Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[KalamityKel]

I'm getting incredibly confused with what is happening with all of this...

There's a petition for a barrier?

There's a petition for no barrier?

There is or isn't significant official information available to back up any claims that something does or does not need to be done?

Not everyone is being consulted? Or, at least, not everyone any traffic calming method would effect is in the know.

Random (by random I mean unofficial out of the blue) visits from neighbours presenting various letters contradicting each other on "proposals", some without actually even knowing the history of the area (for example, yes the road has been blocked in the past for essential repairs for a significant amount of time - which may or may not be helpful in gauging potential issues ANY kind of traffic calming might create), some claiming to know too much but are recently new to the area...

The impending arrivals of new schools, M&S etc are or are not being taken into consideration?

Local councillors are for AND against (and back track regularly on comments they make)? How does this effect support for residents?

Where have these ideas generated from?

Seems to me there's a lot of movement happening in both directions instigated small groups and everything is getting in a muddle!

[rch]

In a nutshell, this is insane.

I spent hours talking to people on the doorstep over the weekend and I was actually getting optimistic that we were reaching a unified view on what the problem was, and possible solutions, but now I read the above Terms of Reference and it makes me want to scream.

I can't even type right now, I need to go breathe.

[Zebedee Tring]

Who are "the original Melbourne Grove residents"? Do you mean "the self appointed group of Melbourne Grove residents who want to impose a barrier on all the other residents"?

[richard tudor]

rch Wrote:

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

> In a nutshell, this is insane.

>

> I spent hours talking to people on the doorstep

> over the weekend and I was actually getting

> optimistic that we were reaching a unified view on

> what the problem was, and possible solutions, but

> now I read the above Terms of Reference and it

> makes me want to scream.

>

> I can't even type right now, I need to go breathe.

Don't worry.

The word is Cllr Barber has collected his red undergarment from the dry cleaners and will be swooping out of the clouds to save the area that

is MG and lap up the adoration

I for one cannot wait.

[KalamityKel]

I can't see how any "feasibility study" can possibly take place in the near future as there is too much planned much further down the line which would need to be taken in to consideration - to say again - the new schools AND M&S. It would be a pointless exercise and a complete waste if resource.

That's not to say residents shouldn't be looking to find a happy solution for all concerned. It just seems to me this is escalating without much serious thought right now.

[Bobby P]

Well thanks to James for sharing this, I guess. So not only do the "barrier warriors" want a barrier but also pinch-points restricting parking further. No wonder Councillor Barber loves it.

All for what? Vanity? Certainly not because of a problem with speeding on the road, as the road surveys have categorically demonstrated there is none, at least to any reasonable and sane person.

NIMBYism at its worst.

[Penguin68]

Mr Barber's evident dislike of cars, car usage, by proxy car owners, people who pass through or visit his ward using anything more than two wheels (and those unpowered) is almost touching in its consistency, as are his novel methods of interpreting and communicating facts - once again, Melbourne Road links two A roads and, for some, at some times is a natural route between different areas of Dulwich - particularly for those living in adjacent and otherwise 'land-locked' roads. Roads (even residential roads) other than those initially designed as cul-de-sacs were never built for the sole and exclusive use of those actually living in the roads - they have always been links between one part and another.

Attempts to make public roads private (attempts he has regularly supported and lauded) are hardly the watch word of liberal democracy, I would have thought, but smack more of the 16th and 17th century enclosure acts, making public land the private cynosure of the wealthy (hoping, by getting a gated community, to make themselves even more wealthy, in this instance).

Hey ho - I look forward to the attempts at rebuttal.

[Siduhe]

I may be reading too much into the words used, but this sentence is interesting:

As our petition has shown, many of us are interested in the idea of a barrier (as suggested to us by councillors) so we'd be grateful if that could be explored.

This reads to me like a call out to those councillors or council employees who proposed/supported the idea of a barrier to some residents, but are now backtracking when they see the views of others against the barrier being expressed as strongly.

I have no personal skin in this game (although from my limited viewpoint living in another part of ED that is also pretty busy, I think the idea of a barrier at that end of Melbourne Grove is madness!) but if that's the underlying meaning then I have some sympathy.

A small group of residents were told a barrier was a feasible and good idea and now suddenly it's not. I can see why they want it considered. Doesn't make it a good idea, or an idea that ever should have been on the table (in my view) but from the outside looking in, this barrier idea has been incredibly poorly handled from the start.

Edited for spelling

[spider69]

Not poorly handled but an attempt by Cllr Barber to push his desire forward although he and others were privy to information showing it was pointless.

Would have been a lot better if he had kept his mouth shut. He represents the view of all and should have remained on the sidelines.

[first mate]

Why is James Barber pushing the original proposition when a larger group of residents are clearly against it? I do not understand how our local rep is allowed to be so partial in matters which could have such a major impact on the area? We all know James personal views on cycling, cars, parking and so on but it does not seem right that he can use his position as a platform to push a minority agenda, when so many see it as folly.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I often walk home down Melbourne Grove (am I allowed to do that, or is walking on 'someone elses' street rat scuttling?). It had never occurred to me that this was a particularly busy road, or that there was a problem with excessive speed. In fact the reason I walk this way is that it always seemed like a quiet route.

Anyway, since this thread began I've been giving more attention to it. Now I know this is a completely partial and subjective observation, but a few things have struck me about the traffic on MG. It is a narrow street and it's difficult for two cars to pass each other at any type of speed. There are also speed cushions. What is noticeable however (now that I have had my attention specifically turned to it) is the number of motorbikes which do seem to go down the road pretty quickly. This makes sense as they are not impacted by the speed cushions (which don't got right across the road) or the narrowness of the road.

I wonder whether speed surveys (when done using those monitoring strips across the road), differentiate between bikes and cars / vans? I have no idea, but it would be interesting to know. The reason I say this is that if bikes account for a significant proportion of the speeding traffic (assuming there is a lot of speeding traffic - I personally remain unconvinced of this), then the 'solutions' may be very different to those applied to cars, or larger vehicles.

[DadOf4]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Why is James Barber pushing the original

> proposition when a larger group of residents are

> clearly against it? I do not understand how our

> local rep is allowed to be so partial in matters

> which could have such a major impact on the area?

> We all know James personal views on cycling, cars,

> parking and so on but it does not seem right that

> he can use his position as a platform to push a

> minority agenda, when so many see it as folly.

Are you really suprised by this? Clr Barber has got massive form on this, he will not change and IMO is the worst sort of politician. Personal & party agenda over reflecting the views of his voters.

For those not around at the time, you can witness exactly the same behavior during his shameless attempt to push controlled parking into the area a couple years back.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,772215,page=46

On this very thread on 24 June, I did warn people:

DadOf4 Wrote:

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

> using Google translate from Barberspeak to

> English:

>

> "What we agree last night was to fund a study of

> the anticipated impacts of closing the road. Once

> we have that study we will decide how to proceed.

> Clearly something needs to be done which could

> range for closing a road to better traffic

> calming. But until the study is completed - I

> suspect they have all the data already for this

> study - we don't know whether a road closure will

> be thought practicable.

> Lots of research to suggest some traffic

> evaporation would occur with a road closure -

> likely most would use Lordship Lane as an

> alternative. Some Townley."

>

> Becomes

> "I think this is a great idea and it fits

> perfectly with my political agenda. However, I

> will pretend to be balanced in my opinions so as

> not to upset any objectors who could vote for me.

> I will gently lobby in favour, but always

> maintaining that I am yet undecided. I will

> present lots of facts that support the case "for"

> and give anecdotal examples of others who are in

> favour based on "doorstep conversations" I've had.

> But, still I will say that I will only decide once

> this has been properly debated & consulted on. I

> will then vote in favour of the scheme,

> irrespective of any strong local feelings"

>

> off he goes again

[James Barber]

The quote I posted - please read it again. It sounds conciliatory to me.

NB. The closure wasn't proposed by me. I counselled them for full road humps. I originally thought it a good idea. But on reflection wouldn't wish so many residents to have to turn right into Matham Grove, Then right into Lordship and and then right into their road.

Hi Dadof4, Yes the CPZ didn't proceed around ED station. I was the wrong side of the argument - but I didn't flip flop for electoral gain. I stuck with East Dulwich ward residents and those streets that wanted controlled parking and the Grove Vale businesses that would have benefited. And you think that's the worst type of politician.

"

We would be delighted if the study could consider ways of stopping our street being a rat-run alternative to Lordship Lane and of keeping vehicles to the 20mph speed limit. We don't believe that increased signage and speed guns alone can be effective enough, though we'd welcome both.

As our petition has shown, many of us are interested in the idea of a barrier (as suggested to us by councillors) so we'd be grateful if that could be explored.

We are also interested in understanding how pinchpoints could work and where they might be positioned.

The junction with MG and East Dulwich Grove continues to be overloaded at certain times of day. We would be interested in how both a barrier and a pinchpoint might impact on how that junction functions.

In addition, we would like the study to look in detail at the knock-on effect of both of these interventions. Our belief, based on other streets' experiences, is that traffic would fall across Melbourne Grove and the streets that come off it (Ashbourne, Chesterfield etc), but we would like to get better information on this with the help of the study. We have no desire to simply push the problem elsewhere.

"

[tiddles]

I was going to sign the petition, but as I am not a resident of Melbourne Grove or the roads leading off it, I wasn't sure if I was eligible or not?

I live in East Dulwich tho?

what do you think?

[DulvilleRes]

James' political party will be the same one whose members on the planning committee abstained earlier in the summer on the SG Smith garage site vote - one of the most opposed local developments in recent history. Over 100 formal objections against, one in favour, a petition signed by over 600 people. Everything you need to know about where the Liberal Democrat commitment to local views lies.

[richard tudor]

tiddles Wrote:

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

> I was going to sign the petition, but as I am not

> a resident of Melbourne Grove or the roads leading

> off it, I wasn't sure if I was eligible or not?

> I live in East Dulwich tho?

>

>

> what do you think?

Forget S G Smith which is a different matter.

Do you think it should be shut down for the benefit of a a few.

Ignore Cllr barber. Who will do a LibDem U turn if it benefits him

[mockingbird]

tiddles Wrote:

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

> I was going to sign the petition, but as I am not

> a resident of Melbourne Grove or the roads leading

> off it, I wasn't sure if I was eligible or not?

> I live in East Dulwich tho?

>

>

> what do you think?

You still have local knowledge and can sign

[mockingbird]

so why has below any relevance. There is no mandate for the TOR to be defined by a single Cllr or any subset of residents.

Totally irrelevant to the DCC debate yet to occur. Turn up to the Sept 9th Community Meeting to confront this appallingly narrow appreciation of East Dulwich communities by a self appointed and solitary Cllr voice.

James Barber Wrote:

-

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

> The original Melbourne Grove residents have

> suggested a Terms of Reference for the feasibility

> study:

>

> "

> We would be delighted if the study could consider

> ways of stopping our street being a rat-run

> alternative to Lordship Lane and of keeping

> vehicles to the 20mph speed limit. We don't

> believe that increased signage and speed guns

> alone can be effective enough, though we'd welcome

> both.

>

> As our petition has shown, many of us are

> interested in the idea of a barrier (as suggested

> to us by councillors) so we'd be grateful if that

> could be explored.

>

> We are also interested in understanding how

> pinchpoints could work and where they might be

> positioned.

>

> The junction with MG and East Dulwich Grove

> continues to be overloaded at certain times of

> day. We would be interested in how both a barrier

> and a pinchpoint might impact on how that junction

> functions.

>

> In addition, we would like the study to look in

> detail at the knock-on effect of both of these

> interventions. Our belief, based on other streets'

> experiences, is that traffic would fall across

> Melbourne Grove and the streets that come off it

> (Ashbourne, Chesterfield etc), but we would like

> to get better information on this with the help of

> the study. We have no desire to simply push the

> problem elsewhere.

> "

[@Woodwarde]

Ignore this inappropriate lobbying by a Cllr?

The agenda for the next Dulwich community meeting on Weds 9th Sept at 7pm is at the following venue and link:

Venue: St Barnabas Church (church hall) Calton Avenue, London SE21 7DG

Contact: Beverley Olamijulo, Constitutional Officer on 020 7525 7234 email [email protected]

Agenda:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=176&MId=5157&Ver=4

The agenda also has a link to the draft minute of the June meeting which anyone can comment on if this record is not accurate. Here is the draft relating to the Melbourne pro-barrier petition (item 6) and you will see that there is no element that refers to a Cllr or group pre-determining the terms of reference for any study. Anyone who attended the June meeting may also want to comment on this minute and its reflection of what was said and agreed.

Now is the time to make your voice heard.

6. DEPUTATION /PETITIONS

The community council received a deputation from Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group.

Ros Atkins, spokesperson for the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action group addressed the

meeting and presented data and provided information on a local survey which suggested

that the traffic situation in Melbourne Grove was a major concern for residents that lived on

Melbourne Grove, some of whom were present at the meeting.

The main concerns that were expressed at the meeting were speeding motorists, citing

that this road was being used as a rat run and that this was causing safety concerns

particularly for children and older people. The spokesperson stated following a local

consultation which was undertaken by residents, the information gathered showed that

90% of respondents in the neighbouring streets were in favour of traffic calming measures

(potentially a barrier) on Melbourne Grove.

The deputation also presented a petition that contained 138 signatures from local

residents. It was outlined that in signing the petition, residents of Melbourne Grove, south

of East Dulwich Grove requested that the council place a barrier across their street at a

3

Dulwich Community Council - Wednesday 24 June 2015

point between the junctions with Tell Grove and Ashbourne Grove.

The deputation outlined that there should be better speed limit signage and other speed

calming measures available to the council to consider as alternatives. The deputation

referred to police data, which outlined that 76% of vehicles were speeding along

Melbourne Grove. In addition the spokesperson stated that there were two new schools

which would be located in the area ? causing more traffic congestion on the roads. It was

suggested by the deputation that having a barrier would be the quickest, cheapest and

most effective way to resolve this problem.

During questions a local resident referred to previous traffic surveys that were conducted

on Melbourne Grove and those surveys outlined that there were no major traffic

implications that needed addressing at the time. Members of the community council

mentioned that any proposals for a barrier on Melbourne Grove could cause some

displacement for the neighbouring streets like Townley Road. Members felt it was

important to explore all options ? e.g. better signage, introduction of a 20 mph zone and

that if a barrier was considered, that it would be on a trial basis.

At this point members further debated on the issue and proposed that the following motion

below:

RESOLVED:

That the community council agreed that the council should undertake a traffic study

(allocation of ?10k from the cleaner greener safer funding for a study) in order to evaluate

the correct option for Melbourne Grove taking into account neighbouring roads ? Townley

Road, Ashbourne Grove and Chesterfield Road.

[edhistory]

Appendix 15, Para 6 (et seq):

Additional parking restrictions in Melbourne Grove:

"6. Councillor Barber contacted the parking design team to request that a parking

facility be introduced near the residential care homes of Nos. 34 and 36

Melbourne Grove."

[James Barber]

Hi DulvilleRes,

Councillors on planning committees have a legal duty to compare planning applications against national and local policy documents.

I was, shall we say frustrated, they couldn't interpret those policies and vote against the application. But they, having gone through all the evidence didn't think they could vote for or against the application. It is a quasi judicial process. IF a council refuse and the applicant appeals and wins then a council can be charged all costs and losses of the applicant. This can be considerable sums. This can weigh heavily of councillors on Planning committees especially when council legal advice is the council would lose an appeal. It is rare for councillors to be so sure of the arguments against a planning application in such circumstances.

Sadly the planning process doesn't have a right of appeal for objectors.

I myself have voted for planning applications that I didn't want approved but our hands were tied by policies. Thankfully this has been really rare for me.

The flip side is often policies have enabled us to stand up and stop planning applications or add conditions.

I'm sorry no one explained these circumstances behind planning committees decision making.

[James Barber]

Hi edhistory,

Yes the special care homes at those addresses are finding it very hard to load and unload their disabled, some in wheelchair residents.

So officers are investigating how they can be helped.

[rch]

I'm almost calmed down enough to type... but before I waste too much time on this madness, I just need to clarify what the "action group" means by "pinch points"?

Do they mean build outs or chicanes??

Here's a bit of information about chicanes, so we're all on the same page:-

https://www.trafficchoices.co.uk/traffic-schemes/chicanes.shtml

Chicanes will lose a large number of residents parking spaces, cause more backups, and only slow the traffic down to 23mph, which is faster than the existing average speed... depending on how narrow they are, this could affect services such as rubbish collection and displace everything into the southern end and side streets.

The problem with the EDG/Melbourne junction is a different matter altogether and has nothing to do with speed of volume.

[rch]

Thanks for posting the minutes to the last DCC meeting, Woodwarde. This whole experience is beginning to inspire me to start writing fiction again!

I think we need to continue our campaign. As of last night, we had 225 total signatures along with 30 "supporters" who didn't state a full address, which isn't bad for just over a week's effort.

I wonder if we could hit 400 by next week's DCC??

[Earl Aelfheah]

Forgive me if this has already been posted somewhere on this thread - but has anyone got a link, or any further info on the survey which is purported to show that "76% of vehicles were speeding along Melbourne Grove". I personally find it very hard to believe.