Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[mockingbird]

hopskip Wrote:

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

> Jenny1 Wrote

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

> > Hi James

> > Thank you for your appreciation of our efforts.

You asked if we - as a group - would like to suggest Terms of Reference. We don't seek to go

beyond the wording of our petition. Our main concern is that a process be undertaken that is led by traffic engineers, consults fully with all affected residents and does not start with any preconceptions. Hence the wording we asked people to sign up to.

> > I'm no expert on how such a thing would be carried out and I'm sure Southwark engineers could

advise on the best approach. But it's not hard to imagine an information gathering exercise led by the highways department inviting input from concerned residents.

I would like to emphasise something which I said a while ago on this thread. I don't believe

there's any great 'real' conflict in this situation. Iwould imagine we all sympathise fully with the aims of the Melbourne Traffic Action group in wishing to improve traffic conditions on Melbourne Grove. It just felt necessary to go through a process to confirm that this would be done in a way that was led by highway engineers, informed by the facts and which took into account the needs of all affected residents.

> Good post, well said and seems to reflect the voice of many posting here who wish for something that supports the full range of issues. I hope that many of the Councillors read it, understand it and help create the springboard for it.

> Good post....

Looking forward to supporting the deputation this evening and hearing a balanced review by Councillors.

Any further signatures continue to be welcome and will contribute if you have not already signed:

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

[rch]

Just want to say thanks to everyone who worked on and supported the Anti-Barrier campaign.

In the spirit of goodwill, I spent quite a bit of time talking to my neighbours on Melbourne Grove about this entire situation... although I'm not sure how many MG residents signed the online petition, I know that over 30 signed the paper petition within the space of about a week.

From my discussions, it appears that a significant number of these had signed the original petition, but were happy to sign the Anti-Barrier petition because they were concerned about the misunderstandings about whether a barrier was actually being proposed or whether it was simply being used as a "bargaining" tool (I've still not been able to confirm what was written at the top of the original petition, and the one submitted to the DCC had no statement at the top).

There also seemed to be a lot of misunderstanding over what the actual problem on Melbourne was, which discussions on the doorstep were able to address in a positive manner, but were incredibly time consuming.

The concerns were exacerbated by the traffic displacement nightmare triggered by the closure of Melbourne Grove on Saturday at lunchtime, it really was quite shocking to observe. In an attempt to get to the bottom of what was going on, I finally called the council myself yesterday, who confirmed that the other events were being cancelled because of a significant number of complaints and anomalies in the consultation process.

I could probably say a lot more but, to be honest, I'm completely sick of typing and how this mess has ruined my summer. I'm quite happy for professional council officers who are getting paid to sort this out, am quite happy to meet with them to discuss it.

One of the frustrations that I've observed over the past ten years is that every time a solution has been proposed by engineers and consulted on, residents have voted against it, which only prolongs the perceived problem... so, if nothing else, maybe a local public open day with engineers, proposed build-out drawings, and a seminar explaining ACPO speed definitions would help.

[rch]

One more quick update... there are now 154 signatures online, plus at least 35 more paper signatures that were handed in yesterday in addition to the ones submitted on Sept 2nd (which totalled 122 paper and 103 online).

So, I think we now have over 300 signatures in total which will hopefully amount to 250 once the invalid ones are removed.

The total of 250 is useful as this represents the number of signatures required for valid petition request which can be submitted to the community council, as defined by the Southwark Constitution.

Here's the link again in case anyone wants to join in before the Dulwich Community Council meeting begins at 7pm!:-

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

[Abe_froeman]

RCH, it sounds like you have put in a tremendous amount of effort and I hope you are successful with both the petition and deputation.

A common sense approach to traffic management, and road works generally, across the community would be a huge step forward for Southwark and might bring an end to the unheard complaints pointing the obvious flaws every time a project is proposed. There are countless threads on here bearing testament to how poorly (and sometimes dangerously)managed East Dulwich's road works and traffic are managed and with any luck your work will be the beginning of the end of the whole debacle.

[richard tudor]

Why are things in a mess because the vast majority of residents have a living to earn and do not have the time to monitor Southwark.

So the vocal minority with help,from pet Cllrs push through what they want.

Fact but true

[intexasatthe moment]

Apologies for asking ( as I can imagine you must all be exhausted ) but I was driving back from Devon last night and couldn't attend the DCC so....could some brave person give an idea of how things went ?

It must have been a long meeting attempting to cover an awful lot .

[James Barber]

Hi ITATM,

The deputation was really helpful and explained they'd met with the original 24 June deputation reps. That their was much in common between both.

They also highlighted that if the draft minutes had been available much earlier perhaps things would not have been so heated. Draft minutes don't quite reflect what was said 24 June. The deputation then said they'd spoken with 90% of southern Melbourne Grove residents whereas the draft minutes suggest local residents. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g5156/Printed%20minutes%20Wednesday%2024-Jun-2015%2019.00%20Dulwich%20Community%20Council.pdf?T=1

The deputation did say they didn't want CGS money used in this way on a study or if we did that it be wider. I explained that we had done exactly this when we used CGS money to put traffic calming on their roads in East Dulwich. At the time Village ward councillors (Toby and Robin) wouldn't agree to humps for Melbourne Grove so East Dulwich ward councillor bumped Ashbourne And Chesterfield up our priority list for traffic calming humps despite having less traffic and less speeding than Melbourne Grove.

The 24 June DCC decision recorded as:

"

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.

"

Broadly this appeared to be what the deputation wanted last night - minus a definite decision of removing the closure option from the feas. study.

The charter School chair of governors helpfully pointed out that they and NHS Property were to commission a joint traffic study of the area with lots of survey at a in a months time. This might help inform any study assuming the contract isn't restrictive for that commissioning.

Several of us felt a lot of angst had been generated needlessly. But at least it was all aired in public.

[Andrew1011]

For balance, I'm sure a less selective and 'Barberised' version of last night's events will be posted later.

[mockingbird]

I was just about to request that also.

[Abe_froeman]

I'm looking forward to reading the Southwark News update and interview shortly...

[jaywalker]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> Several of us felt a lot of angst had been

> generated needlessly.

I find this very symptomatic. Does Mr. Barber think those of us who felt a lot of "angst" had no reason to? One way of dismissing your critics, of course; but actually, for the record, I do not think my own "angst" was needless, so I signed a petition to say so.

[intexasatthe moment]

" Several of us felt a lot of angst had been generated needlessly " - do you realise how patronising and dismissive this sounds ?

If a group of people get together and without fully talking to residents of neighbouring streets present an untitled petition which moots a measure ( with huge implications for neighbouring roads ) as drastic as closing off a street ,presents it to a community council who ( although there is no evidence of speeding or increased traffic flow to suggest to either Southwark council or the person in the street that the case is a priority ) nods it through as worthy of investigating and incurring spending costs of circa ?10000 ,it's hardly surprising that people will become agitated .

Well ,not surprising to me .

Your view seems to be that most of the " angst" could have been avoided if the minutes had given a clearer picture of the 24 June meeting .Incredible that you ignore and seemingly exclude your role in all the other possibilities .

[intexasatthe moment]

" The deputation then said they'd spoken with 90% of southern Melbourne Grove residents whereas the draft minutes suggest local residents. [moderngov.southwark.gov.uk] "

is it just me who doesn't understand the point being made here ?

[rch]

Am going to attempt to be diplomatic here.

The good news is that it looks like the barrier "solution" has been kicked into the long grass. The more disturbing news is that all of us in the deputation feel that the democratic process in Dulwich is less than satisfactory.

We were hoping that, after our deputation statement was made (and specifically kept short to allow time), we would be able to have a open public exchange with members about various aspects of the situation, including an exchange with the highways officer who was present.

We were all stunned at how our democratic attempts at a discussion were undermined. It was observed by members of our group how I, in particular, was obstructed from speaking to address specific issues that were raised. At one point I said to one councillor THREE TIMES that "You won't let me speak, you won't let me speak, you won't let me speak". To which he replied that he'd seen me speak on the East Dulwich Forum and that was enough.

So, this is where we are now. We're still not sure exactly WHAT instructions councillors will give to highway engineers regarding the feasibility study. We're just fairly sure that it won't include a barrier and that the above statement from the 24th June (which wasn't released to the public until a week before the Sept 9th meeting) still stands. But we're not sure what KIND of traffic management study will be made, seeing as we have a recent police study from April 2015 along with a highway engineer briefing in June.

In the meantime, the communication problems that caused this mess in the first place appear to be continuing and therefore the only way that the community can communicate with each other is via the forum, so I will continue to do that.

[first mate]

Robin, please name and shame that councillor or perhaps someone else can do it.

Thank you for trying to represent the wider majority view and please keep at it. Have you ever thought about standing as an independent? You'd get my vote.

It is also good to know that councillors read the forum; all the more reason to keep using this as a primary means of communication to get things done for the community.

[rch]

Hi, mate.

I don't want to name and shame anyone specifically... bear in mind that it wasn't just one particular councillor who was being obstructive - in my opinion, there was a complex political machination going on.

And I hate politics!

I'm actually enjoying working with a group of kindred spirits in the community... the silver lining in all of this is how a group of local residents have now formed a network that can address other community issues in the future.

Power to the People!

[first mate]

I tend to think that those who get deeply addicted to the game of politics are often the last people you want steering major decisions, however those types are generally very good at the game- they have a game playing mentality.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If Crystal Palace Rd residents ask for the same, they'll get it? And those on Whateley perhaps? What about Barry Road - it's certainly more dangerous.

Has the council identified MG as a priority for intervention through an assessment of traffic across the local area? It still sounds like reactive, fragmented and poorly considered decision making - the allocation of resources based on who makes the most noise rather any sort of strategic planning or thought.

[richard tudor]

I do hope that the remark made to RCH is recorded in the minutes as an accurate report of what went on and who said what. As is normal in minute taking.

[spider69]

Out of interest, did Cllr barber say anything?

[LondonMix]

Exactly this.

first mate Wrote:

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

> I tend to think that those who get deeply addicted

> to the game of politics are often the last people

> you want steering major decisions, however those

> types are generally very good at the game- they

> have a game playing mentality.

[edhistory]

"At one point I said to one councillor THREE TIMES that "You won't let me speak, you won't let me speak, you won't let me speak". To which he replied that he'd seen me speak on the East Dulwich Forum and that was enough."

There is a recording?

Can we request a mp3, just of this exchange?

At a low bit rate a mp3 would be a smaller file size than some of the EDF advert pictures.

[bels123]

.

[bels123]

.

[ed_pete]

I don't think selective quotations are that helpful really, for example one of the last nights deputation said in an earlier post:

Actually, if barriers were put in at both the Lordship Lane junction and EDG junction of Melbourne, that would create a blissful environment for all of us...

I agree with you on the disparaging view of the forum by other councillors though, Charlie Smith especially, who as an elected representative for East Dulwich I thought that most arrogant and ill-informed (sorry John K no mp3 available). Sure there is a real world outside the EDF and huge swathes probably go nowhere near it but I though his comment disappointing.