Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[first mate]

James Barber will know and perhaps it is he who should explain.

[rch]

Not trying to pre-empt James, but this is was the first question I asked the DCC clerk, as I don't remember being able to do this when I was DCC Chair.

But it looks like the constitution has now been changed to allow this type of "emergency" allocation of underspend (I think we used to be able to do this before, but it had to be approved by the relevant Cabinet Member?).

Here's the reply that I received from the clerk, but for some reason I can't access the link at the moment:-

'Please note the advice I have received from the CGS team:

"The CGS budget is delegated to CC so councillors have the final decision on how money is allocated whether or not there is an application.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s55143/03.%20Who%20Takes%20Decisions%20June%202015.pdf

page 51:

To take decisions about local matters. At present community councils have

delegated authority in the following key areas: the neighbourhoods fund,

cleaner, greener, safer capital programmes, traffic management and community

project banks" '

Bear in mind that the CGS program for next year will be launched at the DCC meeting this Weds 9th at St Barnabas Calton Ave where, conveniently, we are making our anti-barrier deputation at.

Also, FYI, it's fairly routine for the DCC to use CGS on highways problems around here because we don't get much borough allocation because our stats are so low. But normally we used to recommend for residents to submit proper bids so that highways engineers could advise before allocations were discussed.

[Abe_froeman]

Thanks rch. I think I have a bit more reading to do on this.

Other aspects of it that seem odd to me are that applications for spending from this year's budget ought to have been submitted by 7 November 2914, and "Ideas for the CGS capital programme must demonstrate that they will make an area cleaner, greener or safer with a permanent, physical improvement"

I don't see how a feasibility study can possibly meet that criteria.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1765/applications_for_cleaner_greener_safer_funding_now_open

[rch]

There used to be a CGS revenue fund, which is now known as the Neighbourhood Fund... I think the underspend was probably from the old CGS revenue fund, but James can confirm.

FYI, the good thing about going through the standard bidding process is that all bids are assessed by officers as to viability and cost estimate, so unviable ideas are eliminated at this point. Then, councillors make their final decisions on short listed bids that are genuinely achievable and will improve the area. Part of our deputation is going to cite the exact aspect that you quoted above.

Having seen the officers' briefing for cllrs, I suspect that a CGS or even a Neighbourhood Fund bid for a barrier on Melbourne wouldn't make it through the officer assessment stage...

[rch]

One more plug for the online petition:-

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

We're very close to a total of 250 signatures now, adding the online sigs plus the paper sigs. If we get to 250, then this meets the constitutional requirement of a petition to the community council, rather than simple support for the deputation, which basically means our request has more impact.

If we can get the online version up to 150, then we'll definitely have over 250 total!

More exciting updates later...

[ianr]

I shared the same scepticism about the use of the CGS capital fund for a mere feasibility study. I accept that there is some delegation to CC councillors, but I'm still left wondering whether that allows them to override the stated objectives of the scheme.

I see also that the council officers' 18 June briefing to councillors (copied to the thread on p.15) says that, in addition to the police traffic count made in April, the council did their own speed and volume survey in February. Where can the results of the latter be seen? I'm also wondering why on earth the police one was then commissioned. Whatever budget it's on, it's also paid for from public funds.

If you look at the PDF document on what I take to be the SR4 system used for doing the police survey -- it's downloadable from http://www.pwssigns.com/traffic-counter-sr4 -- you can see that all manner of analyses and graphics are available from the software; all, I expect, more or less at the push of a button. Is it known why these aren't also available to us, or how much extra, if anything, they would cost, or why at least the spreadsheet-ready raw data couldn't be available?

[ed_pete]

Can I ask how the "comprehensive traffic management study to include all roads in the Grove Vale/Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road Triangle" is to be funded ?

[EDAus]

I would suggest redirecting the ?10k agreed at the last meeting of the DCC, which I believe is from an under-spend in the CGS funding.

I emailed James Barber on 26 June asking how residents of Ashbourne Grove could input into any feasibility study produced, the response I received the same day from James:

'Council officers will design the feasibility study'

Yet James now posts the draft terms of reference from the Melbourne Grove residents????? It appears our views and opinions simply do not matter.

I would encourage all residents in streets off Melbourne Grove South to speak up now, write to their local Councillors or sign the petition - have your views heard now before it is too late.

Link to the petition:

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

[ed_pete]

So we started out with some concerned residents presenting a deputation to the DCC about speeding traffic on Melbourne Grove after which they (the DCC) authorised ?5-10k from CGS funds for a feasibility study to find a solution.

No ToR for the study has been agreed though one has been suggested (by the same group of residents) that includes a barrier as one, but not the only, option. This in spite of the council officer briefing that one would only be recommended in ?special circumstances? whatever they are. The ToR also wants to consider the knock-on impact of any measures on the surrounding roads and express the desire to not ?simply push the problem elsewhere?.

The officers briefing paper also said that the only likely source of funding for any road changes is the CGS fund.

Now we have another petition to go in front of the DCC that wants a different study, again no ToR has been agreed or in this case proposed, that looks very similar expect they do not want to consider a barrier. There?s nothing in the petition?s wording to suggest that there is or isn?t a problem on Melbourne Grove or any of the surrounding streets.

To quote rch from earlier on in this thread, in respect of the original deputation:

?I must say, in this age of austerity, I can think of better things to spend ?10k of public money on!?

Hear, hear ? it all seems like a complete waste of time and money.

[ED_moots]

Ed_pete the second petition is primarily a rebuttal to the first, where a problem has been concocted and presented to the DCC in order to justify the effective closure of a well used road. It set a worrying precedent when the DCC accepted the initial deputation as a real problem and diverted CGS funding to grease the wheels since the council officers report confirmed there was no speeding issue and MG would not be considered for a barrier.

The part about wanting a cohesive traffic policy is just common sense in my opinion, every urban community should have some sort of transport plan in the interests of ALL road (and pavement) users; and not least to prevent trumped up schemes being given credence by the DCC.

[Andrew1011]

ED_moots Wrote:

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

> Ed_pete the second petition is primarily a

> rebuttal to the first, where a problem has been

> concocted and presented to the DCC in order to

> justify the effective closure of a well used road.

> It set a worrying precedent when the DCC accepted

> the initial deputation as a real problem and

> diverted CGS funding to grease the wheels since

> the council officers report confirmed there was no

> speeding issue and MG would not be considered for

> a barrier.

>

> The part about wanting a cohesive traffic policy

> is just common sense in my opinion, every urban

> community should have some sort of transport plan

> in the interests of ALL road (and pavement) users;

> and not least to prevent trumped up schemes being

> given credence by the DCC.

Hear hear; very well put.

[ed_pete]

"Where a problem has been concocted and presented to the DCC in order to justify the effective closure of a well used road" - no evidence has been presented for this and iirc the barrier was a councillors proposal.

Sorry to split hairs but the petition calls for a traffic management study, no mention is made of policy. Whats this study going to cost and how would it differ to the one proposed by the other group ? Who will be responsible for its remit ?

Is there really a problem here at all ? I suspect that some people will have signed the petition because they don't want a barrier rather than perceiving theres a problem that needs to be solved that will use vital council resources.

[Melbourneresident]

There are a number of posts on this thread requesting/demanding that supporters of Melbourne Grove Traffic Action come forward and give their views. Most of the supporters that I have spoken to have said that they don?t want to get involved in ?debate? on this forum as the tone is frequently quite hostile.

I live on Melbourne Grove and have had a number of horrible experiences that make me want the issue of traffic on MG to be looked at by the council so I signed the petition. The police data shows that 15,000 cars a week travel down Melbourne Grove. That is way beyond what a road of this type is designed to take. The way the road bends and the lack of effective speed bumps (or signage) means that people frequently speed (mostly in the straight runs between the bends so the speeding data probably hasn?t caught the worst of it). People are so used to speeding without interruption that I can?t get my kids strapped into the car without people screaming ?stupid bitch? at me for having my door open in the road for 20 seconds. If I pull in to park my car I am beeped at for the 20-30 seconds it takes me to park. The wing mirrors are knocked off repeatedly and I?ve had a number of near misses with people coming out of Chesterfield Grove on to Melbourne and driving really fast as they view it as a rat run rather than a road where lots of kids and elderly people live, walk and drive.

I have a disability and kids with mobility problems and I therefore drive all over East Dulwich every single day. My experience and the police data on volume implies that this is a particular issue for Melbourne Grove. Having said that, there is no NIMBYism here. From the beginning, the residents of Melbourne Grove have said that they would like to find a solution that doesn?t push the problem elsewhere. A barrier was suggested (by a councillor) as one possible and affordable option. It is perfectly reasonable for a group of residents (and it is a group so the personal insults and attacks up thread should really cease) to ask other residents on their street if they share their views. Close to half of the residents on the electoral roll on the southern side MG signed the petition in support of the council looking into a barrier (and other measures). In terms of level of support, this is pretty good and reflects the views of the people most affected in the immediate area. This is obviously not a green light for a barrier, or for any measure for that matter. Some of the people in the group would like a barrier, some wouldn?t, some aren?t sure and some would like more information.

The group contacted lots of other streets in the area as a courtesy before any feasibility study or consultation was undertaken. Many people on the surrounding streets have written emails and letters of support. Some have also said that they would like a barrier, some wouldn?t. The idea of the feasibility study is that it would look into what is feasible and obviously nothing would be done if it would have a detrimental impact on surrounding streets. There are people upthread speculating about what they ?reckon? would happen. Scaremongering comments about traffic being sent up Ashbourne instead etc. There isn?t any reason for this to happen at all. I actually believe it would reduce traffic on those streets but, rather than speculate, we thought it would be better for some experts to look into it. Hence the request for the study. Some people on this forum seem keen to turn this into an anti-barrier/pro-barrier war. I?m not clear on their motivations for doing so but I suspect it?s not the community-focused approach it?s being marketed as.

A few residents have taken to this forum in anger that they haven?t been ?informed? earlier and are calling for ?barrier supporters? to come on to the thread to answer accusations of NIMBYism and manipulation. I wouldn?t hold your breath as it?s taken me a few weeks to brave the pitchforks.

There was even a recent request for the people who dared to apply for a ?Southwark play streets permit? to out themselves on the forum. How dare they have 2 hours of children riding bikes and neighbours eating chocolate brownies together on a Saturday afternoon? Don?t they know there are van drivers trying to avoid lordship lane? (incidentally, if you?re reading, a big thanks to the driver who screamed abuse at the 3 year olds riding their scooters at the play streets event on Saturday).

I support the feasibility study and will submit my views to any formal consultation. But probably not on this forum again.

[Andrew1011]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> Sorry to split hairs but the petition calls for a

> traffic management study, no mention is made of

> policy. Whats this study going to cost and how

> would it differ to the one proposed by the other

> group ? Who will be responsible for its remit ?

>

> Is there really a problem here at all ? I suspect

> that some people will have signed the petition

> because they don't want a barrier rather than

> perceiving theres a problem that needs to be

> solved that will use vital council resources.

As a Melbourne Grove resident who is opposed to a barrier, I think people signing the petition accept that, with iminent changes afoot (two new shools, one at the end of MG and the other in the middle, plus a new polyclinc-like medical centre and access to the loading area of the new M&S on Chesterfield Grove) there will need to be some kind of traffic management study. My argument is that, if there is going to be a study - and there probably does need to be one - then it should be undertaken at the appropriate time and fully consider the impact of those significant developments on the wider area, as detailed in the second petition.

I doubt you'll agree or be convinced but those, as far as I'm concerned, are the perfectly valid reasons.

[edhistory]

Melbourneresident Wrote:

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

> [...stuff...]

A resident expects a right to affect the lives of others in secret from the shadows.

John Kennedy

[first mate]

Melbourneresident,

I think there is appalling behaviour by drivers everywhere(cyclists too) and I am sure that many of us have been on the receiving end of it.

I still feel something imaginative could be done with one policeman and a number of parking wardens. Drivers who drive at high speed through residential streets or who abuse pedestrians should be reported and fined/ points on licence. Word gets around when there are consequences.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Melbourneresident - thanks for coming on here and putting across your point of view. I do think it would be helpful for more of those who signed the petition to do the same.

I am interested in details of the police data - when and how it was carried out. I walked home last night at rush hour, the full length of Melbourne grove, and was passed by only 2 cars and 1 van all travelling very slowly. It appears (at least from my regular perambulations) like a relatively quiet street - although I appreciate this is only one persons subjective experience of it. Anyway, I wonder whether there are specific problems at specific times of day, which is why it would be interesting to get more info re the police data and how it was gathered. It wouldn't surprise me if there were significant incidence of 'rat running' during the extended period of road works on Lordship Lane this summer - so it would be good to know whether or not the police data was gathered during this time.

Anyway, as I say, I think it's positive that you're putting your point of view across and I agree that personal attacks or attempts to single out particular residents does not progress the debate.

[henryb]

> A resident expects a right to affect the lives of others in secret from the shadows.

Everyone has right to try to change their environment for the better. Campaigning and signing petitions to stop speeding rat runners on a residential street isn't "in secret from the shadows".

[ed_pete]

There may be an impact on MG due to the new schools, healthcentre and M&S but it's hardly impending. The schools haven't been built and the won't be fully operational at maximum capacity for several (5+) years. As for the health centre well they've not even broken ground yet so I won't hold my breath for the impact of that one either.

Melbourneresident I sympathise with you and I feel sad that this thread could not have been used for more sensible debate rather than tabloid-style accusations of nimby-ism, gated communities, self-interested house prices, Barber-bashing and best of all objection to the use of the phrase rat-run.

[BrandNewGuy]

I think this thread has had all the debate we need - I've learned that the police say there is not a significant speeding issue nor any recent increase in traffic on Melbourne Grove, and that Southwark's engineers do not recommend a barrier. I sympathise with Melbourneresident, but this is a forum, where lively debate is essential. To come here, speak your piece and then leave is not in the spirit of a forum. It's grandstanding.

[Earl Aelfheah]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> There may be an impact on MG due to the new

> schools, healthcentre and M&S but it's hardly

> impending. The schools haven't been built and the

> won't be fully operational at maximum capacity for

> several (5+) years. As for the health centre well

> they've not even broken ground yet so I won't hold

> my breath for the impact of that one either.

>

> Melbourneresident I sympathise with you and I feel

> sad that this thread could not have been used for

> more sensible debate rather than tabloid-style

> accusations of nimby-ism, gated communities,

> self-interested house prices, Barber-bashing and

> best of all objection to the use of the phrase

> rat-run.

the phrase rat-run is itself pretty tabloid in style.

[ianr]

I see that the agenda for tomorrow's CC meeting (7pm, St Barnabas Hall, Calton Ave, SE21 7DG) includes a deputation against a barrier. and an accompanying submission: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s56424/Melbourne%20Grove%20Submission%20-%20Dulwich%20CC%209%20September%202015.pdf (141kB) which I was glad to read.

[wulfhound]

Everyone has right to try to change their environment for the better. Campaigning and signing petitions to stop speeding rat runners on a residential street isn't "in secret from the shadows".

This.

[Andrew1011]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> There may be an impact on MG due to the new

> schools, healthcentre and M&S but it's hardly

> impending. The schools haven't been built and the

> won't be fully operational at maximum capacity for

> several (5+) years. As for the health centre well

> they've not even broken ground yet so I won't hold

> my breath for the impact of that one either.

Clearly the speed at which modern developments take place has escaped you.

[henryb]

I don?t quite see how 15% of vehicles going 25% over the speed limit is not a significant amount of speeding. Regardless of the fact that the limit is 20mph not 25mph - would anyone use the argument that because only 15% of people were breaking the law it isn?t a problem, for any other type of illegal behaviour?

Surely this is an issue for residents of Melbourne Grove ? not Black Cab drivers from Stanwell that the online petition is attracting.