I'm glad that I don't live in Melbourne Grove. The atmosphere must be getting more and more poisonous.

[Bobby P]

What does the closure letter say, vesti? No one I know has received one, which begs the usual question as to process and how the Council can allow this to happen - starting in one week's time - without any consultation.

Frankly this is pretty low behaviour on behalf of whoever has arrogantly organised it, and it doesn't take a genius to imagine who that is. If the instigator of this nonsense would like to speak up for themselves, this would be a very good time.

And, by the way, what does James Barber have to say about this?

[Bobby P]

Removed due to defamatory comment - Admin

[vesti]

Bobby P

Sent you pm with letter details

Vesti

[rch]

We've now got 84 signatures on the No Barrier online petition and roughly the same amount again on the paper version of the petition. There's been a surprising amount of support for the No Barrier campaign, several residents who signed the first petition have now signed ours.

I don't think we're going to have enough time to visit every door before the September 9th DCC meeting, so if you would prefer to see public funding spent on an open assessment of possible traffic measures in the area, and not limited to a study of the barrier option, then please sign the online petition here:-

https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-no-barrier-for-melbourne-grove

[James Barber]

The proposed feasibility report of up to ?10,000 will have its terms of reference discussed at the next Dulwich Community Council 9 September 7-10pm Christchurch Hall, 263 Barry Road.

[rch]

We're not leaving anything to chance! We are providing evidence that a barrier is not necessarily the most sought after option by local residents...

[first mate]

Well done rch.

[hopskip]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> The proposed feasibility report of up to ?10,000

> will have its terms of reference discussed at the

> next Dulwich Community Council 9 September 7-10pm

> Christchurch Hall, 263 Barry Road.

A little premature given the evidence now coming forward to show that some of the signatures used for the first deputation did not sign up to support a barrier. And the significant number who are now objecting to it outright. The original deputation request could be considered void.

I think that the DCC would we wise to look at the allocation of funding again and whether it was justified in the first place. Rather than jumping to 'terms of reference'.

That looks like an outright misjudgement right now?

Councillors. Have you an open mind to that?

Someone could ask for its cancellation by way of an advance question. Or a further alternative deputation. Or both.....