Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[mikeb]

Could be that 76% of vehicles are exceeding the new 20mph limit. But then 100% are exceeding this on Lordship Lane...

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[XIX]

I have some questions for Ros Atkins (or a rep from the melbourne group) - I can't believe none of you are reading this thread, so it would be good to hear from you direct.

In particular, I see in the text above that:

"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."

I would really like to know the detail of this please. I live on Chesterfield Grove and no-one came to ask me whether I wanted a barrier in advance of this meeting. In fact, I don't know of anyone on Chesterfield Grove who was actually spoken to (I'm not saying it def didn't happen; I've just not heard of it). It surely can't be seriously claimed that the letter delivered the day before the meeting informing surrounding streets of your campaign constitutes consultation.

I'm interested that you claim that 90% of respondents on surrounding roads (I presume you mean Tell Grove, Ashbourne, Chesterfield, Bassano, Blackwater etc) support your inititive and you have used this to try to convince the council of your case for a barrier.

Could you just clarify exactly which roads were consulted? how many were consulted and what were the response figures (for and against)? what they were asked for their views on? Traffic-calming measures? or a barrier? or traffic claming measures (potentially a barrier)? I can't quite be sure from the council notes which are likely to be para-phrased, and there is a significant difference. It would be no surprise that a majority would favour traffic calming measures. But if you have asked them their views on traffic calming and then used this to indicate support for a barrier that would be a misrepresentation.

I don't know of one person on Chesterfield or Ashbourne who supports your campaign for a barrier so this 90% figure really surprises me.

Really grateful for a response, thanks.

[rch]

The 76% figure is fiction. So is the local consultation claim.

[Siduhe]

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

I did read it. And I agree the overall tone of the proposed ToR to other residents is very reasonable. But (again, outside looking in) I don't think the problem that most people are focused on and concerned about is the residents of Melbourne Grove who want a barrier. That's their view, they are perfectly entitled to it and it may well be a more informed view that my own (as I don't live near there) although there seem to be plenty of well-informed views of local residents the other way.

What a number of people on here are genuinely concerned about is the public administrative process being used, to seemingly push an a personal or political agenda. That's nothing to do with the residents and everything to do with they way that our appointed representatives seem to be handling this issue. I'm a big supporter of all the hard work that local councillors put in, including you, and I've said so many times on here - it's a hugely vital service that people give a lot of their time to and I have nothing but admiration for.

However, I really think you need to hear what people are trying to say to you on this thread - the process which has been used here is genuinely concerning as is the background involvement of councillors proposing ideas in the first place, then supporting the allocation of significant amounts of money in support of those ideas, and then making public statements in support of ideas they already know they support. It is CPZ time all over again. The Melbourne Grove residents who want a barrier shouldn't be the ones proposing the ToR after funding for that study has already been approved. Surely that should all have happened and been considered in a way that allowed other views to be heard, before funding was even allocated?

[XIX]

That may be so, but I'd still like to hear the details direct from the group themselves. It would be pretty unbelievable if they went to the council with these figures literally plucked out of the air. So, come on melbourne grove barrier people, please set the record straight.....

[Penguin68]

I suspect (and I may well be wrong) that some people may have 'estimated' car speeds along Melbourne and taken the view that three quarters of cars were speeding. It is very easy to get speeds wrong. The narrower a passage, the quicker, often, vehicles seem to be going. And much of Melbourne is narrow. Three quarters (a suspiciously round figure if such an estimate, rather than based on formal weighted sampling) then got extrapolated for credibility. As someone who did deal with statistics professionally (and is aware of such things as sample error etc.) I would always prefer to present figures rounded conveniently - so a 76% sample based result I would present as 75% or 'three quarters' - others are won-over by spurious accuracy.

I believe that many of those in the barrier group are entirely well meaning, although clearly they do want to shift the problems of living in a heavily populated area with relatively poor public transport (particularly east: west) onto the shoulders of others.

I am more concerned about those who want (for prejudices of their own) to leap on, and indeed encourage such a bandwagon, and who are happy to run with claimed levels of support, as well as claimed levels of speeding, which do not bear much scrutiny.

[mikeb]

Post removed on request - Admin

[Penguin68]

If so, well trained media savvy person - not surprising the bandwagon is rolling so fast.

[ed_pete]

P68 writes:

"I believe that many of those in the barrier group are entirely well meaning, although clearly they do want to shift the problems of living in a heavily populated area with relatively poor public transport (particularly east: west) onto the shoulders of others. "

yet their proposed TOR states:

"We have no desire to simply push the problem elsewhere. "

[hopskip]

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> The Melbourne Grove residents who

> want a barrier shouldn't be the ones proposing the

> ToR after funding for that study has already been

> approved. Surely that should all have happened

> and been considered in a way that allowed other

> views to be heard, before funding was even

> allocated?

Absolutely. This needs to be proposed by a broader group representing all interests.

All Councillors inclusing Cllr Barber should understand why.

[ed_pete]

The ToR was a suggestion (to quote the JB thread) so if you don?t like it and you?re happy to have a study go ahead then how about suggesting an alternative ?

[Earl Aelfheah]

mikeb Wrote:

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

> This Ros Atkins?

>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ros_Atkins

I don't think it's helpful to pick on individual residents or to personalise the debate.

[Penguin68]

yet their proposed TOR states:

"We have no desire to simply push the problem elsewhere. "

Yes, it might say that - but be realistic - in what way is closing a through road not going to shift traffic using it elsewhere - do you think that closing a road makes the traffic disappear? This is not a non-zero-sum game - the traffic that isn't on Melbourne will be somewhere else. Melbourne wins,someone else loses. A strategy which overall reduced traffic levels throughout ED (and didn't shift that traffic somewhere else) is not going to be achieved by tinkering with one street's topology.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Whilst it?s quite possible that a barrier on this road may be appropriate / positive, I don?t think we can even begin to debate the matter seriously without a clear rationale, based on some proper comparative data and an idea of how it would tie in with plans across the wider area.

I am all in favour of reducing car use in town - improving public transport and getting more people using their bikes. I am not against radical interventions to achieve some of this, including road closures where it's part of a coherent strategy (for example, to create proper quiet routes for cyclists and pedestrians into the centre). What does annoy me about this proposal though, is the fact that it seems to be predicated almost entirely on the wishes of a small number of people with a vested interest in the outcome.

It does not seem to me that a view has been taken about traffic issues across the area and as a result, this road identified as an appropriate candidate for closure.

I get frustrated at what I perceive to be a disjointed, reactive and knee jerk approach from the council. The Council shouldn?t just be acting in areas where a group of residents make the most noise or are the most organised, the should be acting strategically, planning and managing traffic across the whole area.

[XIX]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> mikeb Wrote:

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

> -----

> > This Ros Atkins?

> >

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ros_Atkins

>

> I don't think it's helpful to pick on individual

> residents or to personalise the debate.

Oh come on RRR, she is not being picked on.

Ros was named in the council notes earlier in the thread as the leader of the deputation, so it is only reasonable to ask her (or a rep, as I said) to comment on what are entirely reasonable questions about the process. She is absolutely the right person to speak with authority on behalf of the group she leads and dispel any of the confusion out there, so why not direct questions towards her? Thats not picking on her.

[Penguin68]

The Ros Atkins in the link is male.

[XIX]

Actually having re-read the thread - fair enough RRR.

Others - I directed a question to Ros in her/his capacity as leader of the MG delegation. We do not need to go about trying to identify/look into them any further. its not relevant to the debate. I genuinely would like a response to my questions, and no-one would be minded to enter a debate if they felt that they as a person were under scrutiny. So please, lets not go there......

[rch]

This is the highway manager's advice regarding a barrier in the councillor briefing for the last DCC meeting:-

"Officers would not recommend any form of restricted entry or closure on the public highway unless the there were special circumstances. Any such proposal needs detailed consideration given the likely impact on the wider highway network."

[rch]

In the meantime, we're going to carry on collecting signatures for our petition for a "comprehensive traffic management study" without any preconceptions.

To this end, a local graphic artist, the amazing Stuart Redfern ( http://www.redferndesign.co.uk/ ) has designed us a leaflet, which can also be used as a poster.

I've attached a copy to this post so that supporters can print it out and display it in their windows! I'll be handing them out to all the shops in the area...

ETA - the PDF looks huge, but it prints out on regular A4 paper.

[mockingbird]

Here's the link to the online petition - still open for signatures

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

[rch]

Attaching the amazing leaflet to a new post so it's at the top of the page under the petition link!

[Bobby P]

Nice poster. Good on Stuart for doing this.

[Andrew1011]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> mikeb Wrote:

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

> -----

> > This Ros Atkins?

> >

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ros_Atkins

>

> I don't think it's helpful to pick on individual

> residents or to personalise the debate.

And yet he is apparently perfectly happy to personally write to people asking them to support a barrier and for his name, address, phone number and email address alone to be on that letter. He already appears to have somewhat personalised it himself.

[Abe_froeman]

Rch and others have put in some sterling work here to try to bring a more cohesive and considered traffic management review for the benefit of the masses rather than the few. The counter petition is a great effort and shows the strength of feeling on this issue.

One thing that confuses me about the proposed barrier is that the study is being financed through the cleaner greener safer scheme. This guidance suggests that quotes would have to have been sought for the CGS grant proposal as part of an application for the grant.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/12405/guidance_notes_for_cgs_2016-17_application_eform

It seems though that it was only when the council realised this study couldn't be funded through any other sources (because the barrier is not supported by the data or traffic plans) that they suggested using CGS money. Given that, I don't understand how a valid application with relevant supporting quotes etc could have been put together before the grant was made - at the same meeting at which it was suggested to the deputation CGS money would be available.

Does anyone know the full process for applying for and obtaining a CGS grant or if the council can just hand them out on a whim without any application, consultation or paperwork?